mlsstl;530055 Wrote: > My reply addresses points from a couple of different posts, but the > above is as good a place to start as any. > > 1. Sure, LP sales are up, but compared to what? Vinyl record sale are > estimated at 2,8 million for 2009. That's less than 1% of album sales. > I can also spend a lot on a horse saddle, but that doesn't mean horses > are on track to replace cars in the next couple of years. > > 2. Sound quality - I've converted well over 2,000 LPs and open reels in > my personal collection to digital for my server. (That's been an 8 year > project that is still underway.) As such, I've compared a lot of vinyl > directly to digital. > > The other day I converted a 1979 Nancy Wilson LP to CD for a friend. > One track on the LP was damaged so I downloaded the track from Amazon > so she could have a complete album. The difference was dramatic so I > downloaded a copy of one of the undamaged tracks. While both the LP and > the download were from the original 1979 master tape, the (proudly > declared) "remastered" download had been overprocessed and sounded > aggressive and hot compared to the LP. > > Note that my digital conversion sounded just fine. The point is it > wasn't the format! It was what the producers and engineers had > intentionally chosen to do in their "remastering." > > I've got any number of CDs that are well recorded and a delight to > listen to. I've got a bunch of LPs that are downright nasty sounding. > > Forget the storage format - I like recordings that are good music and > that have been handled by producers and engineers who care about sound. > That doesn't require a return to analog open reel masters and LPs or > everyone switching to a 192K sample rate. It takes artists, producers > and engineers who are willing to buck the current fads and fashions of > recording. > > As far as sample rates, where does one stop? If 192K is better, why not > 1,028K, or 2,056K? I know I spoke of Dan Lavry before, but he makes a > very strong case that super high bit rates are little more than a > novelty in many ways, and may well be solving a problem that is a > non-issue and creating other problems. > > In multi-track mixing there is the issue of noise levels when mixing > tracks with disparate volume levels, but that is not an issue in > playback of a released recording with a set mix. > > Personally, I've heard enough music on "ordinary" formats to know the > results can be outstanding. For me, I'd just as soon have them forget > chasing 192K sample rates and just have them learn to reuse the old > equipment! Far too many audiophile recordings are an excuse for an > examination of a pop singer's tonsils or a too-bright classical > recording with highlight mikes balanced in a way one would never hear > at a concert. > > Sorry for the rant, but in light of the prevailing fads in music > recording these days, worrying about 192K sample rate is like > rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Hi,
what is important here is that LP sales are -up-, while total music sales are -dropping-. No-one claims LP will replace redbook. If bicycle sales are up while car sales are dropping, this is something to consider. For the rest, I agree with you, of course. -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Croft 25Pre and Series 7 power - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
