Print

Print


Hey Tom,

With your "shivering timbers" (an old sea fairing term), I hope you're not accusing Ken of "pirating".

Rod



--- On Thu, 8/28/08, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] ELP Turntable  (Re(2): [ARSCLIST] RIAA EQ software)
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Thursday, August 28, 2008, 3:25 AM
> Hi Ken:
> 
> I'm not about to argue with the substance of your
> postings. Listening is a very subjective thing and 
> trying to pry an "analog guy" away from his tapes
> and records is like, well, choose your analogy --  
> bottom line is it's impssible and not worth trying.
> 
> However, in the ARCHIVAL world, the goal isn't
> shivering timbers, it's preservation. In today's 
> world, that generally means transferring aging analog
> material to digital, and hopefully making an 
> accurate and high-resolution enough transfer that it
> needn't be done again and the analog media can 
> rot away without being lost to time. I would say the art
> keeps advancing so we're not in this ideal 
> place yet, but there are good practices and a grade of
> equipment that can do a good job.
> 
> All of this is very different from the audiophile world,
> where pleasure-listening and shivering 
> timbers are the goals (and WORTHY goals -- let me be clear
> about that -- this giant pool of recorded 
> media, especially the "great art" part of it,
> SHOULD shiver timbers). It's a whole different 
> aesthetic and definitely different requirements from the
> hardware and software. It's somewhat 
> related to content-collecting but I've known some guys
> (it's always guys) with very expensive and 
> good-sounding rigs and maybe 100 different music sources --
> so their goal is to listen to their 
> equipment, not music, per se.
> 
> The simple fact about analog media is, no matter how
> euphonic the end results, it is quite a bit 
> farther from output = input to the best digital media.
> Therefore, it is inherently distorted and 
> non-faithful to its source. There are cases where this is
> much less so than others, but the limits 
> of the media just don't compare to proper
> implementation of digital, especially given a couple of 
> decades of improvement to digital now (remember how lousy
> transistors sounded when they were new in 
> audio gear? same can be said about digital -- new stuff
> needs some time to evolve, the design 
> engineers need to figure out what works best).
> 
> Now, a bad side-effect of ever-cheaper and
> good-to-excellent digital has been the de-evolution of 
> the music business to where anyone with a Mac is a
> "recording engineer" and so the ART of proper 
> recording, at least as far as music is concerned, is dying.
> This art and craft was a combination of 
> knowledge, technical skill, taste and aesthetics that
> developed among the best in the trade into a 
> clear-eyed understanding of what worked and what didn't
> with different types of music, recording 
> spaces, equipment and audiences. I would say part of the
> problem today is that too much recorded 
> music is made in a "bubble" without on-site
> feedback and handling, so people develop inward-looking 
> aesthetics and never learn the "general rules" of
> the craft. But I digress...
> 
> My point is, audiophillic listening and audiophile
> equipment is a whole different thing from a 
> professional archival-transfer setup. The audiophile mags
> themselves (at least Stereophile and TAS, 
> the two I occasionally read) call the high-end thing a
> "hobby." Professional transfer work is just 
> that, a profession, and thus one tries to stay away from
> the subjectivity inherent in 
> pleasure-listening.
> 
> -- Tom Fine
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ken Fritz"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] ELP Turntable (Re(2): [ARSCLIST]
> RIAA EQ software)
> 
> 
> Hi David,
> 
>    If you have a Monks cleaning machine, we need to give
> you a pass
> on the cars.
> 
>    Tonight I played more tapes on my ATR.  Sue has no idea
> as to the
> cost of the ATR  as I' dragged about 30  pro RTR
> machines home over
> the last year. They all look the same and she's gotten
> used to it.
> The ATR is different as it looks new. Sue has overlooked
> the
> acoutrements of the machines so they all look the same to
> her, that's
> good for me!! She knows that tape machines are old and
> cheap<*>
> 
>    The sound of great analog can be appreciated on a system
>  set up
> in an appropriate room  with good gear. Neither the room
> nor gear
> need to be expansive or expensive, but it helps.
> 
>    Those of you that have the ability to record live music
> in a real
> space can appreciate the talent you've refined over the
> years. Being
> an audiophile, I have the option of listening to the music
> recorded
> by the best; whatever the medium will be.
> 
>    Ken
> On Aug 27, 2008, at 10:45 PM, David Lennick wrote:
> 
> > I can't remember the last time my timbers were
> shivered. But my  faithful Monks Record Cleaning 
> > Machine cost more than my first two  cars combined.
> >
> > dl
> >
> > Ken Fritz wrote:
> >> Gentleman,
> >>   If you play LP's on a Silvertone changer,
> handed down from your  dad, listen on a system from 
> >> Best Buy, You'll concur with this  posting.
> >>   With all due respect to those that posted to
> this topic, Vinyl  cleaned properly, played on a 
> >> top of the line TT - arm -  cartridge  set up will
> sound good enough to shiver your timbers.  In 
> >> some cases, the cost of a vinyl playback system to
> shiver  your  timbers  may cost as much as a a 
> >> fine German sports car.
> >>   Until you hear vinyl on a GREAT system, you
> won't realize how  good the medium of the past 
> >> really is.
> >>   Being  an  analog  guy myself;  CD's,
> digital and pro tools take  second place to the sound my 
> >> Ampex ATR , Koetsu, Dynavector and  My Sonic Labs
> cartridges deliver.   Being 66 years of age,  I 
> >> may  be wrong but my ears are happy.
> >>   Relax, and enjoy the music. Ken
> >> On Aug 27, 2008, at 9:14 PM, Charles Lawson wrote:
> >>> Tom Fine writes:
> >>>> The LP has just too many limitations --
> fuzzy midrange on peaks,  ticks
> >>>> and pops, rumble
> >>>> and surface noise, poor channel separation
> at certain  frequencies. It's
> >>>> always amazing to me when
> >>>> the things sound great -- I tip my hat to
> the mastering folks and
> >>>> pressing folks who make that
> >>>> happen. I'm old enough to remember the
> era before CD's. NO THANKS!
> >>>
> >>> I’m right there with you, Tom.  I’d never
> go back.
> >>>
> >>> I hope it was clear from my postings that I am
> not *advocating*  using disc
> >>> restorations as the preferred method of
> transferring older  recordings to
> >>> the digital realm.  I am only noting that, in
> some cases when the  master
> >>> tapes have deteriorated far enough, disc
> restorations can yield a  more
> >>> listenable product than the bad masters.  OF
> COURSE digital re- issues
> >>> should be made from original source materials
> if those materials are
> >>> well-cared-for and in good shape.  However, I
> have heard (and own  a few)
> >>> major label CD re-issues that suffer from all
> sorts of problems  that the
> >>> same material originally issued on LP does not
> exhibit—and it’s  not just
> >>> poor quality-control at the digital
> remastering stage.
> >>>
> >>> The LP as a medium has all kinds of problems
> that bug me (as LPs  always
> >>> have!), but some of my old LPs when thoroughly
> cleaned and played  through
> >>> the LT with DSP EQ, etc. yield a more
> listenable product than  some of the
> >>> CD re-issues that supposedly use original
> masters.  Properly  manufactured
> >>> vinyl will generally hold up better than audio
> tape.  It’s just  physics.
> >>>
> >>> I am booked up pretty solidly for the next
> little while, but if I  can put
> >>> together a few A-Bs, I’ll be happy to share
> ’em.
> >>>
> >>> Chas.
> >>>
> >>> -- 
> >>> Charles Lawson <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> Professional Audio for CD, DVD, Broadcast
> & Internet