|
|
Posted by Rick Sparks on 10/17/89 11:42
I agree 100% with that. Gimme dynamics.
Rick Sparks
www.sparkyworld.com
On 15 Mar 2006 11:45:33 GMT, "fred-bloggs"
<fred-bloggs@hahahotmail.com> wrote:
>"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
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|