LP's vs. 12" single versions

[Sami M]

Now this gets very interesting! Please tell us more about the sound quality of the disco era. Skip the Loft and PG etc. becouse that information is everywhere.

We had Tandberg sound system in the seventies. It, and especially a TEAC tape deck a friends family had, were very warm sounding. When the eighties came and we got new gear the TEAC deck wa still in use and one couldn't be impressed about how much it higlighted the bass. Certanly not hi-fi by later standards, but disco music sounded good to the ear. Pity that the gear doesn' last forever! And yes we had a ceramic cartridge!

I agree about the mp generation, but maybe they'll learn to like hi-fi later. I hope so :-?

When talking about sonic pleasures you get when e.g. playing José Rodriquez mastering on a good system, I come to think other cases which are not as rewarding. It's just like you said, on a good system a medioca productions sounds down right awfull and cheap, there are no nuancies, no decent structure, no dynamics etc. When played in heavily compressed (finnish) kiss.fm it sound ok.

In this respect it's true that for machine made songs you don't need a hi-fi system, there's nothing to gain. It's easier and cheaper to make these simply constructed songs. Take Britney's Slave for you and compare it with Madonna's Music for example. In a decent system Britney's song sounds cheap, something like those one hit wonders from obscure studios.

P.S. Sorry about the language, I'm not used to discuss musical factors in english. :roll:

[QUINNY]

Graham: Your assumption that modern day mastering engineers know diddly squat is highly insulting and misleading. Doubtless, if this forum was back in 1979 and we were discussing music from 25 years previous to then, you'd be banging on about the present day (1979) engineers over compressing, recording too hot, Dolby/DBX noise reduction degradation etc, etc. All generations learn from previous ones, refine and adapt. Just 'cos it's not to your subjective taste, doesn't mean it's inferior or wrong. They have the same commercial pressures put upon them, just like the engineers of old and respond to them. Do you really want all recordings made with a stereo pair of microphones, straight to end source? That's where your argument leads to ultimately. Even your most precious recordings are mere facsimilies of purity and your playback of a second, third, fourth generation or worse copy of the master material, in absolute terms, a farce. Can't you all see what the pursuit of hi end hi-fi really is? IMO, it's a bit of a joke and the ultimate con!

I've just taken delivery of 46 CDs. All of them are HOT productions, the ones you've been so scathing about in the past. I can honestly say that there is only 1 CD that sounds slightly iffy to my ears. None of the others are over compressed, limited or whatever. In fact, none of them hit 0dB so far as I can see. Apart from the odd needle drop, all have a very good sound. That's not to say that they couldn't sound better, but as we all know, that's where pure 'semantics' and subjectivity come into the equation.

Sure, less people are buying high end hi-fi these days. That's because the general overall standard of equipment is so high, especially for the money. It's like anything in life. To obtain the first 90% is relatively easy. The next 5% gets a bit tougher, the penultimate 4% even harder and the final 1% is almost impossible. Well, I've got news for you. Everybody enjoys 90-95% sound quality nowadays, whereas 25 years ago that would have been maybe 60%. They don't have to bother themselves to search for the extra few percent 'cos 90-95% is more than good enough.
Doubtless there were people who insisted that old 78s had a better sound quality than new fangled microgroove LPs.

Perceived sound quality is something that will never be fully understood, but I'd stake my life on loudness being an important factor. It was the loudness of 12" records that made the sound come alive as much as the overall cut, especially in the hostile environment of a disco. If you were to play the same 12" record to a panel of people at 0dB, -3 dB and -6dB, leave the volume of the amp the same and ask them which one sounds best, I bet they'd all go for the loudest one. Why do most people say turn the volume up and enjoy! Music has to have a certain loudness to convey its message. We're all excited by loud music , aren't we?

The only time that Eq and level was a problem in discos was when we had to play a mixture of 7", LP and 12". 7" would almost always have a duller, less full sound than LP, which in turn had a duller, less full sound than 12". Short 7" 45s would sound just as good as an LP track. If a 12" was over 9 minutes or so at 45 RPM it would start to sound less convincing and a well mastered LP version might sound better, but it's not as if I was reaching for the Eq all the time. Bottom end was much less of a problem than top end response. Generally, if you could match levels, then the match between the various formats was acceptable. It's not as if the dance floor cleared every time a 7" came on, but a quiet track that couldn't be bumped up anymore might have struggled to gain acceptance.

[BrunoRepublic]

Originally Posted by QUINNY

Graham: Your assumption that modern day mastering engineers know diddly squat is highly insulting and misleading.

As is your assumption that I said any such thing.

[QUINNY]

Graham: So why do you rant on about over compression, limiting and poor dynamics of CDs and /or today's music being lifeless (inferring that the engineers responsible have done an awful job)?

[BrunoRepublic]

Originally Posted by QUINNY

Graham: So why do you rant on about over compression, limiting and poor dynamics of CDs

Because they are.

(inferring that the engineers responsible have done an awful job)?

I am well aware that the engineers are simply following their employer's instructions, and I do not blame them for the current state of things. What I oppose are the commonly-held notions that LOUDER AND BRIGHTER ARE ALWAYS BETTER and that these should be the primary objective of any production.

Dynamically-challenged music is fatiguing to listen to for long periods of time. Crappy EQ I can deal with as this can be countered to some degree. But dynamic flat-lining is irreversable. This makes no sense on digital formats, where the only benefit is to make the recording seem louder than others. The result has been a "loudness war" that has resulted in music that has less and less room to breathe.

Limiting only has a place in formats that are limited to begin with, like 78s, AM radio, and 8-bit sampling. To apply this to CD is ridiculous.

[BrunoRepublic]

Originally Posted by QUINNY

I've just taken delivery of 46 CDs. All of them are HOT productions, the ones you've been so scathing about in the past. I can honestly say that there is only 1 CD that sounds slightly iffy to my ears. None of the others are over compressed, limited or whatever.

Ultimate
Ultimate II
Best of Amii Stewart

All piss-poor needle drops, with the high-end rolled off to mask the surface noise. The covers claim "from the master tapes" -- yeah, about 7 or 8 generations away. I figured getting burned three times was enough.

All of these were done long before the current practice of pushing everything to 0 began, so that is not an issue, although some tracks clearly have some funky analog compression applied that isn't even on the LPs.

[QUINNY]

[quote="Graham_StartLimiting only has a place in formats that are limited to begin with, like 78s, AM radio, and 8-bit sampling. To apply this to CD is ridiculous.[/quote]

I'm sorry Graham, but this shows how little you understand.
Limiting is essential for CDs, otherwise you'd run the risk of going over 0dB and introducing digital distortion. Once engineers realised that they could go to 0dB and no further, the need to take advantage of this was obvious. I still maintain that material constantly hitting 0dB can sound musical, as today'sdigital limiters are completely transparent. They've been around for 7 or 8 years now. Play around with a TC Finalizer for a few days and then tell me that limiting and compression don't work!!

[BrunoRepublic]

Originally Posted by QUINNY

I'm sorry Graham, but this shows how little you understand.
Limiting is essential for CDs, otherwise you'd run the risk of going over 0dB and introducing digital distortion.

Obviously you missed my point -- of course you never go over 0db in the digital realm. My point is that there is no need for dynamic reduction in a format that has a range of more than 90db.

Once engineers realised that they could go to 0dB and no further, the need to take advantage of this was obvious.

Ah yes, the advantage of turning any signal into a sonic assault.

I still maintain that material constantly hitting 0dB can sound musical,

Hitting 0, certainly. Boosting everything else up there, well...

as today'sdigital limiters are completely transparent.

BULLSHIT. They are certainly more transparent than the analog ones of past, but there is no way that you can reduce dynamics by 20 db and not hear a difference.

They've been around for 7 or 8 years now. Play around with a TC Finalizer for a few days and then tell me that limiting and compression don't work!!

I don't see why you need to be so defensive about the whole thing. Everything is going your way, and every new album that I can name in the last 5 years has been crushed like a sledgehammer. It's a perfect world for you now.

[QUINNY]

Graham: We'll always disagree on this subject, but it would appear to me that you are wrong to tar all modern CDs with the same brush.

As for digital compressors being transparent, your comment of BULLSHIT! shows your lack of first hand knowledge.
The whole idea of compression is to squash the dynamics somewhat, so if your going to judge transparency in that context then obviously they are not transparent.
However, to any recording engineer, the word transparent in the context of compressors and limiters means that they don't dull/alter the sound, they don't introduce audible pumping or other artifacts and that the compression cannot be heard working (i.e. no obvious level changes). Believe me, there are many digital compressor/limiters that fulfill all those criteria admirably. You obviously haven't ever used one.
None of my clients has ever been disappointed with the results of using my TC Finalizer. That includes hyper critical classical and jazz musicians. Truth is that most people's ears just can't handle extreme dynamics and even with digital equipment, microphones tend to exaggerate the dynamic range of a sound source, especially if they've been close mic'd. Compression is actually needed to restore a more natural dynamic in many cases. Add to the equation that most of the population has hearing deficiencies (due entirely to ageing, especially in the top end) and that's why recorded music is what it is.
You may have golden ears, in which case count yourself lucky, for the time being. :)

[Sami M]

Just a few word about my hi-fi hobby. I'm not pursuing natural sound, becouse there isn't such a thing in recorded music products. But after I some odd years ago discovered how much better my favorite tunes can sound and how I could better feel the music at home, I was thrilled and decided to get decent sound system. Besides the sound systems I discovered differencies in pressings and formats ans so on. Naturally I liked to have a certain copy of my favourite tune that sounded better to my ear. Sometimes the cover wrapping was issue as well, since most german or so pressings have cheaper looking sleeves than the glossy US made ones.

That's it for me, I'm not a high end hifist or purist, allthough I like the power and clarity that the quality gear can bring to the music that I like.

So Quinny, may I ask if you are an audio engineer? You have brought up lots of interesting points. The recording process is very intriquing indeed!

[originalbigm]

Here is some interesting reading regarding vinyl vs CD .

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...siness/2346201

[QUINNY]

What a load of cobblers!! Vinyl freaks will go on forever about the LP being more of an exact copy. What?!?! I'm willing to concede that vinyl has a different sound, but more accurate? How can a system with mechanical sound retrieval and so many moving parts be accurate?

The example of the violin is absolutely rubbish. Pray tell me how can a violin note go on for longer when the sound floor of vinyl is about -45dB at best. The tail gets lost in the groove noise, long before it actually ends. Duh!

In all honesty, the most faithful reproduction is heard only twice in the recording chain. Once is by the musicians as they play, the second time is when the recording engineer hears the currently played instruments in the rough mix he may be doing whilst laying the tracks down (and of course this is coloured by the microphone used to record the sounds). After that, all sounds coming off of multitrack recorders and back through the desk and outboard equipment are an approximation. The master tape/DAT/CD are further approximations. Any clone or tape copy sent for pressing is yet another approximation of the previous 2 and a record or CD a further approximation. How the hell can a vinyl record be close(est) to what the artists and engineers intended? Are vinyl freaks clairvoyants? What a load of bollocks!!!

try making a vinyl copy of a vinyl copy of a vinyl copy......10 generations. I bet the 10th copy will sound much more distorted and have more noise than the first. Now do it by digitally cloning a CD 10 times. I bet the difference between first and 10th wouldn't be half as noticeable (if at all). O.K., there may be some errors that creep in and possibly some glitches, but the sound will not be that different, eh?

[Forrrce]

Maybe the piece's author saw 'High Fidelity'... :roll:
Anyone who has had records cut will know that there's a huge difference between the original source and its vinyl counterpart. It is incredibly difficult to reproduce sound accurately from vinyl, if only because everyone's listening setup is different, from styli through to speakers. Theoretically, you'll have a different 'accurate' sound every time, no?

Also, these silly articles are always blissfully unaware of vinyl's many shortcomings.

[originalbigm]

Geeez Quinny!Didn't mean to touch a nerve.I was simply providing information regarding the ongoing debate between digital and analogue formats.Here are some more articles for others to read and try to help sort through the pros and cons of both formats.

http://www.mala.bc.ca/incline/turntables.html

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...561541421.html

http://www.technofile.com/articles/one_bit_audio.html

http://www.amcgltd.com/archives/001204.html

http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/eweek....rd=7367822528?

http://www.benno.com/zine/6_Stokage/Issues/issues.html


For those vinyl freaks with an unlimited budget who are seeking the ultimate in turntable technology.I'd really like to hear this turntable in action.

http://www.smartdev.com/LT/laserturntable.html

Ultimately if digital had been the format of the day during the disco era these arguments would probably be irrelevant.

[Forrrce]

Mmmm. Those laser turntables first appeared around 5 or 6 years ago, I think - I had a brochure, which explained the cons (of which there are many). The diodes don't weather particularly well and can only be adjusted and replaced by trained technicians, so running costs and waiting times are extremely high, even for le feelthy riche.

I'd invest in two, if I could afford to(!) and have one for the rainy days. Seriously, though, I'd like to hear the deck at work sometime. Cedar Series-X Delicking units were standard issue accessories, included in the price.