Chris A Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-sizzling-sound-of-music.html [^o)] http://i.gizmodo.com/5166649/ipods-and-young-people-have-utterly-destroyed-music []Do you agree with the key tenets of the authors' message: that some/many people prefer recorded material with artifacts introduced by the recording media process (particularly MP3 and vinyl)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I don't understand the reason for the first sentence in the poll. It's metaphysically absurd. How can I know what someone else hears? To the extend that I hear something in recorded music not present in a live performance I consider it inaccurate. As to the second sentence, I fully agree and do the same. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 MP3 Sizzle & Vinyl Crackle is my favorite breakfast cereal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Sort of makes sense to me... Part of the nature of vinyl listening is the natural restriction to a permanent set up vs a mobile music maker. And there is the ritual of warming the tubes, cleaning the record, turning off the AC, unplugging the refrigerator, and otherwise getting the noise floor down as low as possible (late night listening is best) - and the whole event is very deliberate and crafted - then sitting quietly and enjoying the music, focusing in it, really listening actively. The MP3 and other mobile music systems are used much more casually to basically serve as the background music to one's movie of life kind of thing - music while walking in traffic, driving in traffic, working in an office, shopping, cruising, exercising, vacuuming the carpet, or typeing click-clack on the computer; all these environments have a high noise floor to overcome, so the "sizzle" probably helps cut through the background. In this idea, the music is pushing itself at you (passive and self absorbed) rather than you drawing the music to yourself (active and attentive appreciation). Funny how some will say they don't like the surface noise of vinyl when in fact none of that noise nor much of the low level signal would even be heard in the common environments where they listen to MP3s. In spite of the awefull degredation of sound quality enjoyed by young moderns, the quality of the music is even worse. Much of it has been forged directly out of the modern music machine business, stamped and pressed using the handfull of cliches and hooks that catch kids' attention; and has no soul, no variation, no creativity, no insight, no talented execution, no musical spirit... but I digress, don't get me started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted March 13, 2009 Author Share Posted March 13, 2009 Part of the nature of vinyl listening is the natural restriction to a permanent set up vs a mobile music maker. And there is the ritual of warming the tubes, cleaning the record, turning off the AC, unplugging the refrigerator, and otherwise getting the noise floor down as low as possible (late night listening is best) - and the whole event is very deliberate and crafted - then sitting quietly and enjoying the music, focusing in it, really listening actively. Funny, but this is my cliche image of an audiophile.....but I digress, don't get me started. I find a lot of folks here get fairly heated over the "loudness wars" and other fidelity-degrading effects of modern recording practices. One of the reasons for the question is to get a ground-floor truth of what people really think that come to this forum.Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 In spite of Paul's comments, I am still lost about that first sentence. I am in perfect sync with the statement about PWK. As to the first, I am clueless. ANYTHING I hear in a recording not present at the performance I consider inaccurate by definition and not a good thing. I cannot imagine anyone hearing something like that an liking it. What's the deal? Where am I missing this? Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Do you agree with the key tenets of the authors' message: that some/many people prefer recorded material with artifacts introduced by the recording media process (particularly MP3 and vinyl)? I think people like what they are used to, whereas perception and orientation to quality sound is often a learned, acquired taste. I haven't listened to much MP3, but expect it would have the slightly over-emphasized transient response of typical (not the best) digital sound. As said above, that kind of "sizzle" might be best for listening in noisy settings like nearby traffic.The vinyl part of the question is confused, IMO. I didn't see where Berger, the original author, mentioned vinyl recording artifacts -- he simply related a stereotype that vinyl inexorably has crackles and pops. Not normally from the recording process, as I understand it. Or is he being more subtle, i.e., the supposed artifacts discussed in the other thread? The ones that vinyl enthusiasts don't believe because no case has been made as to how and why the supposed artifacts usually make vinyl sound MORE musical? (Hm - why, if they're "artifacts," don't they randomly make vinyl sound LESS musical?) I think the answer is yes to MP3's, apparently no to the vinyl question, which apparently is a stereotyping irrelevancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Jeez, with no help I finally figured it out from the last post. There were article links...duh. OK, the first one starts with yet another red herring I've seen many, many times. People marvel at the Edison comparison as though it says something about blind A/B testing. It doesn't. Seems they would have said "No, that's a phonograph record behind curtain A." Edison was no fool. Nobody in his test group had ever HEARD a phonograph record. Some may not have known such a thing existed, and knowing Edison as I do, I suspect he made sure of that. Even 10 years later the same test would have yielded entirely different results. If he'd shown the same group a lite bulb, they'd have wanted to know where they could get that really bright burning oil. You cannot judge something with which you have no familiarity. As to the kids, I don't have a clue, except to suggest the analysis may be missing something. Is it blind? If they know it's an MP3, that is the medium they are used to. I suspect my peers of the late sixties and seventies would identify with the sound of an 8 track player. Yuck. Regardless of what people profess to like or dislike, the bottom line is that to the degree any recording in any format differs from the original performance as heard from where the microphones were, it is inaccurate. You may like it, but it is inaccurate. Prove me wrong. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 I suspect my peers of the late sixties and seventies would identify with the sound of an 8 track player. Yuck. I mentioned in your thread about cassettes, that 8 tracks should have sounded better than the cassette, but they didn't develop it enough. After all, they ran at double the speed of cassettes. If not better, at least as good.Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser SET say Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I'll take analog crackle and pop over digital drop/sizzle any day of the week;-) What Larry said and I'm sticking to it[] Lossless iPod recording through a Wadia iPod transport through a quality DAC is about the only way I can take iPod digital through my main rig[] No offense Dave[] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I prefer vinyl, original pressing vinyl, because there is more and better music in those grooves. I try to find the cleanest copy I can but sometimes have to settle for surface noise if the LP is impossibly rare. Its not like I like the surface noise, it is something to put up with in trade for inherently better sound. Hot dogs at the stand do taste better often because they have dogs, ingredients, and cooking methods you cannot duplicate at home. Ever seen those shows about touring the country and visiting all the famous hot dog joints with lines going around the block? There is a reason. C&S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I'll take analog crackle and pop over digital drop/sizzle any day of the week;-) What Larry said and I'm sticking to it Lossless iPod recording through a Wadia iPod transport through a quality DAC is about the only way I can take iPod digital through my main rig No offense Dave None taken. I have no digital "pop and sizzle" in my system as I don't play mp3's. They are the digital equivalent of the records we used to get in magazines and off cereal boxes. I suspect you don't play any of those, either. I digitize my analog now with DSF (1 bit, 5.8mhz) which is completely (though I may be deaf) transparent to me and any I've played them for. I may set up another blind A/B at the "Donnybrook" to see what happens. There'll be a couple of "the LP shall rise again!" types there. Gotta love you guys! As you probably also know, I've no bias against any format that delivers my music without either adding or subtracting. After that, cheaper is better. That's one reason I buy LOTS of LP's, and will also now be on the lookout for high end pre-recorded cassettes. I really am amazed at where we left that medium...it just never got any respect. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser SET say Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 There'll be a couple of "the LP shall rise again!" types there. Gotta love you guys! Yes I/we is[] But I'm willing to bet you have some of the finest sounding digital going[Y] Hope ya'll have a great time[8] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Well, we're gonna have it all: Digital: From HDD 16/44.1 24/88.2 24/96 2/4 channel 24/192 From disc CD HDCD SACD DVD-A Phono LP DBX LP 78 Tape Cassette R2R 1/4 track R2R 1/2 track (if I can talk Canyonman into bringing a deck and his Tape Project goodies) Then, I will sing...OK, maybe not I have a few cylinders and DATS if anybody has anything to play them on... Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.