Records!!!!! Yes, the vinyl ones...

[Chip McDonald]

RIAA equalization (nobody ever talks about that...?)

 

I do! Like in the "Hi-Res Audio...So What?" seminar. Which, for some reason, generated far less controversy than I expected.

 

 

It's hard to disagree with.

 

BUT - I'm going to posit this: again, the irregularities of the playback system functions, in reality, as part of the "process". It's a two way street: from a pro audio standpoint we might think some oddball "hi fi" setup is goofy because it's adding a bunch of non-linearities, resonance, that wasn't originally there.

 

At the same time, the consumer is presuming (another thing I've not seen anyone point out) *the "recording process" is some sort of empirical, rigorous *documentation* process that involves accurate capture, attention to linearity. And that's a white lie: people using ancient ribbon mics into mic pres with great specs - but are being pushed, into compressors that add harmonics, squash dynamics... but, all of that chaos *sounds good* when done right.

 

The end consumer is adding another layer of chaotic complexity. They're smearing transients, burying detail, adding ringy eq - it's audio gumbo. While it's easy to deride their innocent naivete of starting out of the gate with a flawed reproduction system, by the same token there are plenty of people making records that are completely oblivious to what outboard gear is doing, or a plugin. In fact, I've come to realize (somewhat mirroring the experience of seeing voting insanity last year) *I don't think many pro/Big Name engineers or producers really understand what they're doing*. They have a process built on top of a process they learned worked for someone else. They know a 57 works on a snare and a Neve makes it snappier, and they saw CLA crank the eq and do that, and hear all of the old school stories of tape being buried so they hit a Cranesong Flamenco plugin or Decapitator, and literally clip transients into the bit bucket... without being aware of 2nd order harmonics, IMD vs. clipping a diode, magnetic remanence...

 

It's just distortion, non-linearity to *taste*. Some people's tastes require a bit more at the play back end. Cork sniffers of chaos.

[dboomer]

I do miss laying back with an album cover in my hands. But that"s all I miss. Streaming works great for me these days

[Anderton]

At the same time, the consumer is presuming (another thing I've not seen anyone point out) *the "recording process" is some sort of empirical, rigorous *documentation* process that involves accurate capture, attention to linearity.

 

I'm not sure they're presuming that, maybe they just presume that what they buy is the way the artist wanted it to sound.

 

It's just distortion, non-linearity to *taste*. Some people's tastes require a bit more at the play back end.

 

But what if they had a chance to hear the audio the way it was intended to be heard? They might prefer it. There's nothing quite like playing a WAV file of Beethoven to people who've only heard 128 kbps MP3s. Sure, they might be fine with the MP3s...just like if you'd never had a good red wine, you might think a Woodridge cabernet is awesome.

 

Granted, it's not the same situation if someone is an audiophile who had heard vinyl, CD, tape, etc. They can say "I prefer this" based on a subjective comparison. But if that's what people prefer, I guess it's time for Waves to come up with an inner groove distortion plug-in

[Dave Bryce]

CDs sound better than vinyl. They just do.

Having just spent the last few days listening to both mediums on several playback systems, I'm prepared to say that they're different, but both have advantages. The cleanliness and dynamic range of the digital playback systems is too pristine on some things, and it sounds to me like some harmonic content doesn't make it across the digital void. Listening to the reverb in From Me To You is a really good example. To my ear (and the gentleman in the room with me on Saturday), the LP had more life and depth. It popped more.

 

I feel Snarky Puppy's Sylva on vinyl pales in comparison to the digital recording though.

 

dB

[The Real MC]

Records have one thing over CDs... you can flip them over for more music.

[Dave Bryce]

Records have a few other non-audio advantages I can think of offhand.

 

It"s been said before, but not enough - the album side is an almost perfectly digestible slice of time. It"s not a problem typically to sit and listen to a 20 (or so) minute side of an LP.

 

For me, once I put the needle down at the beginning, I"m not likely to skip tracks....which makes me hear tunes and carefully planned song sequences that are way too easy to avoid in digital formats.

 

dB

[Chip McDonald]

I'm not sure they're presuming that, maybe they just presume that what they buy is the way the artist wanted it to sound.

 

Many people think that "recording a band" is a more scientific process than it is. They expect instruments to have been recorded in a rigorously accurate fashion, akin to an orchestral approach maybe. They look at records as somehow being more "accurate" because it's analog, instead of what I'm suggesting, that they're effectively adding spice to a prepared dish.

 

 

But what if they had a chance to hear the audio the way it was intended to be heard? They might prefer it.

 

I'm not saying some wouldn't but....

 

what is the percentage of listeners in the 70s and 80s that were listening to music in any kind of manner that approached "fairly accurate"? Misaligned cassette decks, cheesy record players through sketchy playback devices, *always* re-eqed, crummy speakers placed against a wall - some *might* prefer a clinical reproduction, but I think what people miss is the chaos at the end of the recording chain at home, or in their car.

 

What the artist "intended" (which I'd say is a very diffuse opinion for most when it comes down to the recording process itself) is subjective to the listener, they don't really know. The majority hasn't heard anything in a clinical environment before. I'm suggesting the consumer is doing to audio what the diner does at a restaurant when adding salt and pepper to their meal. It's not exactly what the chef presented, but for most people it's part of the process of "eating", to modify the end result to their taste (even though it maybe wildly askance from the original intent).

 

Some people put ketchup on their steak. Some people make soy sauce soup out of their sushi. Some are less wacked out with their modifications, but garnishment is part of the expected end result. Turntables, eq overshoot, speaker resonance might be the salt and pepper shaker, the bottles of ketchup and mustard on the recording table.

 

There's nothing quite like playing a WAV file of Beethoven to people who've only heard 128 kbps MP3s. Sure, they might be fine with the MP3s...just like if you'd never had a good red wine, you might think a Woodridge cabernet is awesome.

 

The only time I've had wine I actually liked was when the boss insisted I try a particular one at a restaurant in Nashville (Mere Bulles? Is it still there). Otherwise I don't want it, I see no point. But I also know the reality is people apparently like... dreck, and are not really sure - probably haven't even thought in detail about what they really like. It's an effect. For someone that likes wine, maybe they slum with stuff from Walmart. My wife actually prefers milk chocolate. I've been caught eating Peasant Sushi from a grocery store to get a mid day Sunday umami fix.

 

I knew a guy in hs that had a Trans-Am with a Kraco head unit and maybe 500 watts of amps, and he liked 6-8k so much that you could feel the moisture of your eyeballs evaporating being within 10 feet of that car. He wanted his Metallica SIZZLING bright. He's now a day trader on Wall St. and probably has a gazillion dollar stereo - and probably has eq'ed it into a "human microwave waveguide" state of reproduction. Other people think it sounds wrong if the trunk on their car doesn't rattle. People expect different experiences as the end result; the process may not be "complete" if they were presented with a perfect rendition. Some people need ketchup, and can get cork-sniffery about it, even if the chef didn't have it down as an ingredient.

 

 

I guess it's time for Waves to come up with an inner groove distortion plug-in

 

People have always been adding faux record noise to recordings. It's like a restaurant that decides you want raspberry vinaigrette on your salad without asking. Some may eat salads without dressing (my wife), but most presume they're going to add it, and I'd think it's akin to what a chef has to come to grips with: the consumer is most likely going to douse a dressing on this artisanal organic kale, capers and broccoli but he'd prefer a more specific an controlled end result. The consumer wants honey mustard on everything.

[Chip McDonald]

Yeah:

 

Honey mustard is the harmonic distortion of food. Probably an unintentional invention. Nobody makes a meal out of it. But it hides a lot of things, can make things better and can make something edible that's otherwise very droll and unpalatable. But most people abuse it and don't care about being picky in the possible varieties and makeup of it; they don't give much thought to it at all but expect it to be there.

[KuruPrionz]

CDs sound better than vinyl. They just do.

 

Maybe, sometimes. Too many variables to expound upon in a general statement like that.

[Anderton]

Records have a few other non-audio advantages I can think of offhand.

 

It"s been said before, but not enough - the album side is an almost perfectly digestible slice of time. It"s not a problem typically to sit and listen to a 20 (or so) minute side of an LP.

 

...which is why all my latest projects have been around 20 minutes

 

Neo-, my 2016 project, was arranged as two separate sides, even though it was a stream/download kinda thing.

 

Maybe if CDs had a "stop" flag halfway through, they'd still be around!

[Anderton]

Many people think that "recording a band" is a more scientific process than it is. They expect instruments to have been recorded in a rigorously accurate fashion, akin to an orchestral approach maybe. They look at records as somehow being more "accurate" because it's analog, instead of what I'm suggesting, that they're effectively adding spice to a prepared dish.

 

My takeaway from what you're saying is what matters is: the song, lyrics, arrangement, and vocals. I think recording and playback quality is low on the list of priorities. It's nice if you can get it, but a good song will sound good on anything. A bad song on the finest equipment ever will still suck, and no one will want to listen to it just because it has a really well-recorded tambourine.

[Dave Bryce]

I will say this: as much as I love the energy, songwriting and musicality of Born To Run....not exactly a great recording, technically speaking. On any medium.

 

dB

[Anderton]

I worked at the studio where that was recorded, with the engineer who recorded it. The recording conditions weren't exactly minimal, but they weren't really maximal, either

 

But that kinda underscores my point...the "energy, songwriting and musicality" put it over the top, regardless of the sound quality.

[Dave Bryce]

I worked at the studio where that was recorded, with the engineer who recorded it. The recording conditions weren't exactly minimal, but they weren't really maximal, either

 

But that kinda underscores my point...the "energy, songwriting and musicality" put it over the top, regardless of the sound quality.

Without a doubt.

 

MANY classics aren't exactly optimal recordings technically...but will rock your socks off...

 

...and, on the other side of the coin, there are waaaayy too many well recorded albums that don't rock much at all, even though they wanted to.

 

dB

[Chip McDonald]

My takeaway from what you're saying is what matters is: the song, lyrics, arrangement, and vocals. I think recording and playback quality is low on the list of priorities. It's nice if you can get it, but a good song will sound good on anything. A bad song on the finest equipment ever will still suck, and no one will want to listen to it just because it has a really well-recorded tambourine.

 

 

There's that, but what I'm referencing is the disconnect between what a rock band sounds like in a room, versus on a recording. The end consumer doesn't realize how drastic the recording process alters the initial conditions. They wish to clinically reproduce something that was an intuitive process; I'm suggesting the same intuitive, creative process is also surreptitiously happening with the end consumer in an additive fashion.

[Dave Bryce]

what I'm referencing is the disconnect between what a rock band sounds like in a room, versus on a recording. The end consumer doesn't realize how drastic the recording process alters the initial conditions.

Isn"t that largely a production/recording/mixing choice?

 

There are engineers that approach the recording process like they"re creating art - like they"re a member of the creative team. Then, there are those who feel it"s their job to capture the sound of the band as they appear live...

 

There"s all sorts of directions and choices in between the two extremes above of course...but I imagine you see where I"m going.

 

I remember hearing Frankie Goes To Hollywood do Relax on SNL. They didn"t sound much like their record - no keyboards at all. I recall being amazed that Trevor Horn was more the reason that record sounded the way it did.

 

dB

[Chip McDonald]

Isn"t that largely a production/recording/mixing choice?

 

Yes, of course. But the consumer isn't aware of that. "A lot of people" believe what they hear on a record is a representation of what the band/artist would sound like if they were *literally* standing in front of them.

 

 

 

There are engineers that approach the recording process like they"re creating art - like they"re a member of the creative team. Then, there are those who feel it"s their job to capture the sound of the band as they appear live...

 

"Capture the sound" is not meant literally. Nobody is sticking a pair of un-eqed DPAs XY in front of a metal band with no p.a.. It would be amusing to hear a metal recording done old-school Nashville/Sun style, but nobody makes documentary style recordings of pop/rock bands - sans p.a. - with zero eq or compression. The "capture the live sound" thing is hyperbole. What's a famous pop-rock recording that is a literal documentary "live sound" captured, that doesn't involve at least a p.a. with close mics? It's never unaltered reality.

 

 

I remember hearing Frankie Goes To Hollywood do Relax on SNL. They didn"t sound much like their record - no keyboards at all. I recall being amazed that Trevor Horn was more the reason that record sounded the way it did.

 

dB

 

Yeah, a Trevor Horn production doesn't exist outside the boxe(s). But what I'm referring to is the reality that recordings are eqed and compressed presentations of multi-close miced instruments; it's a collage.

[Anderton]

And then you have people like me, who create things in the box that do not (and never have) existed in real life, but are arranged so they can be performed live...y'know, just in case

[KuruPrionz]

MANY classics aren't exactly optimal recordings technically...but will rock your socks off...

dB

 

Fire up Do You Love Me by The Contours. Record, CD, played through crappy ceiling speakers at a retail outlet, it doesn't matter. They are ROCKING it!!!!

[Marzzz]

The Completion Backwards Principle

As I mentioned near the close of the last record, this record you are now playing is another example of The Completion Backwards Principle; if you could possibly manage the time, please play both sides at one meeting.

 

I still have about 50 or so LPs sitting upright in a cool, dark place, and a Rega Planar 3 turntable that is about 40 years old. Many of the LPs are Japanese pressings, which were much more expensive but very superior quality. Hmmm.....maybe time to put it all back together?

 

Talk to ya later!

[ProfD]

I have a Stanton T62 turntable and a couple hundred records. I also have a CD player and a hundred CDs.

 

Nowadays, I rarely listen to music for pleasure and/or as way to teleport myself back to another space in time.

 

As a musician/composer, just like my EP and synth, recorded audio is another sound source (waveform). It's all about creativity.

 

I listen for pieces of audio that I can incorporate into new musical ideas. Lo-Fi is not a bad thing either.

 

IMO, the vinyl renaissance is similar to the analog synth resurgence. For some folks it's a nostalgic trip back down memory lane.

 

Later generation folks get to "discover" and experience it. There's always those who fit somewhere in the middle.

 

Regardless, it's all good as long as folks are listening to and/or creating music and keeping it alive.

[nursers]

I will say this: as much as I love the energy, songwriting and musicality of Born To Run....not exactly a great recording, technically speaking. On any medium.

 

dB

 

 

Darkness on the Edge of Town is awful - and it's my favourite Springsteen album song-wise.

[nursers]

Damn you dB, damn you to hell

 

[Dave Bryce]

 

Got Physical Graffiti today...

 

dB

[BMD]

Damn you dB, damn you to hell

 

 

That looks pretty nice, actually. What's the album? Looks like a Vertigo label

[nursers]

Damn you dB, damn you to hell

 

 

That looks pretty nice, actually. What's the album? Looks like a Vertigo label

 

Dire Straits' first album

[Dave Bryce]

Today's adds - Heart Like A Wheel and Ingenue.

 

dB

[KuruPrionz]

Today's adds - Heart Like A Wheel and Ingenue.

 

dB

 

Both great records, Heart Like A Wheel got a lot of play around here.

[RABid]

My great nephew, whom I gave my collection, told my sister that his favorite is Santana. He really likes Santana. ... ... ... I'm so proud.

 

In case you are wondering, the three albums he got from me is the original Santana (Lion's Head cover), Moonflower and Welcome.

[Notes_Norton]

I still have about 300 LPs, and a turntable. I don't listen to them often.

 

I like the tonal sound of LPs. Judging from the sax players I've seen in concert (Including my favorite, Stan Getz) the saxophone tone on vinyl is closer to the live sound. CDs distort the tone to make his (and others) tone brighter and with more edge. Getz sounds more like Zoot Sims on CD.

 

LPs have a different kind of distortion. Surface noise and sometimes wow or flutter. After listening to CDs a lot, the surface clicks and pops of even a well taken care of LP is more noticeable than it was back in the day.

 

So it's a matter of which distortion do you prefer? Edgier sound or surface noise? IMO there is no best choice.

 

SACDs came out and sounded much warmer than CDs, but the public didn't care about the quality.

 

Insights and incites by Notes