[rollei_list] Re: OT: Vinyl and CD's
- From: FRANK DERNIE <frank.dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 12:10:28 +0000 (GMT)
Hi Thor,
I would agree with pretty well every word in your rant! The quality of the
engineering on a recording makes much more difference than the storage medium.
Both digital and analogue have strengths and weaknesses (usually
exaggerated/ignored respecively by their proponents......)
cheers,
frank
--- On Wed, 4/3/09, Thor Legvold <tlegvold@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Thor Legvold <tlegvold@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT: Vinyl and CD's
> To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wednesday, 4 March, 2009, 8:42 AM
> While I agree that the money issue is part of the equation,
> I think Marc, Richard etl. al. hit the nail on the head.
>
> We've tended to (at least since around the 1950's,
> if not before) as a collective tended to value and choose
> convenience over quality. Smaller, lighter, cheaper, easier
> gets chosen over larger, heavier, overengineered, more
> expensive in 9 of 10 cases.
>
> Also, whereas things in many cases used to be designed to
> do more than claimed (i.e. overengineered), and could be
> repaired, upgraded, and lasted, today most things are
> designed to last as long as the warantee. The bar has sunk
> from satisfying the more demanding among us, to being
> 'good enough' for the average (or even under
> average) user. (Almost) no one needs or wants 'best'
> anymore, they want 'good enough'. A corollary is
> that as people grow up with lesser quality, they expect less
> and never know how good quality could be.
>
> Music is an excellent example of this, where most people
> today have never heard acoustic unamplified music, and the
> benckmark standard is lossy compressed (with artifacts) MP3
> made from already hypercompressed (and often clipped) 16 bit
> sources. A vinyl record will sound positively amazing in
> comparison, never mind the master tape. Both vinyl and CD
> have the potential to deliver amazing quality, enough to
> satisfy the most demanding listener. But that's up to
> the engineer doing the recording, the mastering, pressing
> and all else involved. Unfortunately, early CD's sounded
> harsh (poor converters and brickwall filters) and later ones
> largely fell prey to hypercompression. There are excellent
> recordings of fantastic music on both mediums, you just have
> to look for it.
>
> There's still a market for quality, but it's
> rapidly diminishing. Funny enough, in my mind this applies
> to almost everything, from the food we eat to the cameras we
> shoot and the music we listen to.
>
> Manufacturers prefer cheap and convenient, because that
> means you have to upgrade or replace worn out gear more
> often. It isn't built to last, or be maintained, or
> upgraded. It's built to be used and discarded. That
> keeps them in business. It also fills our planet with
> rubbish as we deplete natural resources in order to make the
> next model (to be bought, used and thrown away.....in a
> never ending cycle). It's good that more and more focus
> is being given recycling, I just hope it's not too
> little too late.
>
> Anyway, that was my rant for this morning. Next please....
>
> Cheers,
> Thor
>
>
> On 4. mars. 2009, at 03.46, Marc James Small wrote:
>
> > At 09:27 PM 3/3/2009, Robert Lilley wrote:
> >> Actually, yes Peter I own and regularly play a
> Victoria VV VI. The acoustic fidelity is quite good.
> >>
> >> It is interesting to note why vinyl LPs
> disappeared rapidly during the mid 80's. It wasn't
> because CD were better. They were not. It wasn't
> because vinyl was an old, outdated media. It is argued that
> like film vs. digital pictures, vinyl LP's have more
> data than the average CD and certainly more than MP3 files.
> It was because LP's cost more to produce than CDs and
> the record industry found they could make more money selling
> CDs. What the industry did was to refuse unsold LP returns
> while allowing returns of CDs. Seemingly overnight, the
> record stores switched over to CDs and vinyl was relegated
> to those like myself who remember how good music used to
> sound.
> >>
> >> Its not how much better something is that causes
> change - its how much money somebody can make if it does.
> >
> > That is perhaps a marginal stretch but not totally
> untrue. I am speaking as a guy who invested in a really
> nice linear-tracking turntable in 1985. Still have it, and
> it still works great. Never have had to replace the
> cartridge or needle. It just keeps on keeping on. But it
> was expired technology when I bought it, though I did not
> realize that, anymore than the folks buying the current
> production of 2.8FX's realize that they are buying
> "expired technology".
> >
> > CD's won primarily because of convenience and the
> reality that, with electronic gear, prices plummet as volume
> goes up. By 1989, a quality CD player cost substantially
> less than did a turntable, and was a hell of a lot easier to
> use. That was the prime reason.
> >
> > The second reason is one to which you speak. Small
> recording studios were able to get into a vast archive of
> older music -- rock-'n'- roll, country, classical,
> jazz, blue grass, ethnic, and remaster it and then produce
> it on CD's you could buy for $6.99. I used to pay $15
> or more for a 45-rpm from 1960 but, by 1980, I could find
> the tune on SMASH HITS OF 1960 from K-Tel or Groove Records
> or whoever.
> >
> > Still, a quality vinyl album on a quality turntable
> and amp and system will give you a much richer sound with
> vastly greater frequency response than will the best
> commercial CD rig. I do not have the ear to appreciate this
> save in a few quiet places -- on vinyl, you can sometimes
> hear the musicians flipping over their scores during a
> pause, and that sort of detail just is absent from CD.
> >
> > This is much like film versus digital. Digital is
> convenient but, for years to come, film will produce better
> quality even if we are not capable of recognizing the
> distinction. But, to me, it is important that I am
> producing something that is the very best possible.
> >
> > Marc
> >
> >
> >
> > msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
> >
> > ---
> > Rollei List
> >
> > - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'subscribe'
> > in the subject field OR by logging into
> www.freelists.org
> >
> > - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> with
> > 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by
> logging into www.freelists.org
> >
> > - Online, searchable archives are available at
> > //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> >
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging
> into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
