|
Jim
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: October 08, 2010, 12:08:50 PM » |
|
smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors
and people with too much money
Jim you're a cynical bastard. I've just replaced my speaker cables with ones made of oxide free, silver plated, unobtainium and bound in unicorn hair. I'm seeing a 61% improvement in my 'sonic quality'. seeing 61%, but hearing how much? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Dude abides
|
|
|
|
StephenGiles
|
|
« Reply #61 on: October 08, 2010, 04:34:44 PM » |
|
It's amazing how many folks watch music these days on a computer screen rather than just listen to it, and love to brag or otherwise as to whether it's lossy or not, or at the right bitrate  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Big Dave
Virtual Giant
Folkcorp Guru 2nd Dan
 Offline
Posts: 1730
Loc: Hadfield (in the glorious High Peak of Derbyshire)
Stand us a pint guv!
|
|
« Reply #62 on: October 08, 2010, 04:40:50 PM » |
|
I stand by what I said. Simon, Peggy, Swarb, Sandy and Richard did what they could with the technology of the day and it has stood the test of time. If I were Simon I would be offended at people trying to improve on L&L by messing about with the orginal recording.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Live life, live love, Live for FAIRPORT!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Neil
|
|
« Reply #63 on: October 08, 2010, 05:09:26 PM » |
|
I stand by what I said. Simon, Peggy, Swarb, Sandy and Richard did what they could with the technology of the day and it has stood the test of time. If I were Simon I would be offended at people trying to improve on L&L by messing about with the orginal recording.
I doubt they are offended probably bemused at the gullibility of the purchaser. Really though people have been selling something to make music sound better ever since they started selling music, it's not surprising is it just rather strange. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Things change all the time, and they'll probably never be the same again. It's just the natural evolution of the human condition. Guy Clark
|
|
|
|
Jules Gray
|
|
« Reply #64 on: October 08, 2010, 08:40:40 PM » |
|
I stand by what I said. Simon, Peggy, Swarb, Sandy and Richard did what they could with the technology of the day and it has stood the test of time. If I were Simon I would be offended at people trying to improve on L&L by messing about with the orginal recording.
I don't think it's that bad! Nerds have always been nerdy about sound technology, even back in 1969. Jules |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Now be thankful for good things below
|
|
|
|
jimc
|
|
« Reply #65 on: October 09, 2010, 12:00:23 AM » |
|
If I were Simon I would be offended at people trying to improve on L&L by messing about with the orginal recording. I think that's maybe a tad simplistic... The original master tapes contain what they actually played, and I can't imagine that's being messed with. The originals of those days were actually pretty decent quality because of the width of tape. Then you get the mix process... on the one hand yes, that was part of what they produced, but what they produced was intended to sound as good as possible not only on the big playback monitors, which incidentally aren't as good as modern ones, but also on scrotty little auratones so it would be good on the radio etc etc etc. And doubtless they made a whole lot of compromises in the mixing for all those different playback situations. If they'd been doing a mix just to be used on high quality kit (and dammit, I played my first Fairport albums on a ratty old mono autochange unit with an elliptical speaker which was all most of us teenagers had back then) then you can bet that the mix would have been significantly different and would much better relect what they'd actually played in the studio - and indeed heard in the studio for things they played more or less live... So all through the process after the original playing in the studio compomises had to be made and ultimate quality suffered... A really high quality mix for top kit will bring you an awful lot closer to what it was like to be in Sound techniques listening to them playing... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Shane (Skirky)
|
|
« Reply #66 on: October 09, 2010, 01:24:05 AM » |
|
My contention is that the difference in specification between a CD and SACD will achieve nothing. The difference is that the SACD will have been mastered to sound best in an ideal listening environment, whereas the CD mastering will be a compromise.
Yeah, but if you play a CD after it's been put in the freezer overnight it sounds ammaaaaazing... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Everyone's from somewhere, baby - might as well be here.
|
|
|
Tim Fletcher
Spotify hasn't heard of him either!
Folkcorp Guru
Offline
Posts: 733
Loc: London - almost Muswell Hill!
|
|
« Reply #67 on: October 09, 2010, 08:43:47 AM » |
|
I stand by what I said. Simon, Peggy, Swarb, Sandy and Richard did what they could with the technology of the day and it has stood the test of time.
Not to mention Ashley  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I really must get around to thinking up something witty and urbane to put here.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #68 on: October 09, 2010, 09:37:43 AM » |
|
I stand by what I said. Simon, Peggy, Swarb, Sandy and Richard did what they could with the technology of the day and it has stood the test of time.
Not to mention Ashley what about DM? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Dude abides
|
|
|
|
StephenGiles
|
|
« Reply #69 on: October 09, 2010, 11:41:19 AM » |
|
I don't think sound recording technology has improved that much since 1969, it's just presented in a different way, and certainly sold in a different way. Back then you would have knowledgeable assistants in hi fi shops - what do they know in Richer Sounds???
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Big Dave
Virtual Giant
Folkcorp Guru 2nd Dan
Offline
Posts: 1730
Loc: Hadfield (in the glorious High Peak of Derbyshire)
Stand us a pint guv!
|
|
« Reply #70 on: October 09, 2010, 11:47:46 AM » |
|
I stand by what I said. Simon, Peggy, Swarb, Sandy and Richard did what they could with the technology of the day and it has stood the test of time.
Not to mention Ashley Yeah, yeah....point taken! I was suffering from a surfeit of Robbies, ok?   what about DM? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Live life, live love, Live for FAIRPORT!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Poor Will (Bill)
|
|
« Reply #71 on: October 09, 2010, 02:00:00 PM » |
|
I don't think sound recording technology has improved that much since 1969, it's just presented in a different way, and certainly sold in a different way. Back then you would have knowledgeable assistants in hi fi shops - what do they know in Richer Sounds???
A lot more than they do in Comet!! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
In the words of the Zen Master " Don't just do something, sit there"
|
|
|
|
Goaty
|
|
« Reply #72 on: October 09, 2010, 02:12:24 PM » |
|
A lot more than they do in Comet!!
Oh I don't know, Richer Sounds will happily sell you a bit of copper for £100 just as they will in Comet (gold plated HDMI lead - £90 ). Anyway, hifi, as with so many things, is no longer about knowledge, quality & service, just bullshit & greed. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I could be the catalyst that sparks the revolution, I could be an inmate in a long-term institution ...
|
|
|
|
richardkendell
|
|
« Reply #73 on: October 09, 2010, 03:41:04 PM » |
|
Has anyone actually heard a SACD disc or got a player that can play them? (I have to answer no to both questions) If the general answer is no isn't the present discussion about as fruitful as debating how many angels can stand on a pin head? If someone could answer yes could they shine some light upon the subject?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Goaty
|
|
« Reply #74 on: October 09, 2010, 03:51:00 PM » |
|
Has anyone actually heard a SACD disc or got a player that can play them? (I have to answer no to both questions) If the general answer is no isn't the present discussion about as fruitful as debating how many angels can stand on a pin head? If someone could answer yes could they shine some light upon the subject?
Yes, I got DSOTM on SACD out of curiosity as my bluray player also plays SACDs, couldn't tell any difference BUT it wasn't played on a dedicated SACD player, I CAN hear the difference between CD standard 44/16 and 96/24 though, assuming the source material is good enough. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I could be the catalyst that sparks the revolution, I could be an inmate in a long-term institution ...
|
|
|
|
richardkendell
|
|
« Reply #75 on: October 09, 2010, 04:53:03 PM » |
|
Has anyone actually heard a SACD disc or got a player that can play them? (I have to answer no to both questions) If the general answer is no isn't the present discussion about as fruitful as debating how many angels can stand on a pin head? If someone could answer yes could they shine some light upon the subject?
Yes, I got DSOTM on SACD out of curiosity as my bluray player also plays SACDs, couldn't tell any difference BUT it wasn't played on a dedicated SACD player, I CAN hear the difference between CD standard 44/16 and 96/24 though, assuming the source material is good enough. Thanks. I suspect to notice the difference you have to spend on the player and given the likely downward trajectory of CDs (of all types) and growth of high quality downloads that spending more on hardware at present is not a wise way ahead. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
