[aeriyn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool I am sure the Chinese will master tape production as they have mastered valve amps and DVD players.

Now that is a thought that unsettles me more than a little. Seems like every industry we lose, they gain. How long will it be until we depend upon them for everything?

Not a world I would want to live in.

 

[drminky]

What about all the manufacturers of video tape for the professional broadcast market? (ie betacam, digibeta, d5 etc etc). Even though much of the professional video world has gone digital, the tape the digital signal is recorded onto is still analogue, and AFAIK more or less the same thing packaged and marketed differently. Surely it wouldn't be a huge stretch for one of these companies to start making analogue audio recording tape?

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leporello This fact alone of course does not constitute a "scientific fact" that "CD is a sonically inferior medium to Vinyl or Tape". If it did, designing good audio systems would be terribly easy. I think you are jumping to conclusions rather too hastily. There are many other factors at play. This is getting tiresome... Regards, L.

As far as I am aware the epistemologial status of any "scientific fact" is one of a theoretical construction which fits best fits observable data.

I chose the upper bandwidth as a widely demonstrated example but there are many other shortcomings with PCM, acknowledged by some of it's most talented exponents. Instead of trying to work out how many bits a record holds as I noticed in previous discussions, why not read what Ken Ishiwata of Marantz has to say about it. Or just go and listen to a really good record player!

Recently there was a demonstration by Linn in London of their top of the range CD12 compact disc player which sells here for 12,000 UKP. They set up the CD12 against an LP12 and invited members of the public to come audition them blind filling out a questionnaire with their findings. To Linns chagrin, having gone to all this effort to produce a CD player which could rival their record player, more than 60% prefered the analogue system.

Well set up top analogue record players and tape recorders are capable of higher fidelity, than the best CD player. And the only reason why CD has been so successful is that it's a more convenient format, simple as that.

Everyone uses Protools instead of reel to reel tape because it's more convenient and therefore productive. Most Studios have switched to Protools so the demand for tape has diminshed to the point where it's becoming uneconomical to produce tape.

But if you value absolute fidelity above convenience then open reel and vinyl are the best thing you can get. That is until they sort out BluRay or some other format....

 

[Leporello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool As far as I am aware the epistemologial status of any "scientific fact" is one of a theoretical construction which fits best fits observable data.

Could be. But the infamous Linn comparison is a particularly bad example of a lame attempt to collect this data (if that was their intent at all).

What do the results of the Linn comparison tell us? That 60 % of the participants preferred the sound of vinyl. Nothing more. This kind of a test simply cannot tell us anything else about the relative merits of the formats under comparison. Btw, the same goes for the eternally popular "Or just go and listen to a really good record player".

Preference - yours or mine, for cd, R2R or whatever - is simply not the issue.



Regards,

L.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3lusiv3 I don't know what you mean by "rap" music but just because you don't like a genre doesn't mean you should attack it like that. I listen to hip-hop because of it's musicality. Hip-hop is one of the driving forces helping keep analogue alive. My friend owns a record shop that sells mainly vinyl and his shop only sells hip-hop. All of my many DJ friends only buy vinyl, only buying CD's if the music isn't available on vinyl. Hip-hop is a mainly analogue genre. The bands you mention are not hip-hop so I guess you probably mean some other music that I don't listen to but either way your aggressive toned posts both here and in other threads are not appreciated.

Sorry to bring back something so old, but I must respond to this...

If you knew any sort of actual business methods or marketing terms, you'd know that my theory is pretty straight-on.

You know, that whole "supply and demand" thing, where companies only sell things when the consumers have a request for it?

Hip-Hop is not a very popular consumer product. I am talking about RAP music. And POP music.. you know, those really popualr people?
Eminem, 50 Cent, Ja Rule, Britney Spears, and that gang?

As music went from tallented rock groups (70's) to computer-generated drumbeats and fake vocals (2000's and beyond) the demand for actually GOOD methods of recording lowered.. am I wrong? They started using digital techniques, because the mainstream changed musical tastes - obviously. I won't even begin on how this dropped expectations on actual tallent.. do you think Ian Anderson could have survived in a music world of today? A big hairy beast from Scottland couldn't have done what he did today...

I am not bashing anybody's music, I am certainly just giving my opinion. I could care less about what people listen to, but the fact that the apparent change in music is what caused analog's downfall is undoubtably true... there is no argument there.

 

[Geise]

I've always looked at analog as the ideal master/archive medium and digital as the ideal distribution/broadcast medium. Although if you are in the business of producing and selling the digital medium, it makes sense to also use it as your master and archive medium.

That quote about harddrive longevity is the only one I can't agree with (it's a bit funny actually). An archive harddrive could (and should) be replaced when it gets too old (that could take quite awhile) and the data on it would be copied flawlessly to a new harddrive, or even multiple harddrives if desired, all without any damage to the recording's quality. A high quality harddrive (which is what should be used for archiving) can last much longer than it would even be wanted.

 

[Publius]

Moreover, anybody who is really concerned about digital longetivity uses tape. For the hobbyist, DLT is dirt cheap, it lasts 20+ years, and the pros have been using it for nearly that long.

(By "dirt cheap" I mean I bought a used DLTIIIXT drive for $250 3 years ago, and the tapes are $15 for 15/30 gigs.)

 

[Sinbios]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geise That quote about harddrive longevity is the only one I can't agree with (it's a bit funny actually). An archive harddrive could (and should) be replaced when it gets too old (that could take quite awhile) and the data on it would be copied flawlessly to a new harddrive, or even multiple harddrives if desired, all without any damage to the recording's quality. A high quality harddrive (which is what should be used for archiving) can last much longer than it would even be wanted.

yeah, most harddrives last at least 5 years, and by then you'd want to upgrade anyways.

publius: that'll all be over with blu-ray

. 200gb on a single disc, likely around $2-5 a piece when it stabilizes. the drive would be around $100.

 

[Publius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinbios publius: that'll all be over with blu-ray . 200gb on a single disc, likely around $2-5 a piece when it stabilizes. the drive would be around $100.

Blu-Ray doesn't really solve longetivity. Few people consider DVD-R a long-term archival format and just as many people will consider Blu-Ray a long-term archival format.

 

[Geise]

I don't think any consumer level medium should be used for professional purposes...

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman As music went from tallented rock groups (70's) to computer-generated drumbeats and fake vocals (2000's and beyond) the demand for actually GOOD methods of recording lowered.. am I wrong? They started using digital techniques, because the mainstream changed musical tastes - obviously. .

Actually you are completely and utterly wrong. If you check out the British Phonographic Industry figures for music sales for instance,you will find that it's all those "computer generated drum beats" which have kept the record pressing plants running.

DJ's who play what is broadly termed "dance music" (including rap, hip-hop, techno, house, drum and bass...etc..etc) account for 90% of the record buying public.

Hip Hop / Rap (nomenclature distinction is tenuous) is the biggest selling musical form in America today, perhaps only seriously challenged by Country and Western.

Those "talented rock groups" from the 70's are now the music industry executives controling the music press and generally running the industry they created into the ground by their complete lack of understanding of technological advancements like Napster.

 

[drminky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool Those "talented rock groups" from the 70's are now the music industry executives controling the music press and generally running the industry they created into the ground by their complete lack of understanding of technological advancements like Napster.

What you mean like charging $1 per song (at least as expensive, if not more than most cds) for an inferior low quality bitrate mp3/wmv, so it will only cost $15,000 to fill a $600 ipod?

 

[breez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenhorn My point was a general one: if something hasn't been proven (yet?) this does not mean that it does not exist.

That is right, but it's not reasonable to assume something exists if there is no indication of it.

And more on original topic of vinyl vs. CD in FR, I don't really think the possibly higher frequency extension is the reason why vinyl sounds better than CD to some ears.

 

[Enverxis]

Im really ashamed that Ive missed out on Vinyl, Even on the old Sony Turntable the family had in the 90's i thought that Mums Roy Orbison LPs sounded awesome compared to the CDs

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by breez And more on original topic of vinyl vs. CD in FR, I don't really think the possibly higher frequency extension is the reason why vinyl sounds better than CD to some ears.

The audible Full Frequency Range of 15hz-22khz and the theoretical range which goes beyond this, which it has been demonstrated many times is produced by musical instruments, is the most obviously quantifiable reason which can be shown mathematically to explain why to the majority of people given the chance to make a comparison between a recording reproduced by vinyl and compact disc, favour the former.

It's relatively easy for you to claim that trees falling in the forest make no noise but this takes the whole argument into the realms of the nature of truth and how we can know what we think we know, which is intersted but may be off topic.