Ashley & JC's assorted musings

[anthonyTD]

I prefer 78's to LPs because they don't have the phase problems that comes with "stereo" cartridges and poor channel separation. However any that I listen to came from JC and are MP3's, which does help.

Ash

ash, ash,
come on mate, you can't be seroius about what you have just said!
my comment was to be taken in the context it was written[i was pulling your leg] you really are un-reachable most of the time, lighten up!
and really you can't expect us to believe that because your 78 recordings have been put on another playback format that somehow they sound any better than they did before! diffrent maybe after JC has butchered them with his re-recording techniques!

[WikiBoy]

True, but the entertainment value is priceless!!

Marco.

Since when is talking to a couple of hi-fi spin doctors entertaining? Next you will be telling me you like talking to politicians.

I repeat go make your own bloody thread, I would much prefer to keep them out of this one, but probably some hopes!

[sastusbulbas]

I still prefer old records recorded around the 70's and 80's to CD equivalents.

Analogue has far higher resolution than CD or MP3, indeed so does master tape, CD and digital is a poor facsimile of the recorded message. Indeed records have always been considered to provide a far more communicative and involving listen. They also have better dynamic range LOL.

http://www.audioholics.com/education...-part-4-page-2

All those little niggles like pops clicks and surface noise can be addressed with care, and with old music tape hiss is evident regardless of medium.

I also prefer the older CD's without barcodes and even the early barcode copies in some cases to new re-issued re-mastered bollox with is recorded too high and has no dynamic expression or depth of image.

A bit like that MP3 crap ,
Actually I was enjoying some music replayed on cassette the other day, which I found quite enjoyable, and served to remind me all those years ago when all I listened to was analogue, of my first impressions of CD replay, which was that it was shit, lacking in involvement, with un-natural emphasised one note bass, Hi-Fi 2d quality and completely bland. And this was compared to cassette, FM radio and the odd LP.

I was a bit of a latecomer in CD replay due to it's inadequacies. Of course nowadays everything is done on the cheap with poor digital equipment of limited resolution by young know it all's who think due to equipment advances they can boost digital as it was done with analogue tables.

Most of this I feel is due to the current state of british mentality and work skill and education standards, which has been handicaped by youth since the 80's who all want play and no work, to live for free and drain society with further and further education paid by anyone else but themselves. Not to mention the effect this current attitude and trend regarding what UK citizens expect for free, and the power this free education and class status it gives them.

New recording techniques and high resolution are not best utilised by most industries, or most modern music, remixing and such. It all suffers due to the current inadequacies of our education, work force skill and personal attitude of UK citizens, not to mention the "I know better, it is cause its new" issue we still see.
Look at the BBC, many fora are full of old BBC die hards who will argue till they have a stroke about "Old values and Old technology" and many "Educated" still argue about what can and cannot make a difference with fact based on hype and a test bench example.

Digital is about convenience and profit and is still miles behind analogue resolution, and most of the work carried out nowadays is by inexperienced opinionated know it all's who have never heard or experienced real high fidelity.

Analogue rules

[Marco]

I repeat go make your own bloody thread, I would much prefer to keep them out of this one, but probably some hopes!

I'll attend to it shortly, but I'll only be moving the Owston stuff as it already has a dedicated thread

Marco.

[anthonyTD]

I still prefer old records recorded around the 70's and 80's to CD equivalents.

Analogue has far higher resolution than CD or MP3, indeed so does master tape, CD and digital is a poor facsimile of the recorded message. Indeed records have always been considered to provide a far more communicative and involving listen. They also have better dynamic range LOL.

All those little niggles like pops clicks and surface noise can be addressed with care, and with old music tape hiss is evident regardless of medium.

I also prefer the older CD's without barcodes and even the early barcode copies in some cases to new re-issued re-mastered bollox with is recorded too high and has no dynamic expression or depth of image.

A bit like that MP3 crap ,
Actually I was enjoying some music replayed on cassette the other day, which I found quite enjoyable, and served to remind me all those years ago when all I listened to was analogue, of my first impressions of CD replay, which was that it was shit, lacking in involvement, with un-natural emphasised one note bass, Hi-Fi 2d quality and completely bland. And this was compared to cassette, FM radio and the odd LP.

I was a bit of a latecomer in CD replay due to it's inadequacies. Of course nowadays everything is done on the cheap with poor digital equipment of limited resolution by young know it all's who think due to equipment advances they can boost digital as it was done with analogue tables.

Most of this I feel is due to the current state of british mentality and work skill and education standards, which has been handicaped by youth since the 80's who all want play and no work, to live for free and drain society with further and further education paid by anyone else but themselves. Not to mention the effect this current attitude and trend regarding what UK citizens expect for free, and the power this free education and class status it gives them.

New recording techniques and high resolution are not best utilised by most industries, or most modern music, remixing and such. It all suffers due to the current inadequacies of our education, work force skill and personal attitude of UK citizens, not to mention the "I know better, it is cause its new" issue we still see.
Look at the BBC, many fora are full of old BBC die hards who will argue till they have a stroke about "Old values and Old technology" and many "Educated" still argue about what can and cannot make a difference with fact based on hype and a test bench example.

Digital is about convenience and profit and is still miles behind analogue resolution, and most of the work carried out nowadays is by inexperienced opinionated know it all's who have never heard or experienced real high fidelity.

Analogue rules

well said that man!!!

[Marco]

Hi Steve,

Analogue has far higher resolution than CD or MP3, indeed so does master tape, CD and digital is a poor facsimile of the recorded message.

The bit in bold is undisputable fact. The remainder is the view of discerning listeners. But of course in Ashley's bizarre fantasy world things are different!

Marco.

[anthonyTD]

ash, ash,
come on mate, you can't be seroius about what you have just said!
my comment was to be taken in the context it was written[i was pulling your leg] you really are un-reachable most of the time, lighten up!
and really you can't expect us to believe that because your 78 recordings have been put on another playback format that somehow they sound any better than they did before! diffrent maybe after JC has butchered them with his re-recording techniques!

sorry guys,
i have had some anxiety pangs since i wrote this,
i will re-phrase, after JC HAS RE-MASTERED them using his state of the art recording techniques.

[Filterlab]

Vinyl has its place as do all forms of audio reproduction, but to say one is better than another is a bit silly as it can never be proven one way or another. It's all to do with what the individual looks for and enjoys in sound, some like a crazy musical ride, some like infinitesimal detail and some like it loud. Therefore no particular format can be 'better', it can only be more suitable.

Saying that....

...They also have better dynamic range...

...trying to argue with completely false facts is another thing. The approximate dynamic range of vinyl is around 65dB whereas the limit in the digital domain is only limited by bit depth; i.e. mathematically it's 6 x bit-depth which for CD is 96dB, being digital the value increases in a linear fashion with word length. Therefore dynamic range is far far greater in the digital domain than analogue replay equipment could ever get near.

Then again sound is not judged on dynamic range, or at least not solely so that negates digital being 'better' than analogue or vice versa.

[Mr. C]

Ashely,

Plonker eh?, still I stand by what I said, do you do any real world listening, as if you feel AD9's make a viable alternative then you do live pretty much in cuckoo land.
OK for a pc based system maybe, for those wishing to experience music, a very long way off. For an easy to make and a heathly profit margin product, I can see the advantages.
Never seen some much penial waving and posturing before, its quite amusing and sad and the same time.
I would asking this if I was a outsider looking in, so called professionals engaged in 'Mine is better than yours', plus how much time have these guys got on their hands, if they can spend all day posting this drivel, must be doing a cracking amount of business???
once again, the same old few, very much reminds of the mana debates, shame this place had potential.

[Filterlab]

...shame this place had potential.

Sorry, how's this a fault of the forum?