Posted on 11/28/2014 3:03:33 AM PST by RoosterRedux
Good thing Chet99 isn’t around to see that.
I remember at age 13 (1966) holding the Beatles’ “Yesterday and Today” (butcher cover) album at the local Wigwam store and not having the few dollars to buy it.
I like `easy listening’ or `beautiful music’, the usual format labels. Our new car has Sirius XM radio & my favorite channel is `Escape’. What’s neat is the screen shows both the title and the artist so I’ve been able to track down tunes I’ve heard on FM for years & find them on LPs.
I have XM in a couple of my cars and enjoy it.
But I feel like a dinosaur when the grandkids hear a song they like and then complain that I can’t immediately repeat play it like their mom does with Pandora or whatever...
(Sigh) I AM a dinosaur, listening to Carmen Cavallaro, Frank Chacksfield, Guy Lombardo, Jose Melis & Jackie Gleason on LPs. What I like to hear in my 2002 minivan I transcribe from LP to cassettes.
Sold my windup Victrola years ago.
;^)
There are so many great instrumentals from long ago that I haven’t heard in years. They run through my head every once in a while but I have no idea the names. That sounds like a good solution, thanks.
No, I am 100% correct.
My company is in the ultra high-end audio industry and a very good friend is an acclaimed LA-based mastering engineer. He remasters classic albums for LP, CD and Hi-Res PCM/DSD.
So I am quite well versed in PCM & DSD as well as the requirements to obtain the highest level of sonic fidelity.
In addition, I represent Euro designers that create state-of-the-art digital playback equipment - simply light years beyond Best Buy, WalMart, etc.
Higher sampling rates (i.e. 192kHz) ALWAYS provide a higher quality sound that is closer to the studio master tapes - all else being equal. It’s really common sense if you think about the analog waveform - taking more samplings (higher sampling rate) always closer approaches the original waveform. ALWAYS.
To say 24/96 is all we need is, well, insanely stupid but typical of Apple fanbois who believe their computer messiah. But at this time, Apple tunes (MP3/MP4) are really low-end in terms of sonic quality and accordingly require a rather small file size.
Sorry...but “the science is settled”. :-)
I'm sure you are right and I am sure you know your stuff when it comes to audio, but most people who enjoy music for entertainment in their home/car/earbuds are not geeky, anal retentive audiophiles. If it sounds good enough to them, it's good enough.
The thing that bugs me about the "loudness wars" as they are referred to is that when I burn a CD from the 80's or 90's and a modern CD, the volume is so inconsistent. Can blow you eardrums out when using "shuffle" because it forces you to keep adjusting the volume from song to song.
My ears are pretty messed up from blasting “Frampton Comes Alive” full-blast on my headphones back in the day, that I couldn’t tell the difference anyway.
I have a pair of Polk Studio Monitor 10 speakers.
I purchased them for maybe $300 6 years ago.
They cost $1200 or so apiece, new, in 1981.
Friends - audiophile friends - can’t believe the fidelity.
(They are matched now with a simple, cheap, Polk subwoofer.)
Some things were done perfectly to match “the mix,”
today’s mixes are not as complex (certainly in the mids)
or as well-separated as yesterdays.
Hate the Bee Gees? Listen again on serious equipment:
the production blows 99.99% of “new pop” away.
In general, studio monitor speakers will outdo the fidelity of consumer speakers. The former attempt to be flat, the latter have what is called a California curve.
My buddy who does professional grade sound production uses KRK V8’s as his studio reference.
I have over 300 45rpm records, almost all in mint condition. I’ve never heard anything better than these records, nothing even comes close. Perhaps it’s what I’m attuned to. Even the mono recordings are absolutely first rate. There are many samplings of these 45s on the net and they even sound great there. To wit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd8lHOlKuGU
“Higher sampling rates (i.e. 192kHz) ALWAYS provide a higher quality sound that is closer to the studio master tapes - all else being equal.”
Higher bit rates are not equal, so all things are not equal. Besides, there is only so much a sample rate can do to change the analog signal that is capped at no more than 16KHz. Anyone telling me they can hear such a thing is a fool.
I’m trailing edge Gen-X and went from LPs to cassettes to CDs through the ‘80s and into the ‘90s, but now I’m back to LPs. I don’t have a philosophical problem with the sound quality of digital formats. In fact I’ve done some pretty extensive A/B testing of vinyl against digital and find them pretty much on par. I just find LPs more interesting. Then again, my musical tastes are pretty retro. If there were more new music that I found interesting I’d probably be more interested in the new formats.
I hear ya. My son composes and is studying music production and it’s fine to listen to just about anything on his isolated (Equator) monitors and (KRK) sub. I don’t hate the Bee Gees - they’re great producers!
However, we made damn sure we never left the studio without also playing the commercials through the crappiest car speakers we could find. Some surfer dude sweating his way to the beach in his '49 Ford Woodie Station Wagon with the AM Radio had to get that message.
BTW, The BeeGees were not a zit on the posterior of BluesMagoos. So there!
HAHAHA!
Discophobia. It’s a disease.
79 posts and no reference to half-speed mastering... tsk, tsk...
Have Dark Side, Abbey Road, and some others
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.