[71 dB]

Music is analog. Digital "music" is not music, it's an approximation of music. So, we disagree, fundamentally. And that's ok since I avoid audio scientology

The reality might be "digital" on fundamental level and only appears analog, but that's beyond this discussion. We all agree about music "in the air" being analog.

It doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree. Facts matter. Study stuff and understand. Then you agree with me.

An analog recording is much worse approximation of the original signal than digital recording. That is the reason why things have gone digital as soon as it became technically possible. Only people who think they know better than the geniuses of information theory think otherwise just because their intuition misleads them to believe their ears liking the distortions created by analog.

 

[raulromanjr]

Still listen to Disintegration almost exclusively through headphones and it always brings a big ol smile to my face.

I still get the same thrill when I listen to those fat Van Halen riffs from the 80’s.

I find that bass seems to lacking in those 80’s recordings more often than not and that is probably both a function of my normal aging hearing loss and the predominant mixing and mastering techniques of the time.

Bobby Brown’s Don’t Be Cruel is one that I find sounds even better now that I can afford to buy the equipment to really highlight this really well produced 80s piece of R&B magic.

 

[sander99]

Music is analog. Digital "music" is not music, it's an approximation of music. So, we disagree, fundamentally. And that's ok since I avoid audio scientology

A 44.1/16 digital recording is an audibly transparent approximation of the original analog input signal (by design, and as confirmed in countless controlled listening tests).
(And of course this has been explained a million times but again: audibly transparent in this case means that nobody can hear a difference between the original analog input signal and the reconstructed analog signal coming out of the digital recording and playback chain in a controlled listening test.)
An analog recording is not an audibly perfect approximation of the original analog input signal (because of the clearly audible added noise, distortion and coloration), and hence obviously a worse approximation of the original analog input signal, like @71 dB said.

Keep stating the opposite is what should be called audio scientology.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

The reality might be "digital" on fundamental level and only appears analog, but that's beyond this discussion. We all agree about music "in the air" being analog.

It doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree. Facts matter. Study stuff and understand. Then you agree with me.

An analog recording is much worse approximation of the original signal than digital recording. That is the reason why things have gone digital as soon as it became technically possible. Only people who think they know better than the geniuses of information theory think otherwise just because their intuition misleads them to believe their ears liking the distortions created by analog.

So that's twice that you spoke to me (and doubtless countless times to many others) disrespectfully and condescendingly. I realize to separate the obnoxious from audioscientology is impossible, so thank you for clarifying your position and objectives beyond any doubt. And now, you go into my ignore list. Buh bye.

 

[Death_Block]

The late 70s through 80s was the golden age of popular music in my view. From punk to 'new wave' (a disputed term; some bands mentioned above) to hardcore punk, there is just so much great music. I grew up in the 80s and didn't appreciate them until I was older as I was then stuck in the 60s/70s (now 'classic' rock) rut for some unknown reason. Yawn. I definitely missed out then. Recording quality itself has always varied considerably from garbage to stellar, given the technology of the time. That's nothing new and is still the case.

You could go down the rabbit hole of 80s hardcore punk alone and not emerge for years. Dead Kennedys, Black Flag, Circle Jerks, Marginal Man, Minor Threat, Government Issue, Bad Brains, Minutemen etc. Start with Dischord Records and their boatload of DRM-free downloads (320kbps, though you won't know the difference). Beautiful, angry music played by a good number of virtuouso musicians. Then, if you want to work back to the proper 70s: Stooges, New York Dolls, Heartbreakers, Television, Richard Hell and Vodoids, Ramones etc.

For a 'new wave' sampler, look for the 'Just Can't Get Enough' series.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Can't_Get_Enough:_New_Wave_Hits_of_the_'80s

Fabulous.

Good luck!

Been awhile since I've heard the name New York dolls.
On that note, Hollywood rose, Cinderella...

 

[odarg64]

Been awhile since I've heard the name New York dolls.

Protopunk at its finest. Except for Johansen, the original members are all gone.

 

[iamoneagain]

It’s funny that the original poster listed Def Leppard while the rest are new wave/alternative. I was never a Def Leppard fan but most of my friends from grade school were into them. I threw on an early hit, Bringing on the Heartbreak and brings a smile to my face. Probably could listen to a few hits from Pyromania as well but nothing past that album.

As far as issues with sound quality, it sounds like it should. Lots of energy, in your face electric guitar. Everything on the original poster’s list sounds great in my setup.

 

[ops V]

When I started getting into head fi few years ago, it was on a thought that I will be able to enjoy music from the 80s, I was very naïve with my thought.

most of the 80s bands I adored when I was in my teen years, listening to them now is impossible to enjoy, but I remember in my teen years in the 80s I just had a cassette player and some unknown headphones or speakers, and I used to literally enjoy the sound recording of those bands.

Now its literally impossible for me to even think to listen to them. I wonder why?

Well, I don’t know, I’m happy to listen to some now. Just five examples are Paul Simon / Graceland, Black / Wonderful Life, U2 / The Joshua Tree, Tanita Tikaram / Ancient Heart and Bryan Ferry / Bête Noire.

 

[gregorio]

So that's twice that you spoke to me (and doubtless countless times to many others) disrespectfully and condescendingly.

Which is hardly surprising as that’s twice you have spoken to us disrespectfully and condescendingly.

I realize to separate the obnoxious from audioscientology is impossible …

In a sound science forum it’s obviously obnoxious to post as fact “audioscientology”, pseudoscience or any other perversion of science. So why have you, unless you deliberately intended to be obnoxious?

Music is analog.

Huh, of course music isn’t analogue, where on earth did you get that from? Music is obviously acoustic, not analogue. Do you have RCA or XLR connectors embedded in your skull so you can plug the analogue output of your amp into your head or do you need headphones or speakers to convert the analogue output of your amp into acoustic sound waves? If music were analogue, why would we ever need microphones to record it or HPs/speakers to reproduce it?

Digital "music" is not music, it's an approximation of music.

You are correct that digital music is not music, which is why there’s no such thing as digital music. There is such a thing as “digital audio”, which would include music, however, you are completely wrong that it’s an approximation of music. How is a string of tens or hundreds of millions of zeros and ones an approximation of music? Again, where on earth did you get that from?

Analogue audio is an approximation of acoustic sound, that’s why it’s called analogue, because it’s analogous. Digital audio is NOT analogous, if it were then digital audio would not be digital audio, it would be analogue audio!

So, we disagree, fundamentally.

Absolutely we disagree on the very simple fundamental basics of what is sound, analogue and digital audio, as would anyone who knows those fundamental basics!

And that's ok since I avoid audio scientology

If you avoid audio scientology and you are clearly also avoiding even the most fundamental basics of audio/sound science, what’s left? And why would you come to a sound science forum to broadcast such nonsense, isn’t that “disrespectful” and “obnoxious”?

Would you go to a say a public forum about NASA, state you avoid scientology and argue that the earth is flat or would that be “obnoxious”?

G

 

[71 dB]

So that's twice that you spoke to me (and doubtless countless times to many others) disrespectfully and condescendingly. I realize to separate the obnoxious from audioscientology is impossible, so thank you for clarifying your position and objectives beyond any doubt. And now, you go into my ignore list. Buh bye.

Sorry if I don't show respect, but you are in sound science sub-forum hinting that we who understand sound science pretty well are doing audio scientology!

 

[iamoneagain]

Oh sorry about my posts. I didn’t realize this was a sound science forum. I was just chatting away like it was opinion threads. I’ll leave you guys to discuss all the fun technical stuff.

 

[gregorio]

You disregard releases which sits 3 years apart because of technologic advance between 1967-1970 ...

Firstly, I did not disregard it. Secondly, there were significant advances in the technology employed in studios in that time period, also baring in mind there was a couple of years or so time delay in American technology becoming widespread in Britain/Europe. By around 1970 eight track recording and Dolby A noise reduction became widespread in the US (where Chains was recorded), both of which made a significant difference. Plus there were other advances during that time.

All I'm asking is an example to compare against in similar genre and timestamp of Chains track where mastering/mixing is lagging.
If it's so bad compared to the current music it should be obvious to my average air.

I’ve no idea what you are talking about. Twice now I’ve stated that recording was very good for it’s time. It’s not even “so bad” compared to more modern recordings but it does have weaknesses, as detailed.

It's not DIY and done in PRO studio and by your logic not punk music than what is it ?

I did not say it was DIY, I said it adhered to a DIY ethos. EG. It was recorded in pro studios but had a far less sophisticated sound, as I’ve ALREADY explained!

What is actually DIY by your terms to be punk music ?

ALREADY EXPLAINED!!

Punk bands existed way before Kraftwerk become popular.

Kraftwerk became popular with their 1974 release Autobahn, which charted #5 in the US (Billboard). The first German punk bands, according to YOUR OWN REFERENCE (Wikipedia) were founded in 1976. How is 1976 “way before” 1974?

How do you manage to connect U2, Bon Jovi to punk music I got no idea. Bon Jovi has as much punk in him as my grandmother.

Exactly, I did not connect them, you did! U2, Bon Jovi and the others I mentioned defined the popular music scene throughout the developed world during the 1980’s and were NOT punk bands.

It seems you got too sensitive and defensive to prove some of your false assesments.

It seems you got so sensitive and defensive you not only contradicted the actual historical facts, you even contradicted your own reference source!

I strongly suggest to watch the documentary if you are interested to have a better understanding.

I strongly suggest you read the reference you yourself posted!!!

Just more nonsense!

G

 

[Death_Block]

Computer games are not real games, it's a digital interpretation of acoustic board games

 

[old tech]

Music is analog. Digital "music" is not music, it's an approximation of music. So, we disagree, fundamentally. And that's ok since I avoid audio scientology

Yes you certainly have demonstrated an avoidance of audio science.

Music is an acoustic phenomena, not an analogue or digital electrical signal. And what comes out of a DAC is a more perfect analogue signal compared to the source input, leading to a more accurate acoustic outcome.

 

[jagwap]

Yes you certainly have demonstrated an avoidance of audio science.

Music is an acoustic phenomena, not an analogue or digital electrical signal. And what comes out of a DAC is a more perfect analogue signal compared to the source input, leading to a more accurate acoustic outcome.

You may want to rephrase that last bit, before the pedants jump on you. I think I know what you meant, but a DAC output cannot be more perfect than the source. It can only be equal or less than the quality of the source.