|
|
Posted by fred-bloggs on 10/17/33 11:42
"Peterson" <hoseratl@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:FTMRf.6226$TB1.1368@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
> Not that I'm fond of the Deadheads who you tell you're not really into
> the Dead and they insist it's because you haven't heard this boot from
> Stockholm in '72, but I do sympathize with the old school of musical
> appreciation that likes their music with warts and all. I don't mind
> having a different listening experience than anyone else with the same
> album, if only because it makes it a bit more mine.
>
> So, while uncompressed digital recordings might be, in fact, truer
> replications of the original, and certainly fit better with today's
> more sterilized recording methods, I still stand by the idea that LPs
> do, in fact, sound better, at least with older analog recordings, such
> as from, but not limited to, the '60s and '70s. Not necessarily
> truer, but with more character. Kinda like the girl next door who's
> not bad-looking, but no knockout, but a hell of a lot cooler to hang
> out with than the cheerleader debs. Or more appropriately, playing
> through a vintage tube amp as opposed to a modern, tubeless amp. Drum
> machine or Keth Moon, even.
>
> I know this is a list with more of a technological bent, but lest we
> forget, it's still about the music.
The reason the old stuff sounds better is because modern mastering
compresses the signal into the top 10 db of dynamic range so it plays
louder. Unfortunately this loss of dynamics makes it more boring. See
http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm
--
fred
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|