dragonfyr Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 ---------------- On 7/12/2005 9:58:08 AM maxg wrote: ---------------- On 7/12/2005 9:52:23 AM dragonfyr wrote: ---------------- On 7/12/2005 8:22:22 AM maxg wrote: " think in HAM radio there are still guys who like to tap out their messages with an old telegraph key in Morse code. " And did you know it is still quicker than typing an SMS message on a GSM phone. 100 years of science and we get things done more slowly! There's progress!---------------- And just how do they handle graphics? So telegraph is superior to today's communications? Hmmm... (And this coming from me, someone who HATES the current cell technology! Hurry up 802.16 WiMax!) Perhaps it pays to qualify our frame of reference! ---------------- I compared Morse code to SMS for a reason. SMS is text only (short message service) so no graphics there either. As it happens my quote on Morse code being faster than SMS is based on a recent race on TV. Some kid - credited with being the fastest sms'er in the world - raced against an experienced morse code operator. Both had to send a pre-set message to another party (another mobile phone for the smser and another morse code operator for the other). The morse message arrived whilst the kid was still banging on his keypad. Hardly proof positive - but surprizing all the same. No - there is no morse equivalent to MMS! ---------------- Come on Max, lighten up! That was my point exactly! It is a silly debate between the two formats! There are preferences, but there are no absolute advantages of one over the other. And as much as some may choose to limit themself to analog for some applications, digital has its place as well. But each chooses to draw the line in a manner in which they are comfortable. Beyond this, we are debating whether chocolate, vanilla, or strawberry ice cream is best! (And this is of course where someone - notice how I cleaned this up! - like me will jump up and say that butter pecan is the best!) But I dare say you $20K manual analog only TT folks are SOL if you want to put music on just before going to bed in a more romantic frame of mind, if you catch my more obscure reference! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 ---------------- On 7/12/2005 10:05:17 AM dubai2000 wrote: Fremer: "So the people that think the originals are the holy grail, those are the magic, they're mistaken?" Pfeiffer: "They are totally mistaken." Pfeiffer: "They (the "original" RCA Shaded Dogs) had to be tailored to the deficiencies of the cutting and the playback system of the day. We used to listen to lacquers... on our own systems, you know, in the office and also at home, and we'd make judgments about... whether the compression was too great or whatever, because when the mix down was made to make the production master, they tried to limit the bass, they tried to limit the dynamics, and to some extent, they tried to limit the high frequency content at the end because they knew that that was going to be on the inside (center) of the record." ---------------- Thanks, Wolfram. This is as definitive as one can get. The Dog LP versions that so many people have loved over the years are huge compromises compared to the master tapes. The SACDs, on the other hand, are as close to being identical to the master tapes as possible. And yet I've seen it a hundred times if I've seen it once, that someone will criticize an SACD because it doesn't sound like the original LP. The mistake there is that the complainer is taking the LP as the reference, instead of the master tape (which he has no access to). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai2000 Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Paul, I guess the problem is that most people (myself included) have never listened to a master tape. In the light of the above statement it's pretty surprising how many people seem to be willing to spend quite an amount of money to get a first generation Living Stereo pressing.... Wolfram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Wolfram, right, we have to believe mastering engineers and producers. I don't doubt that an LP can sound "better" to a particular person with particular equipment. But that also would mean that an LP would sound "better" than the master tape. This would lead me to believe that some of the faults outlined by the producer in the interview--compressing the dynamic range and limiting the bass and high frequencies--have appeal to some people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazytubepower Posted July 12, 2005 Author Share Posted July 12, 2005 Having many contacts and friends in the music biz myself I have listen'd to my fair share of master tapes and raw recordings...the dynamic range is all over the place, but in a good way. Myself, I belive the master's are the most real sound you could ever get next to the real thing. But since it would be very expensive to buy and play master's I'll stick to lp's, plus vinyl lasts longer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshnich Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Like most have said here, I too choose vinyl for the most part for critical listening. I too enjoy the rig amoral associated with playing records, There are times however that even with a freshly cleaned record that I cannot get it to sound clean - if that makes any sense. I also enjoy putting on a few SACDs and setting the player to shuffle. Its fun to put together divergent artists and music that are interesting played back to back. That is why I chose a 5-disk player - knowing that the overall quality would be less than a single play unit. Josh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 ---------------- On 7/12/2005 3:25:07 PM crazytubepower wrote: Having many contacts and friends in the music biz myself I have listen'd to my fair share of master tapes and raw recordings...the dynamic range is all over the place, but in a good way. Myself, I belive the master's are the most real sound you could ever get next to the real thing. But since it would be very expensive to buy and play master's I'll stick to lp's, plus vinyl lasts longer ---------------- Or if available you can just buy the SACD, listen to it as many times as your heart's content for a life time (as long as you take some reasonable care) with out a snap, crackle or pop and you will be closer to the master than your LP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 I did when I was a kid. That's all I had until the old 8-track came around. That was cool! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazytubepower Posted July 12, 2005 Author Share Posted July 12, 2005 8-track that was a dream gone bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delano Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Good evening all, I have been reading this thread since it started and I feel we are all missing the point. Let me just say that I am just stating my opinion and I don't want to start any problems here. I feel that my main passion is the music not the gear. I know, I know this is a gear forum but I feel that we all get a little to lost in the electronic side. Trust me I also love vinyl and all its inherent warmth but I can listen to much more music and conveniently at that on cd. The reason i siwtched to tubes is to get a warmer sound but to be honest i could listen to J.C.'s A Love Supreme on a clock radio and I would still be enthralled. Hey, if you can afford it go for the best. I went for the best that I could afford and the music is is still wonderful. Whether it be vinyl, cd, tape etc. lets be passionate about the music because I would like to think that on this forum, especially, there are no "serious" audiophiles". This is not meant as a slight to anyone. I discovered the "audiophile" while shopping for my recent system. Some of these guys could care less about the music as they only listen to "audiophile pressings" or "24kt gold" cd's. One serious high end store i checked out left me wondering about what these people wanted from a system. One salesman out on an "audiophile" lp which I did not care for(the music that is). I told him that I did not like the sound of this particular artist. The man looked at me with such disdain as he told me to forget about the music and listen to the "separation and clarity". That does not help me when I get home and put on my cd of the music "I" love. I guess my point is that we have trust ourselves ( and our Klipsch speakers) to decide on what is most important. To not listen to a certain kind of medium because " serious " people do not is missing the point. Until recently I listened to most of my music on a boombox and I still loved it. Be passionate about the music and the rest will follow. Sorry to ramble on. Good night Delano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 You right. Me too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Disc Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Some people love the music, some just love the way it sounds... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazytubepower Posted July 13, 2005 Author Share Posted July 13, 2005 And some love both...the substance and sound are both important to me 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.