jerrythek

Thanks, I know that. But I didn’t see Behringer stating DCO. Did a little more searching and found this: So there you go… Radagast did recall correctly.

Looking it up, they say: DEEPMIND 12 "With the creation of DEEPMIND 12, the ultimate true analog, 12-voice polyphonic synthesizer is finally a reality. DEEPMIND 12 allows you to conjure up virtually any sound you can imagine with unparalleled finesse and ease. Thanks to its 4 FX engines, dual analog OSCs and LFOs per voice, 3 ADSR Generators, 8-Channel Modulation Matrix and onboard 32-Step Control Sequencer, the DEEPMIND 12 gives you complete control over your soundscape. Plus, DEEPMIND 12 features comprehensive remote control via iPad */PC/Mac and selected Android * Apps over USB, MIDI or built-in WiFi – for a custom-tailored workflow that lets your creative spirit soar to new heights."

I looked it up - what a stellar cast of players. I also have a Tower Of Power Direct-To-Disc one that is great: And the famous James Newton Howard and Friends was also direct-to-disc. An amazing album - the first showcase for Yamaha FM synths:

I've recently finished moving all my CD's into the computer and getting rid of the discs, and have been rediscovering music that I own, but haven't listened to in a long time. This is a rare gem from Dave Grusin - great players and great sound. But linking to a YouTube video seems a slap in the face to the sonics of a Sheffield Labs recording. Anyway:

I get what you're saying - my initial post/opinion was about the delivery medium, and people's preference for vinyl as a format, not specifically in remixing. I still argue (without anger/hostility etc) that vinyl brings nothing to the sonics that a well-mastered digital file can't deliver, sonically. So to me, even if the music was intended for vinyl (like the small trend towards cassette music, which I don't get at all!), a digital file still wold be superior, just for the fact that it won't degrade upon repeated plays etc. Remixing is another subject. If the original artist is involved I'm all for it. I would think (and I am projecting here) that given the chance to have a fuller bass response across the whole project, better separation of instruments, and increased dynamic range etc. that the artist/engineers would jump at the potential for improvements. As you mentioned above.

I get that, but my point is that it doesn't have the audio quality, even though a lot of people like to claim that it does. I'm not saying that people are wrong to enjoy their experience, but side-by-side I can't believe that it would win over well-prepared digital files.

That's certainly true, but vinyl became a "fad" a number of years ago, and people are releasing music on vinyl to get some of that action. I get that holding an album in your hand, and seeing larger artwork, and especially liner notes and credits (that old eyes can actually read!) is all part of the experience, and digital files don't give that. I am certainly of the age that I remember bringing an album home, and pouring over the text etc. while listening - it was great to focus so completely on that. That's an important aspect I hadn't considered!

I did the process around 13 years ago. Many of my older albums had suffered being played on a less-than-audiophile systems, so the inevitable pops/clicks/etc were there in all their annoying glory. I did a LOT of clean-up, using Sound Soap (sadly long gone) and some other restoration tools, and then a LOT of hand editing to remove the most egregious clicks left (as I didn't want to run the de-noising software set too high, for the artifacts that it would add). I assumed that I would often be listening to the music on headphones and really wanted to get it as clean as possible. In the end I have to wonder if all the work/time was worth it, compared to just rebuying the music, but I did have a lot of older/rarer jazz and such that was not easy to find. Of course, this was all before streaming came along and resuscitated a lot of titles. Back then I chose 16-bits, as the cost of tech was higher. I think that today, I would certainly go for 24-bits so that the quiet end of the files could be as clear and noise-less as possible. And I will admit that I am a (usually) quiet, but militant advocate of digital over vinyl. Vinyl is such an inferior format for storing and reproducing audio. The limited dynamic range, the fact that the fidelity worsens as you move towards the inner bands of the disc, the fact that you cannot increase the bass too much or the needle might jump out of the grooves. The surface noise, and the likelihood of pops ad clicks on older, much-played albums. And so on and on and on. I see no scientific reason that a well-mastered digital file wouldn't have all the same warmth and other positive descriptions given to vinyl. I often wonder if the the vinyl enthusiasts trumpet the sonic benefits because they have bought great gear for playing/listening to their music, versus how people often listen to music. But I cannot fathom ANY reason that vinyl would sound better than a well-curated digital file. Am I wrong?

In many parts of the world, arrangers are the professional keyboards… yes, a lot of one-person bands, duos etc. And they are used by the people who used to play Theatre organs… They are less popular in the US, and surprisingly in the native Japanese market.

Yes, Korg arrangers offer complete voice editing… it’s a very advanced engine, with up to 24 oscillators/full voices, and advanced things like round robin voice allocation, and “gestures” which they call DNC (similar to Yamaha’s articulations)… Not as well known, but this is the same voice architecture used in the SV Stage Pianos.

That’s not the virtual Rhodes - it’s effects of the pre-amp etc. Their virtual Rhodes is this: https://rhodesmusic.com/rhodes-v8-plugin/

That’s my guess… based on their “prog-rock legend” hinting. I’m hoping so.

Where did you read that? In the early days they used to get together and work on tunes together, as I’ve read. That changed over time, but in their first few years they definitely worked together. I’ll have to find what I’ve read before about “She Loves You”, and how his Dad didn’t like like the yeah, yeah, yeah, and thought it should be proper English: yes, yes, yes. That story told that they were writing together at Paul’s family home.

I think this conversation is veering to extremes. I never said they were a boy band, that was MOI. Part of their innovation was that they played their own instruments and wrote their own tunes. No doubt about that. My point was that their early work was not anywhere near as original/innovative as what they quickly grew into between ‘65-66. Their early musicianship was “OK”, meaning it was more than good enough for the pop tunes they were writing. I found George’s solos usually pretty stiff, and Paul had not yet grown into the beautifully melodic bass player he became. For me, Ringo was the most outstanding part of those early days. Their growth in such a short time musically/compositionally was astounding. And their pioneering exploration of the studio/recording medium (aided by George Martin, and Geoff Emerick) was simply brilliant, and far ahead of the pack. So I’m not picking a “one of us has to win over the other” battle here, just having a conversation amongst equally interested “friends”.

I'm an original/from-the-beginning Beatle fan, and probably wouldn't be a musician if not for them. So I appreciate them deeply. But I get what MOI is saying. The early Beatle songs, while good pop, were basic boy likes/loves girl/girl likes/love boy pop tunes, and used the basic 2 guitars/bass/drums and vocals format. They were great pop tunes, and the energy and sometimes unique harmony vocal parts were inspired. But it wasn't until late 1965 into 1966 that they really broke out of the usual pop restraints and started doing truly innovative work. And it only grew from there. We aren't discussing their popularity or fame: it was the innovation and break-through concepts for writing and production that they/their engineers innovated.

They just announced: From the mothership 🛸 to N/Zyme customers. "For Roland FANTOM owners who have purchased the n/zyme Model Expansion and are planning to purchase the FANTOM EX Upgrade, please wait until you receive an email from Roland Cloud. A special discount offer will be in your inbox very soon. Thank you!"

A lot of good replies here. Herbie was genuine in his search for a new musical format after the Mwandishi band. What I find interesting is how people will talk about the birth and development of "fusion" etc. and lump in The Head Hunters, who were so far away from the other bands (I recently saw an article stating how the Mahavishnu Orchestra influenced Herbie's move away from Mwandishi. Come on, now. That's ludicrous to me). It was their earthy and sometimes abstract jazz-informed funk that was the key, along with no overplaying/gymnastic soloing. For me those first four albums (Head Hunters, Thrust, Man Child and Secrets) were perfection, before the more commercial elements did seem to seep in. Herbie is always excellent, but there are a number of late '70s - early '80's records that I like a lot less. He seemed to be swayed by his producer to do things... so much of the late '70s jazz-rock/whatever took some bad influences from disco and tried to make dance hits. But I digress... As overplayed as Chameleon has become, listening to the above posted Germany clip shows a band taking chances, playing in the moment, playing off each other and being very creative. That's much more than some 2-chord funk jam.

It’ll be $199.

Thanks for the education.

No doubt it was John - it came from a tape of demos he made in his home... I don't think he was collaborating with anyone during those years.

Seems fitting to share these again: https://www.musicradar.com/news/keith-emerson-tribute-jimi-hendrix-keyboard Rest In Love, maestro.

And another thing the article writes bothers me: "Therefore beyond the measurements and arguments over human hearing, we feel that high res music has a role to play. As well as the technical benefits of 24 bit mastering which you can choose to believe is useful or not, they are generally recorded and mastered with far greater care and attention than many mainstream releases. " The benefits of greatly reduced noise floor in using 24 bits is well-known science, and is not open to interpretation/belief systems etc. Sure, if your music is very dense with little to no quiet parts you won't really get a benefit, but it's not because the science is in question, or flawed. /rant over.

Did that for me too... then clicked it again and it got hung up for a bit, clicked it a third time and it went right to the book. Where's the manager?

I think so... I am generally in agreement with most of what you post. Now that I wrote that, it seems like faint, half-hearted praise at best. But you know what I meant.

I hear ya! Although not as well as in my youth...