 |
 |
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