Please check out my blog, The Analog Audiophile, at blogspot.com.
The link is http://analogaudiophile.blogspot.com/.
Thanks a lot.
Re: Analog Audiophile
Well, I've read a dozen or so of Bill's blog posts. He seems to feel that music of any kind sorta became digital crap around 1984 and there's been nothing redeemable released ever since. That's too bad, because I think a lot of digitally-posted audio sounds excellent (along with a lot of over-processed junk which, let's face it, WAS the '80s new wave sound). But no one can tell me that all recordings made in the last 20 years with super-clean mics, digitizing rigs and mixdown systems sound monochromatic and sterile compared to similar efforts of 30 years ago (especially since I've actually done some recording and mixing of digital audio using ProTools myself). That's like saying Edison's sound rolls are superior in tonal accuracy than the magnetic tape that eventually succeeded them. Oops, I think he does think that.
Still, I applaud anyone who takes the effort to blog their feelings and ideas on a regular basis; it's extremely hard work and very time-consuming. On the other hand, there is a (fair) notion that many bloggers are navel-gazers who find their own voices charming. I'll leave it to other readers to decide where on the value spectrum these analog blogs belong.
Re: Analog Audiophile
[QUOTE=GrtGrfx;26072] ------(especially since I've actually done some recording and mixing of digital audio using ProTools myself).---
1. I wanted to ask the question about Analogue VS Digital music. I jumped at the availability of CDs in the 1980s. I bought the very first CD player available here Sony CPD-101, I think. No more stylus tracking weight adjustment, bias correction and reluctunt to loan the Vinyl (LP) to friends in fear of overtracking and generally suseptible to damage. CDs were so convenient to slip it in the caddy and press play and could be loaned out without fear od damage. After many years of this and I began to feel that may be all is not as it appears after reading what analogue audiophiles were saying. Then I found this a couple years ago in this website-
The trace clearly shows even ay 96khz sampling, the form is no where near the analogue trace. The sampling would have to be an infinite number to faithfully reproduce the trace!!
So I feel the digitised signal will remain "unfaithful" to the original signal (and more so by the conversion process necessary). Is my perception too simplistic?
2. As for recent recordings, many engineers are tending to join in the "loudness" war. So the recording are louder at the expense of dynamics.
3. Studios now seem to be mixing by listening to "near-field" monitors which in my opinion will make the final product suitable to fit different environments (listening rooms) but deprive the more serious listeners to enyoy the "original" sound.
I hope there will be some responses to my above points.
Re: Analog Audiophile
You understand. don't you, that just as your eyes "fool you" into perceiving more colors and shades of gray than you can really see (like on TV or in a movie theater, for example), your brain "fools you" when you listen to recorded sounds to make up for the parts that are missing or wrong. People can listen to MP3s, with their loss of quality, because their brains fill in the missing information to make the audio sound okay. Your mind fills in the blanks all the time, filtering out what you don't need to perceive, focusing narrowly and enhancing that which you're interested in.
If you are searching for pristine audio in recorded media, it was never really there in the first place; the best recordings cannot capture all the waveforms of a live event, modern studio recordings sound nothing like live music anyway since the microphones dump right into digital recorders, your ears, after the age of, say, 30, are increasingly fallible, and the most important aspect of your listening experience is usually how your room is shaped and what furniture you own, not your reproduction chain.
Given all this, I take with a pretty big grain of salt the position of many audio purists who think that by extracting every single gram of fidelity out of their sources and reproductive gear, they can reach audio nirvana. It's just not that likely for most individuals, either due to the limitations of their listening environment or the fallibility of their own bodies.
The only point you made that I really agree is important is that engineers are indeed squashing recordings to get uniformly loud music out of portable and mobile equipment, and that's a loss for everyone with more to listen with than laptops, cars and iPhones. This means if you want better recordings, vote with your dollars for artists that insist on quality engineering for their music. If more people buy Paul Simon (a fidelity purist) and less Britney Spears, we'll wind up with less compressed recordings and better-sounding music.
Oh, and as far as near-field monitors, that's nothing new. Studios have used small desktop monitors and headphones since the dawn of record engineering. But it's for mixdowns, not final mastering. Most studios (and individuals who record their music DIY) play back their final mixes on normal speakers in larger rooms to see what their music sounds like in the "world".
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:20 PM.|