|
|
Post by Wanklein on May 5, 2018 11:09:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by blahdiofile on May 5, 2018 17:46:18 GMT
The fuck? And these same lackwits drool all over themselves for Fagen's The Nightfly, which was a digital recording.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mediocrates on May 5, 2018 19:46:44 GMT
I tried to tell a joke in that thread, with the usual results.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeatletoes on May 7, 2018 4:07:36 GMT
I don't listen to digital opinions - they are all fake and have no soul.
Mail me your soapbox rants on a cassette instead, and then I'll perhaps take you seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by krabapple on May 8, 2018 22:52:47 GMT
Holy christ. First poat in that thread:
|
|
|
|
Post by hoffa_nagila on May 9, 2018 1:22:24 GMT
Holy christ. First poat in that thread: Honestly, I've halfway considered this notion before. Not to do with analog vs digital, but just the general idea of different methods of recording being used simultaneously. |
|
|
|
Post by krabapple on May 9, 2018 5:37:40 GMT
But did you consider it after you had been banged on the head with a bag of hammers? Because that's what that doofus writes like.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoffa_nagila on May 9, 2018 7:01:11 GMT
I would fit in better over there if I were to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by amygrant on Jun 3, 2018 20:38:53 GMT
it takes vinyl to properly replicate the sound of eric clapton's kid hitting the pavement.
|
|
|
|
Post by hugofuguzev on Jun 5, 2018 5:21:53 GMT
The fuck? And these same lackwits drool all over themselves for Fagen's The Nightfly, which was a digital recording. And it sounds like a digital recording. I love The Nightfly but there's no warmth to the sound at all. The vinyl sounds marginally better than the CD but not by much. |
|
|
|
Post by Aural Relations on Jun 5, 2018 5:55:16 GMT
For the millionth fucking time, "digital recording" does not have a "sound". The end result is going to be what was fed into it, and what was done with that. What you hearing are EQ/mixing/miking/etc. decisions by the producers and engineers. If it sucks, blame it on the choices the people who made the recording. A Dire Straits record would sound just as soulless and shitty if it were recorded on analog equipment (as I am sure their earliest records were). Echoing this: The Nyquist-Shannon theorem tells us that by sampling at 44.1kHz, the original sound wave's frequencies up to ~20kHz can be perfectly reproduced (factoring a transition band >20kHz for the purpose of limiting aliasing). Even entry-level stereos produced today (or in the past 25 years) are more than capable of converting that digital data into the analogue domain with zero audible distortion. This process will not result in sound which is noticeably 'harsh' or 'thin'. The same is true of the ADCs used in production. If this CD or digital recording sounds thin, it is due to poor production, shitty EQ, or mistakes made with the recording equipment. Is it not because digital recordings have a characteristic sound which has to be attenuated in some fashion in order to sound passable. |
|
|
|
Post by hoffa_nagila on Jun 5, 2018 6:44:46 GMT
But I can hear the digital bits. They don't sound as warm as those gooey analogs. Too harsh.
|
|
|
|
Post by secretsauce on Jun 5, 2018 9:22:10 GMT
![]()  Can't hear the difference? You just haven't got the ears, pal. |
|
|
|
Post by essayceedee on Jun 5, 2018 12:42:50 GMT
Yes. If any of those early digital recordings sound shitty/thin/whatever, it's because the engineers who had spent years working in the analog realm hadn't quite figured out how to use the new digital gear yet. My golden ears can hear the spaces between the samples though, and it's maddening.  |
|
|
|
Post by screendump on Jun 5, 2018 15:20:14 GMT
![]() Can't hear the difference? You just haven't got the ears, pal. No coincidence analog looks like the wheelchair ramp. |
|
