Re: top 5 favorite albums / hdcd ...
From: Electram <electram@terra.com.br>
The Rolling Stones - Let it Bleed Beatles - Revolver Pink Floyd - Saucerful of Secrets and Wish You Were Here David Bowie - Scary Monsters and Heroes Kraftwerk - The Man Machine
well ... i really do think that the first 4 bands or artists are pretty much OVERRATED ( plus elvis , of course !!! ;-) & i can only agree to "the man-machine" by kw !!! *BWG* ;-))) to the topic of hdcd encoded cds i can only add that it was ALWAYS a reduction to encode cds in 16-bit format , but - sony - the inventors of the first cds thought that it was a good idea ... jus' like the pretty crappy vhs format for videotapes by their inventors jvc !!! *sigh* :-o btw : we were also spoiled with 74 or 80 min. cds for way too long , as it's NOT a problem to have 90 min. cds , but the industry simply doesn't wanted it that way ... for obvious reasons !!! :-/ however ... many greetinx , oh jay ;-) ~*~ jvr network program - july 2002 : http://mitglied.lycos.de/cybernetx/program.html ( incl. live stream via internet ) studio webcam - live : http://stream.ok-bremen.de/studio.html radio show & playlist archive : http://friends.schallreflektor.com/ohjay/alien_disco for more info , send your request(s) to : oh_jay@kraftwerk.nu ;-) *~\^/~*
The Rolling Stones - Let it Bleed Beatles - Revolver Pink Floyd - Saucerful of Secrets and Wish You Were Here David Bowie - Scary Monsters and Heroes Kraftwerk - The Man Machine
OJ> well ... i really do think that the first 4 bands or artists are pretty much OJ> OVERRATED ( plus elvis , of course !!! ;-) & i can only agree to "the OJ> man-machine" by kw !!! *BWG* ;-))) Yes, I like electronic music, but I'm a rocker too! But this list can change in the future...he..he.. Regards, Marcelo Duarte
On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Oh Jay wrote:
to the topic of hdcd encoded cds i can only add that it was ALWAYS a reduction to encode cds in 16-bit format , but - sony - the inventors of the first cds thought that it was a good idea ... jus' like the pretty crappy vhs format for videotapes by their inventors jvc !!! *sigh* :-o btw : we were also spoiled with 74 or 80 min. cds for way too long , as it's NOT a problem to have 90 min. cds , but the industry simply doesn't wanted it that way ... for obvious reasons !!! :-/
Oh, don't get me wrong. I think the CD audio format as it is sucks. But I disagree that it's inferior to vinyl, I disagree that digital audio in general is in any way inferior to analog, and I think that people like this HDCD bunch should spend their effort on creating a new digital music medium instead of trying to distort a flawed existing one. Unfortunately I also think that this is exactly the wrong time to be thinking about a new digital medium to succeed CD audio, given the absolutely unforgivable activities of the entertainment industry of late. Any new format produced at this time is likely to also be fatally flawed, but in other ways - for example, being playable only on "authorized" devices. -- /* Soleil */
Hi all! Sorry for a long rambling, but I've got some nice insomnia here and need something to do.. ;) First, my all-time top 5, err, top 10.. (in no order): SKINNY PUPPY, "Bites & Remission" (In my opinion, the most important record in the last 20 years. I cheated a bit and listed the compilation since both records are monumental) LAIBACH, "The Occupied Europe Tour 1984-85" (Few records have had such an impact on me as this one. It's incredibly powerful!) THE CURE, "Faith" (The peak of their career, in my opinion. It's the most sad record I've ever heard..And among the most beautiful) TANGERINE DREAM, "Poland" (The best ambient electronica ever produced. Side 4 is pure magic. I thought so in 1982, and I still think so.) KRAFTWERK, "Trans Europa Express" (This is by far the best album they ever did. Nothing even comes close. German version is a must..) LIAISONS DANGEREUSES, "Liasons Dangereuses" (Another record that hade a major impact on me. Still outstanding, even so many years after its conception...) THE KLINIK, "Time" (If I had to choose one record that changed my view on music the most, this is it. Dirk Ivens is my house-God) THE SISTERS OF MERCY, "First & Last And Always" (Simply a classic. I still listen to it with great enthusiasm!) XARIS ALEXIOU, "A Kiss To The World" (Of course, I need to surprise you.. This Greek goddess is my all-time favourite female artist. Check her out at www.alexiou.gr!!) NINE INCH NAILS, "The Downward Spiral" (This is truly a masterpiece. Later works failed to impress me a whole lot, but with this record, Trent went into my history book...) .. I could go on for days - I had better stop... And how did I manage to not mention Fields Of The Nephilim, Depeche Mode, Bronski Beat.. Tori Amos, Curve...Damn! And my current top 5: WUMPSCUT, "Embryodead" and basically everything else (Yep, I know that soooo many people hate this guy.. I just wonder why.. This record is totally incredible! Embryodeaaaaaad!) PAUL OAKENFOLD, "The Goa Mix" (I recently got this on CD, mastered directly from the original DAT tape.. It's by far the best trance/goa I've ever heard!) VNV NATION, "Advance And Follow", "Futureperfect", well, anything.. ;) (Again, I know loads of people who think these guys are just silly.. But damn, they are great :) ARCANA, "Cantar De Procella" (I recently discovered this fantastic band.. Swedish dark wave/goth at its very best. Unbelievably beautiful!! www.coldmeat.se) BRONSKI BEAT, "Age Of Consent" (Ha, at least I could list it here.. This album is just wonderful. I love every minute of it. No, I'm not gay, but sometimes I wish..) To move on to the actual topic.. Not trying to start a war here, but I have to comment on a couple of things:
Oh Jay wrote:
to the topic of hdcd encoded cds i can only add that it was ALWAYS a reduction to encode cds in 16-bit format , but - sony - the inventors of the first cds thought that it was a good idea ... jus' like the pretty crappy vhs format for videotapes by their inventors jvc !!!
At the time, 16 bits was the best they could achieve. And mind you, that is in theory. In practice, you achieve about 12-13 bits of precision due to limitations in the design of the player. This has become much better today, however. I totally agree on your comment about VHS as well! It was at the time the single worst format in the universe, and that's what they had to go forward with.. Jeez... It was the cheapest, yeah I know, but still.. Did anyone actually see BetaMax at the time? Beta was (and is still) way ahead of VHS, even if you compare with today's VHS technology (and actually the later BetaMax designs are much better than SVHS)
Soleil wrote:
Oh, don't get me wrong. I think the CD audio format as it is sucks. But I disagree that it's inferior to vinyl, I disagree that digital audio in general is in any way inferior to analog, and I think that people like this HDCD bunch should spend their effort on creating a new digital music medium instead of trying to distort a flawed existing one.
Damn right it sucks. And damn right it's inferior to vinyl, at least sound-wise, BUT, CDs win hands-down when it comes to price/performance.. To beat CD you need a pretty good setup, and CDs are also so much more comfortable in use, they don't break that easily and so forth.. But sound-wise, vinyl is lightyears ahead, and will always be.. At least to standard CD. The newer formats (SACD, DVD-A) are much better than CD, but a good vinyl player / amplifier and a good vinyl still beats them, easily too. And yes, I can assure you that you would hear the difference in a blind test. I've converted literally dozens of people to vinyl in the last few years only, and these are people who used to be happy with boomboxes and car radios...
Unfortunately I also think that this is exactly the wrong time to be thinking about a new digital medium to succeed CD audio, given the absolutely unforgivable activities of the entertainment industry of late. Any new format produced at this time is likely to also be fatally flawed, but in other ways - for example, being playable only on "authorized" devices.
Totally agree here.. I think they should scrap CD and go back to analog once and for all until they come up with something that's not so limited in the sound arena.. :) That'll never happen of course, but one can be naive and hope. ;) I'll close off with my tip of the day.. Buy more second-hand music! It's amazing what value is to be found in old vinyl records.. And as we all know, music WAS better before, right? *grin* Boing, Peo
Per-Olof Karlsson wrote:
THE CURE, "Faith" (The peak of their career, in my opinion. It's the most sad record I've ever heard..And among the most beautiful)
---------------- "All Cats Are Grey" is BRILLIANT!!! You're the first person I've heard mention "Faith" by the Cure. All of side one is awesome. What good moody music should be.
TANGERINE DREAM, "Poland" (The best ambient electronica ever produced. Side 4 is pure magic. I thought so in 1982, and I still think so.)
--------------- I'll check it out. The Tangerine Dream record I have is a snoozer. I don't feel like digging it up to find the name. It has a sorry ass red color all over the front.
KRAFTWERK, "Trans Europa Express" (This is by far the best album they ever did. Nothing even comes close. German version is a must..)
---------------- Neck and Neck with Computer World!
.. I could go on for days - I had better stop... And how did I manage to not mention Fields Of The Nephilim, Depeche Mode, Bronski Beat.. Tori Amos, Curve...Damn!
----------------- depeche Mode's "Some great Reward" is a cut above the rest...
I'll close off with my tip of the day.. Buy more second-hand music! It's amazing what value is to be found in old vinyl records.. And as we all know, music WAS better before, right? *grin*
Boing,
Peo
------------------ Amen, brother. amir
THE CURE, "Faith" (The peak of their career, in my opinion. It's the most sad record I've ever heard..And among the most beautiful)
amir wrote:
"All Cats Are Grey" is BRILLIANT!!! You're the first person I've heard mention "Faith" by the Cure. All of side one is awesome. What good moody music should be.
Not to mention "The Drowning Man"! Brings tears to my eyes, every time I hear it.. I'm glad someone else has an exquisite taste! :) This is also a good album to hear the difference between analog and digital.. Listen to the CD and you'll hear a really dull and lifeless production.. Listen to the old 1981 vinyl on a good set and Cure explodes into your living room, full with energy and luster! While on that topic.. By all means, get the original black vinyl version of Tangerine Dream's "Poland" (not the picture disk set, it sounds terrible like most picture disks) .. Now if that isn't analog magic I don't know what is!! The CD version, again, is totally flat and lacks all the magic and electricity of the original vinyl set... You should be able to pick it up on the Jive Electro label for $10 or so if you shop around! Have fun :) Peo
Ironically, I was going to buy the CD of Faith, because I have too many pops and scratches in the vinyl sound. Maybe I can use my G4 and SoundEdit to "enhance" it. :-) I may pick up Poland on CD or vinyl.... I want to give Tangerine Dream a second chance! amir Per-Olof Karlsson wrote:
THE CURE, "Faith" (The peak of their career, in my opinion. It's the most sad record I've ever heard..And among the most beautiful)
amir wrote:
"All Cats Are Grey" is BRILLIANT!!! You're the first person I've heard mention "Faith" by the Cure. All of side one is awesome. What good moody music should be.
Not to mention "The Drowning Man"! Brings tears to my eyes, every time I hear it.. I'm glad someone else has an exquisite taste! :)
This is also a good album to hear the difference between analog and digital.. Listen to the CD and you'll hear a really dull and lifeless production.. Listen to the old 1981 vinyl on a good set and Cure explodes into your living room, full with energy and luster!
While on that topic.. By all means, get the original black vinyl version of Tangerine Dream's "Poland" (not the picture disk set, it sounds terrible like most picture disks) .. Now if that isn't analog magic I don't know what is!! The CD version, again, is totally flat and lacks all the magic and electricity of the original vinyl set... You should be able to pick it up on the Jive Electro label for $10 or so if you shop around!
Have fun :)
Peo
_______________________________________________ Kraftwerk mailing list Kraftwerk@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kraftwerk
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Per-Olof Karlsson wrote:
Soleil wrote:
Oh, don't get me wrong. I think the CD audio format as it is sucks. But I disagree that it's inferior to vinyl, I disagree that digital audio in general is in any way inferior to analog, and I think that people like this HDCD bunch should spend their effort on creating a new digital music medium instead of trying to distort a flawed existing one.
Damn right it sucks. And damn right it's inferior to vinyl, at least sound-wise, BUT,
I think you misread me. I think CDs sound way better than vinyl. They also have the advantage of being more durable.
And yes, I can assure you that you would hear the difference in a blind test.
Interestingly, there never seems to be any equipment handy to put this to the test. Vinyl advocates always seem to be going on about equipment that only exists in some dream world.
I'll close off with my tip of the day.. Buy more second-hand music! It's amazing what value is to be found in old vinyl records..
Actually, I strongly advocate buying second-hand music, especially in CD format, so as to avoid giving any money to the RIAA companies. Regardless of format, just make sure you patronize a respectable used music store that lets you inspect the media for damage before buying.
And as we all know, music WAS better before, right? *grin*
Before what? I don't think it could have been better before Kraftwerk. :) -- /* Soleil */
Soleil Lapierre wrote:
Interestingly, there never seems to be any equipment handy to put this to the test. Vinyl advocates always seem to be going on about equipment that only exists in some dream world.
---------------- I heard the difference on a high end system. Seems like the vinyl gave up more high end "timbre" than a boxy sounding CD. 0's and 1's reproduced (stuffed) in CD's seem not to replace the .1, .2, .3, .8, .9's heard in the analog world. amir
I agree that some early CDs sounded "boxy" when compared to their vinyl counterparts - that was due to some poor digital mastering and sometimes even to filtering. I remember a Dire Straits album that had a terrible sound on CD because the engineers felt the need to "cut" some of the background noise originated by the guitar amplifiers, that was inaudible on vinyl but very present in the master. Now almost every piece of music is recorded in digital right from the start so CD (or some of its new incarnations) is the media of choice. Someone can still prefer the "warmth" (aka harmonic distortion) intrinsic in vinyl (as it is intrinsic in valve amplifiers, but that's another story) but surely if you want to listen to "The Mix" just as KW intended it and listened to during recording you have to go digital. BTW not all CD players sound equal! Once you have a pair of good loudspeakers and a decent amp, try borrowing a good CD player and make comparative listenings using two identical CDs. I have a Teac hi-end CD player and a cheap Philips DVD player that can also play CDs. The difference between them is more than noticeable. Those little 0's and 1's need to be properly translated into sound waves and the DAC can make the difference. Ciao, Luca
Luca Dassi wrote:
.
Now almost every piece of music is recorded in digital right from the start so CD (or some of its new incarnations) is the media of choice.
--------------- That is probably the heart of the matter. I heard the vinyl that was not recorded originally digitally, and compared it to the CD of the same material. amir
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 webmaster@slystone.com wrote:
I heard the difference on a high end system. Seems like the vinyl gave up more high end "timbre" than a boxy sounding CD. 0's and 1's reproduced (stuffed) in CD's seem not to replace the .1, .2, .3, .8, 9's heard in the analog world.
Perhaps. Trouble is, all those little peaks get filed off as you play the record. :) -- /* Soleil */
Plus, I never replace the stylus until the damage is done! amir Soleil Lapierre wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 webmaster@slystone.com wrote:
I heard the difference on a high end system. Seems like the vinyl gave up more high end "timbre" than a boxy sounding CD. 0's and 1's reproduced (stuffed) in CD's seem not to replace the .1, .2, .3, .8, 9's heard in the analog world.
Perhaps. Trouble is, all those little peaks get filed off as you play the record. :)
-- /* Soleil */
_______________________________________________ Kraftwerk mailing list Kraftwerk@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kraftwerk
I and Soleil wrote:
Damn right it sucks. And damn right it's inferior to vinyl, at least sound-wise, BUT,
I think you misread me. I think CDs sound way better than vinyl. They also have the advantage of being more durable.
You've the right to your own opinion, of course :) I strongly disagree though, and I'll tell you why soon.
And yes, I can assure you that you would hear the difference in a blind test.
Interestingly, there never seems to be any equipment handy to put this to the test. Vinyl advocates always seem to be going on about equipment that only exists in some dream world.
No problem, I'll give a real example. I've got a nice setup at home which isn't too fancy on the vinyl side, but is very fancy on the digital side. For playing vinyls I currently use a REGA P25 turntable (approx $1000) with standard RB600 arm and a Rega Super Elys pickup (which I highly recommend btw - it's a bargain!!). Total cost is about $1200 second-hand. The digital front-end is a Musical Fidelity Nu-Vista 3D CD-player ($5000) which is regarded as one of the finest CD-players today (at least < $10K, and I agree with that). Both are connected to a Musical Fidelity Nu-Vista M3 integrated amplifier using the same cables (Nordost Red Dawn), which is driving a pair of Dynaudio Contour 3.3 speakers. Although this system costs some money, it's by no means exotic and from a dream world. So, how does it sound? CDs sound very clear, controlled and overall as good as it gets. Playing them through this CD-player adds a marked improvement over normal players; the sound is much more relaxed and focused, and it manages to reproduce the entire bandwidth without any major noticeable artefacts. This is damn good for a CD-player, and I've had and listened to MANY in my days. The only critizism I have about it really, is that most CDs sound..boring. There's no "life" in them, even though I can't find anything particular to complain about, it doesn't provoke my feet to move, y'know? Moving on to the Rega turntable, which is less than 1/3 of the cost, the first thing you notice is more AIR, and more rock'n'roll!. Recordings sound much more "real", and the sounds float around in the room very "matter-of-factly". Gone is the "controlled" sound and hello to the "live" feeling. Bass sounds are noticeable sharper and heavier, and less rolled off. The treble and midbands have so much more information to provide that it's sometimes silly - especially on well-mastered heavy vinyls. Listening to the vinyl version of Portishead's "Dummy" I'm beginning to wonder why I even have a CD-player. The CD-version is SO much worse, in every single aspect of the sound. Another example is my all-time fave "Trans Europa Express" .. On vinyl it's a big pounding disco-bitch of a record, whereas on CD it's a cold and dull synth thingie that mostly sounds "cute". The difference is so overwhelming that it's silly, especially on side 2, the TEE song itself. Did you never ask yourself why DJs play vinyl and not CDs? Because they want the audience to dance, of course. You don't dance to a CD, 'cos there's no rock'n'roll in them.. *grin* (go ahead and ask any DJ - I've talked to several and they all have the same opinion)
And as we all know, music WAS better before, right? *grin*
Before what? I don't think it could have been better before Kraftwerk. :)
I meant before now :) amir wrote:
I heard the difference on a high end system. Seems like the vinyl gave up more high end "timbre" than a boxy sounding CD. 0's and 1's reproduced (stuffed) in CD's seem not to replace the .1, .2, .3, .8, .9's heard in the analog world.
You got it all right buddy :) Music is analog, no matter how it was produced. The end result is sound, and sound is an analog phenomenon. No matter how sophisticated your equipment and recording techniques are, it is impossible to perfectly reproduce an analog signal by using digital approximations. A sound wave is a coherent signal, whereas a digital sample is an approximation of this wave. Even if you were to use 128 bits of resolution and a sample rate of 4GHz you wouldn't be able to reproduce it perfectly (although you'd be pretty goddamn close! ;) Another thing that makes digital media a problem is that of timing, or what people tend to call "jitter". It's almost, if not totally, impossible to make a clock that is 100% accurate, and/or make the signals clock-accurate given distance and the timing deficiencies that occur when you transmit the digital signal through cables and such. This all leads to tiny timing problems that are very difficult to control, resulting in an output signal that is not properly synced. From my experience, this is the major reason why so many people think of vinyl as "more alive" and "less artificial", because from analog sources timing is never an issue (there is no clock, just a signal). I'm sure somebody with better knowledge in digital electronics can explain this much better than I can.. Luca wrote:
Now almost every piece of music is recorded in digital right from the start so CD (or some of its new incarnations) is the media of choice.
This isn't true. Lots of musicians use analog mastering, and in fact I've heard that some people have abandoned digital equipment completely, *recently*. Besides, any music that is not played on purely digital instruments (e.g. "constructed" sounds) started their life as analog, since sound itself is analog ;)
From my own experience and friends', the best way to obtain good digital sound is to do all the recording and mixing in analog, and just convert it to digital in the final stage. It seems the sooner you go digital, the worse the end result is! Could be jitter problems or something, I don't know...
but surely if you want to listen to "The Mix" just as KW intended it and listened to during recording you have to go digital.
Well, I don't want to listen to The Mix ;) But, let me say that hearing any of the older albums (KW1, Autobahn, Radio-Activity, TEE) on a good tube amp and a nice vinyl player.. Now, that's Kraftwerk!!! Radioactivity (the song) on the original LP is one of my all-time highlights in Hi-Fi.. It's scaringly moody and utterly fantastic.. :) "Kristallo" is another example, "Ruckzuck" too.. Kraftwerk really deserves analog sound. On a Hi-Fi show last year I played "Kristallo" on a Nottingham Analogue Hyperspace turntable (~ $5,000 with arm + cartridge) and I almost fainted. That's my next player, rest assured.. Wheeeee!! Go find one and hear it! Soleil and Oh Jay wrote:
I think you misread me. I think CDs sound way better than vinyl. well ... that's what u may think or hear , but cds actually ONLY sound "clearer" than vinyl , which is indeed A_BIG_DIFF'RENCE_!!! ;-)
Damn right Oh Jay! But, this is not true for good equipment. A good vinyl player usually sounds clearer than a CD does, but it does so in a more "natural" way, e.g. not so aggressively.
well ... it's jus' A_PLAIN_FACT that vinyl has a much greater frequency spectrum than a cd or - until today !!! - ANY digital medium could ever have !!! ;-) so the "dream world" is the one , where the cd advocates live in , as their ears doesn't seem to hear those frequency spectrum anymore !!! *hehehe* ;-)))
Amen, brother! Peace, love and understanding (and Hi mum!), Peo
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Per-Olof Karlsson wrote:
only exists in some dream world.
For playing vinyls I currently use a REGA P25 turntable (approx $1000) with standard RB600 arm and a Rega Super Elys pickup (which I highly recommend btw - it's a bargain!!). Total cost is about $1200 second-hand.
See, this is what I mean - equipment that most people can't or won't afford to buy.
in my days. The only critizism I have about it really, is that most CDs sound..boring. There's no "life" in them, even though I can't find anything particular to complain about, it doesn't provoke my feet to move, y'know?
No, I don't know. Are you sure it's not just the memories of your youth that you associate with the record player?
Moving on to the Rega turntable, which is less than 1/3 of the cost, the first thing you notice is more AIR, and more rock'n'roll!. Recordings sound much more "real", and the sounds float around in the room very "matter-of-factly". Gone is the "controlled" sound and hello to the "live" feeling.
See, you're moving into the whacky, poorly defined subjective terminology that audiophiles always seem to use to justify their religion. What is "AIR"? What is "real"? I say that CDs sound more real because there is little air involved - at least with electronic instruments no acoustic pickups are needed, cutting that troublesome and distorting air out of the picture all the way until your speakers. I also like it when music is mastered direct to CD because it eliminates the annoyances that come with live performances - environmental noise, crowd noise, and mistakes.
Express" .. On vinyl it's a big pounding disco-bitch of a record, whereas on CD it's a cold and dull synth thingie that mostly sounds "cute". The difference is so overwhelming that it's silly, especially on side 2, the TEE song itself.
I find this hard to believe, and I lack access to the equipment to test it. What we need is to hook a good spectrum analyser up to a vinyl system and a digital system and see which one more accurately reproduces the sound from the studio.
Did you never ask yourself why DJs play vinyl and not CDs?
I know the answer to that. Because vinyl is far easier to scratch and beat-match. But that will change eventually. Actually I know a DJ who is working on hardware and software to make it even easier to do DJ tricks with MP3 files than it is with vinyl records.
And as we all know, music WAS better before, right? *grin* Before what? I don't think it could have been better before Kraftwerk. :) I meant before now :)
Well, I guess that would be true since all Kraftwerk music was released before now. :)
No matter how sophisticated your equipment and recording techniques are, it is impossible to perfectly reproduce an analog signal by using digital approximations. A sound wave is a coherent signal, whereas a digital sample is an approximation of this wave.
Very true! But analog recording systems are also unable to exactly reproduce analog sound because every step of the process introduces a distortion of some kind. I really think that digital instruments fed directly to digital recording devices are the more promising technology, and can offer better approximations.
the major reason why so many people think of vinyl as "more alive" and "less artificial", because from analog sources timing is never an issue (there is no clock, just a signal). I'm sure somebody with better knowledge in digital electronics can explain this much better than I can..
Digital clocks are highly accurate - to better accuracy than humans can detect. I can't imagine the source of the problem you're referring to, since everything in a digital system should be driven by a crystal oscillator, and all lags in the system should be constant. There is also at least one source of timing problems in a vinyl system: The motor. No electric motor keeps its speed perfectly. A feedback system is used to verify its speed and make adjustments as needed. Can't you hear that happening?
This isn't true. Lots of musicians use analog mastering, and in fact I've heard that some people have abandoned digital equipment completely, *recently*.
Luddites! :)
But, let me say that hearing any of the older albums (KW1, Autobahn, Radio-Activity, TEE) on a good tube amp and a nice vinyl player.. Now, that's Kraftwerk!!!
Um, those songs don't exactly push any system to its limits. In fact, I'd say that they contain mainly sounds that a cheap analog system is capable of reproducing reasonably well.
Damn right Oh Jay! But, this is not true for good equipment. A good vinyl player usually sounds clearer than a CD does,
Heh. "Good". Expensive. Whereas a typical CD player sounds better than a typical vinyl system. If I had money to spend on a stereo system, the first think I'd buy would be good *speakers*; they're what really makes a difference. Actually, good earphones are even better; less air between the wire and the ear.
but it does so in a more "natural" way, e.g. not so aggressively.
What does that mean? -- /* Soleil */
In reply to Soleil:
Total cost is about $1200 second-hand.
See, this is what I mean - equipment that most people can't or won't afford to buy.
I think it's a bargain. Hell, people can get a car for $20K without having being disturbed by that, but they can't spend $2K on a hifi setup.. I've spent perhaps $16K on my stereo stuff, and I think it's worth every penny since I enjoy it for hours every day, and it seriously enrichens my life.
in my days. The only critizism I have about it really, is that most CDs sound..boring. There's no "life" in them, even though I can't find anything particular to complain about, it doesn't provoke my feet to move, y'know?
No, I don't know. Are you sure it's not just the memories of your youth that you associate with the record player?
In my youth I had a really crappy record player, so no, that's not it :) High-end hifi is something I've learned in the last few years only.
See, you're moving into the whacky, poorly defined subjective terminology that audiophiles always seem to use to justify their religion.
I have no need for justifying - I'm just trying to explain :)
What is "AIR"? What is "real"? I say that CDs sound more real because there is little air involved - at least with electronic instruments no acoustic pickups are needed, cutting that troublesome and distorting air out of the picture all the way until your speakers.
"Air" in a recording means that the sound is not "boxy", e.g. you can't actually hear that the sound comes from a pair of speakers. It's flowing naturally from the virtual stage to your ears. A good hifi setup produces a soundstage which is more or less seamless. This is what people mean when they claim "the speakers disappear". Air is also sound. You can't cut off the air or you wouldn't hear a thing :) That's what's coming out from your speakers - modulated airwaves.
I also like it when music is mastered direct to CD because it eliminates
the annoyances that come with live performances - environmental noise, crowd noise, and mistakes.
Aww, you've missed the whole point of live music! Ambience!
Express" .. On vinyl it's a big pounding disco-bitch of a record, whereas on CD it's a cold and dull synth thingie that mostly sounds "cute". The difference is so overwhelming that it's silly, especially on side 2, the TEE song itself.
I find this hard to believe, and I lack access to the equipment to test it. What we need is to hook a good spectrum analyser up to a vinyl system and a digital system and see which one more accurately reproduces the sound from the studio.
I've never been a fan of measurements. I find them totally irrelevant actually. You know, it's quite simple to produce for instance an amplifier that measures virtually perfectly but sounds totally awful. I've seen fantastic equipment measure anything from average to downright awful, and I've seen lousy stuff measuring great. The reverse is also true of course - some measurements seem to back up the subjective listening tests, but far from all. Personally I'm only interested in what I hear, not if I have a harmonic distorsion of 0.012% or not :)
Did you never ask yourself why DJs play vinyl and not CDs?
I know the answer to that. Because vinyl is far easier to scratch and beat-match. But that will change eventually. Actually I know a DJ who is working on hardware and software to make it even easier to do DJ tricks with MP3 files than it is with vinyl records.
Yes, I know, and you're right about mixing and scratching - I was just teasing you slightly ;) I don't think that digital mixing stuff will replace it though. It's just a hunch I've got.
No matter how sophisticated your equipment and recording techniques are, it is impossible to perfectly reproduce an analog signal by using digital approximations. A sound wave is a coherent signal, whereas a digital sample is an approximation of this wave.
Very true! But analog recording systems are also unable to exactly reproduce analog sound because every step of the process introduces a distortion of some kind. I really think that digital instruments fed directly to digital recording devices are the more promising technology, and can offer better approximations.
Analog recording equipment do not sample the source, they record it as a coherent sound stream. As you're saying, some distortion is inevitable, but with today's equipment that's not really an issue. But I hear you, digital stuff has its moments, as an option - not as a replacement.
Digital clocks are highly accurate - to better accuracy than humans can detect. I can't imagine the source of the problem you're referring to, since everything in a digital system should be driven by a crystal oscillator, and all lags in the system should be constant.
In theory yes, but not in practice. If all clocks were running perfectly there wouldn't be much of a market for CD-players and DAC upgrades :) Most of the sound improvement comes from jitter reduction.
There is also at least one source of timing problems in a vinyl system: The motor. No electric motor keeps its speed perfectly. A feedback system is used to verify its speed and make adjustments as needed. Can't you hear that happening?
Yes, that is correct. The difference is that it's running at a fixed RPM so any delays are constant. Jitter tends to be totally random. As you're also saying, a motor can be tuned!
This isn't true. Lots of musicians use analog mastering, and in fact I've heard that some people have abandoned digital equipment completely, *recently*.
Luddites! :)
Perhaps ;) I'm a technocrat most of the time, but when it comes to audio and whether I should listen to what the humongous Japanese megacorporations want me to listen to or not however, I'm not. I don't think that things have evolved at all in the audio media markets. Sure, the CDs are very easy to use and durable and all that, but that's about the only good points. But well, I've seen many CDs that don't last more than 10 years before they become unplayable (and they were not mistreated in any way), so the longevity of them seem to be quite questionable. I've got lots of vinyl from the 50s and 60s and they play just great even today.
But, let me say that hearing any of the older albums (KW1, Autobahn, Radio-Activity, TEE) on a good tube amp and a nice vinyl player.. Now, that's Kraftwerk!!!
Um, those songs don't exactly push any system to its limits. In fact, I'd say that they contain mainly sounds that a cheap analog system is capable of reproducing reasonably well.
Hell yes they do! In general, the simpler a sound appears to be, the harder it is to reproduce. Try encoding Kraftwerk in VBR MP3 for instance - it'll use a LOT of bitrate even for the simplest songs.. The early records are great demo records actually, since they contain a lot of purely analog sound, and a few number of tracks in the recording. "Kristallo" and "Ruckzuck" are two big favorites when testing hifi - they're both quite tricky. I tend to go for "Radioactivity" to check the goosebump factor though, and "TEE" for the beat-check ;)
Damn right Oh Jay! But, this is not true for good equipment. A good vinyl player usually sounds clearer than a CD does,
Heh. "Good". Expensive. Whereas a typical CD player sounds better than a typical vinyl system. If I had money to spend on a stereo system, the first think I'd buy would be good *speakers*; they're what really makes a difference. Actually, good earphones are even better; less air between the wire and the ear.
Again, air is GOOD. When shopping for a system, I always start with the speakers as you suggest. When I find a speaker I like, I try to find a matching amplifier. When I do that, I'll find a speaker cable that works with them both. Then it's time to get to the source, be it analog or digital. I was taught that it's the best way to go about it, and it's worked great for me so far. In any case, in a system where you spend about the same amounts on speakers, amp and source, the source is usually where it helps to put more money in. There are many many good speakers and amps, even for little money, but much more care has to go into the selection of a cd-player or a record player. I've built wonderful packages with $500 speakers and amps and $1000 cd-players, for instance, that would absolutely kill an equally priced system with the budget reversed. But the one advice is: LISTEN :)
but it does so in a more "natural" way, e.g. not so aggressively.
What does that mean?
This is pretty hard to explain. A natural sounding system in my book, is a system where I can sit down and listen to something, and I'm not realizing I'm listening to a recording. It's those times where you just forget all about it and find yourself deeply immerged into the performance. An aggressive system, or artificial, may sound great, but it doesn't sound natural. I mean that, sure, it may be exquisitely clear and blah blah but I can immediately hear that it's a recording I'm listening to. It's not presented to my ears as a live performance in front of me, but rather music coming from a pair of speakers. The difference is huge, really. To know what I mean, find someone who plays the guitar. Listen to him/her playing some song in front of you. At the same time, record that to tape. When you hear the tape afterwards, the tape sounds different than the actual live performance did, didn't it? That's what I'm talking about. Cheers, Peo
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Per-Olof Karlsson wrote:
A good hifi setup produces a soundstage which is more or less seamless. This is what people mean when they claim "the speakers disappear".
I've never thought of it that way before. An interesting way of viewing things - the speakers are like a portal between a stage in the past and your room in the present, through which sound travels. Neat, but I wouldn't consider it a useful analogy for other than recorded "live" performances.
I also like it when music is mastered direct to CD because it eliminates the annoyances that come with live performances - environmental noise, crowd noise, and mistakes.
Aww, you've missed the whole point of live music! Ambience!
I don't like live music. Mainly because it introduces imperfections in the music due to local environmental factors, and it prevents covering up mistakes by the musicians; live implies imperfect music.
I find this hard to believe, and I lack access to the equipment to test it. What we need is to hook a good spectrum analyser up to a vinyl system and a digital system and see which one more accurately reproduces the sound from the studio.
I've never been a fan of measurements. I find them totally irrelevant actually. You know, it's quite simple to produce for instance an amplifier that measures virtually perfectly but sounds totally awful.
Well, that pretty much puts an end to the debate then. You're being totally subjective, which means that what sounds good to you sounds good to you, but doesn't necessarily sound good to others. To be fair, I and everyone else also have these subjective opinions. But a real judgement on the relative merits of CD versus vinyl, or more generally analog versus digital, can only be made using measuring equipment, which doesn't have opinions of its own. I still think that CDs produce the better sound. More generally, I think that CD technology has brought a vast improvement in sound quality over vinyl to the general (ie, non-audiophile but still caring) population.
Personally I'm only interested in what I hear, not if I have a harmonic distorsion of 0.012% or not :)
Same here, until someone starts saying vinyl is better than CD, or analog is better than digital. Then scientific comparisons must be made.
I don't think that digital mixing stuff will replace it though. It's just a hunch I've got.
You may be right, but if so I'll bet it's because of traditionalist feelings held by many DJs.
Digital clocks are highly accurate - to better accuracy than humans can detect. I can't imagine the source of the problem you're referring to, since everything in a digital system should be driven by a crystal oscillator, and all lags in the system should be constant.
In theory yes, but not in practice. If all clocks were running perfectly there wouldn't be much of a market for CD-players and DAC upgrades :) Most of the sound improvement comes from jitter reduction.
There is no market for player and DAC upgrades, so far as I'm aware. I've never heard of anyone selling anything like that. If there is such a market, it must exist to take advantage of those who are easily deluded into hearing things. I approve of milking suckers. :)
There is also at least one source of timing problems in a vinyl system: The motor. No electric motor keeps its speed perfectly. A feedback system is used to verify its speed and make adjustments as needed. Can't you hear that happening?
Yes, that is correct. The difference is that it's running at a fixed RPM so any delays are constant.
My point was that it's NOT running at a fixed RPM. It's always making little adjustments.
Jitter tends to be totally random. As you're also saying, a motor can be tuned!
You know, I've never heard this jitter thing. I've played regular audio CDs as well as different types of CDRs on different players, and I've never heard anything that could be described as jitter. What does it sound like?
well, I've seen many CDs that don't last more than 10 years before they become unplayable (and they were not mistreated in any way),
Unplayable how? I've seen CDRs degrade over time due to their chemical nature, but silver mass-produced audio CDs have actual holes in their media layer that should last more than a few decades.
so the longevity of them seem to be quite questionable. I've got lots of vinyl from the 50s and 60s and they play just great even today.
I've been very disappointed with my vinyl losing its high frequencies due to physical contact with the needle and the sleeve, and due to the impossibility of eliminating all dust. It creates a reluctance to play them, due to a desire to preserve them.
Um, those songs don't exactly push any system to its limits. In fact, I'd say that they contain mainly sounds that a cheap analog system is capable of reproducing reasonably well.
Hell yes they do! In general, the simpler a sound appears to be, the harder it is to reproduce.
Nonsense. Well, depending on what you mean by simple. I take that to mean lacking high frequencies, which early KW appears to.
Try encoding Kraftwerk in VBR MP3 for instance - it'll use a LOT of bitrate even for the simplest songs..
No debate there; it takes a lot of bits to get decent sound from an MP3. More than the standard allows, in fact. That said, MP3 is by far the most convenient format yet. I've encoded my entire CD collection and bought a portable player so I can take my music to work and school with me. Music makes life worth living!
Heh. "Good". Expensive. Whereas a typical CD player sounds better than a typical vinyl system. If I had money to spend on a stereo system, the first think I'd buy would be good *speakers*; they're what really makes a difference. Actually, good earphones are even better; less air between the wire and the ear.
Again, air is GOOD.
I think I'm referring to a different kind of air than you. You mean acoustic properties of the environment, and I mean the stuff we breathe. If I could, I'd plug the speaker wires directly into my brain to avoid having the sound pass through imperfect speakers and air molecules. Let's make the music electronic all the way from instrument to audience! :)
but it does so in a more "natural" way, e.g. not so aggressively. What does that mean?
This is pretty hard to explain.
A natural sounding system in my book, is a system where I can sit down and listen to something, and I'm not realizing I'm listening to a recording. It's those times where you just forget all about it and find yourself deeply immerged into the performance.
An aggressive system, or artificial, may sound great, but it doesn't sound natural. I mean that, sure, it may be exquisitely clear and blah blah but I can immediately hear that it's a recording I'm listening to. It's not presented to my ears as a live performance in front of me, but rather music coming from a pair of speakers. The difference is huge, really.
Ah, I get you. I prefer the "aggressive" option. I consider "natural" in the sense of live performance to be a crude, imperfect approximation to a recording. Apparently you consider a recording to be a crude, imperfect approximation to a performance. Hi, other side of the fence! :) -- /* Soleil */
Soleil Lapierre wrote:
Same here, until someone starts saying vinyl is better than CD, or analog is better than digital. Then scientific comparisons must be made.
------------------ Maybe a good comparison of digital to analog is floury white bread compared to grains/wheat bread. All the vitamins and minerals are washed out in white bread and after 70 years, the crud adds 5 pounds to the walls of the intestinal system; not natural like the colon cleansing grains & fiber-loaded wheat bread. Maybe not so good a comparison...he he amir
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 webmaster@slystone.com wrote:
Maybe a good comparison of digital to analog is floury white bread compared to grains/wheat bread. All the vitamins and minerals are washed out in white bread and after 70 years, the crud adds 5 pounds to the walls of the intestinal system; not natural like the colon cleansing grains & fiber-loaded wheat bread. Maybe not so good a comparison...he he
Probably not - by that analogy, listening to vinyl would cause a massive permanent buildup of earwax. :) -- /* Soleil */
Soleil Lapierre wrote: What is "AIR"? What is "real"? I say that CDs sound more real because
there is little air involved - at least with electronic instruments no acoustic pickups are needed, cutting that troublesome and distorting air out of the picture all the way until your speakers.
------------- Dude, vocals and instruments depend on air for sound! :-) You're not going to win on this point. sound-->air--->analog recording captures whole wave-->good playback system-->air sound-->air--->digital recording crunches wave into "on and off" signals-->good playback system-->air On the plus side, CD's aren't destroyed by needles, and most human ears in the human marketplace can't tell the difference anyway. Except for us KW audiophiles, of course! amir
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 webmaster@slystone.com wrote:
What is "AIR"? What is "real"? I say that CDs sound more real because there is little air involved - at least with electronic instruments no acoustic pickups are needed, cutting that troublesome and distorting air out of the picture all the way until your speakers.
Dude, vocals and instruments depend on air for sound! :-)
Not electronic instruments, like the ones members of this list like to listen to. :)
sound-->air--->analog recording captures whole wave-->good playback system-->air
sound-->air--->digital recording crunches wave into "on and off" signals-->good playback system-->air
Yes. I'd like to remove the first instance of "air" from those flowcharts. The second, too, but that's even harder. -- /* Soleil */
Per-Olof Karlsson wrote:
You got it all right buddy :)
Music is analog, no matter how it was produced. The end result is sound, and sound is an analog phenomenon. No matter how sophisticated your equipment and recording techniques are, it is impossible to perfectly reproduce an analog signal by using digital approximations. A sound wave is a coherent signal, whereas a digital sample is an approximation of this wave. Even if you were to use 128 bits of resolution and a sample rate of 4GHz you wouldn't be able to reproduce it perfectly (although you'd be pretty goddamn close! ;)
Another thing that makes digital media a problem is that of timing, or what people tend to call "jitter". It's almost, if not totally, impossible to make a clock that is 100% accurate, and/or make the signals clock-accurate given distance and the timing deficiencies that occur when you transmit the digital signal through cables and such. This all leads to tiny timing problems that are very difficult to control, resulting in an output signal that is not properly synced. From my experience, this is the major reason why so many people think of vinyl as "more alive" and "less artificial", because from analog sources timing is never an issue (there is no clock, just a signal). I'm sure somebody with better knowledge in digital electronics can explain this much better than I can..
Besides, any music that is not played on purely digital instruments (e.g. "constructed" sounds) started their life as analog, since sound itself is analog ;)
-------------------- Interesting...the real world IS analog! This may mean that digital will always be inherently inferior to real, continuous sound waves! amir
First of all, I'm not an audiophile in any sense of the word. I happily listen to CD, vinyl or 128 kbps MP3 and I don't really hear any difference between any of them. For me, it's the music that counts, not minute variations in sound quality. When reading this debate, however, it strikes me as quite curious that Per-Olof, whose list of favourite records includes almost exclusively electronic stuff, should argue at such length about the importance of "the speakers disappearing" and "hearing the live performance". In the case of your favourite artists, there wouldn't be any music without speakers in the first place! So I don't really understand how you can argue that it sounds more "natural" or more "live", electronic music is artificial by definition and doesn't exist as live music (unless it comes from a pair of speakers)... Does your argument only concern acoustic music, music that can be played live on non-electronic instruments? If so, it probably makes some sense, but if not, it all seems a bit absurd to me. :) Erik
Erik Jälevik wrote:
When reading this debate, however, it strikes me as quite curious that Per-Olof, whose list of favourite records includes almost exclusively electronic stuff, should argue at such length about the importance of "the speakers disappearing" and "hearing the live performance". In the case of your favourite artists, there wouldn't be any music without speakers in the first place! So I don't really understand how you can argue that it sounds more "natural" or more "live", electronic music is artificial by definition and doesn't exist as live music (unless it comes from a pair of speakers)...
Does your argument only concern acoustic music, music that can be played live on non-electronic instruments? If so, it probably makes some sense, but if not, it all seems a bit absurd to me. :)
Not at all :) All music portray some form of soundstage to the listener, even if it's not intentional. There is a sense of "direction" and "spatiality" in any type of music, e.g. from which direction is a certain sound coming from, where is the singer located, and so on. That's what I'm talking about, and no, that is not limited to acoustic music - not at all! Certain electronic music loves a good soundstage. Kraftwerk is one, Nine Inch Nails is definitely another, Tangerine Dream yet another.. Most of them actually :) Granted, with acoustic music, especially live performances, the differences may be much easier to hear, but when you're accustomed to a great soundstage, you just can't live without it. Everything after that sounds "flat" and "dull" - much like your average MP3 file would. (The most noticeable affect of MP3 compression is just that - it totally kills the soundstaging and the sense of depth / space in the recording) Once again, this is the main difference between an "alive" recording and a "dead" one :) Cheers, Peo
----- Original Message ----- From: "Per-Olof Karlsson" <grovsnus72@hotmail.com>
All music portray some form of soundstage to the listener, even if it's not intentional. There is a sense of "direction" and "spatiality" in any type of music, e.g. from which direction is a certain sound coming from, where is the singer located, and so on.
Fair point I suppose. But surely that's more down to speaker placement and general features of the listening room rather than vinyl vs CD? (I might be wrong, I'm not knowledgeable about these things as I mentioned.)
Certain electronic music loves a good soundstage. Kraftwerk is one, Nine Inch Nails is definitely another, Tangerine Dream yet another.. Most of them actually :)
Yes, I agree, but my initial surprise was to do with how you were talking about speakers disappearing and natural sound which I think doesn't really make sense in the context of electronic music.
Granted, with acoustic music, especially live performances, the differences may be much easier to hear, but when you're accustomed to a great soundstage, you just can't live without it. Everything after that sounds "flat" and "dull" - much like your average MP3 file would.
Hmm, I'm not sure my musical experience would be sufficiently enriched by expensive hi-fi equipment to justify the cost of it. But then again, I've never had the chance to listen to my favourite music on some state of the art equipment. But nah, as long as there's some proper bass I'm happy. ;) I'd rather spend my money on music to be honest. Erik
Erik Jälevik wrote:
Fair point I suppose. But surely that's more down to speaker placement and general features of the listening room rather than vinyl vs CD? (I might be wrong, I'm not knowledgeable about these things as I mentioned.)
..but my initial surprise was to do with how you were talking about speakers disappearing and natural sound which I think doesn't really make sense in the context of electronic music.
Yes and no. Think of a boombox. When you listen to one of those you hear clearly that the sound is coming from the box. Those speakers do NOT disappear ;) When I'm talking about disappearing speakers, I mean that you hear the music projected from its virtual soundstage, and not from two speakers. Of course, speaker placement is very important here, but so is the source material. Once again, compressed digital audio is very useful here, since the compression tends to get rid of the depth of the recording, and therefore you get the feeling that you're listening to a pair of speakers as opposed to the music... I guess this is just hard to explain :)
Hmm, I'm not sure my musical experience would be sufficiently enriched by expensive hi-fi equipment to justify the cost of it. But then again, I've never had the chance to listen to my favourite music on some state of the art equipment. But nah, as long as there's some proper bass I'm happy. ;)
Hehe, as long as you're happy :) If you live in Stockholm or nearby perhaps we can meet some day and I'll play your ass off ;)
I'd rather spend my money on music to be honest.
Now that's a valid point which I fully respect. Problem with me is that I spend way too much on both... ;) Cheers, Peo
----- Original Message ----- From: "Per-Olof Karlsson" <grovsnus72@hotmail.com>
When I'm talking about disappearing speakers, I mean that you hear the music projected from its virtual soundstage, and not from two speakers. Of course, speaker placement is very important here, but so is the source material. Once again, compressed digital audio is very useful here, since the compression tends to get rid of the depth of the recording, and therefore you get the feeling that you're listening to a pair of speakers as opposed to the music...
I guess this is just hard to explain :)
I actually understand what you're saying now. It's the old "you shouldn't be able to tell where the speakers are" argument. Which I understand and which obviously applies to all music regardless of whether it's electronic or not. I still have a problem with "natural sound" though. ;) Anyway, it's just like someone pointed out earlier, it's all to do with subjective experience. Whatever works for each person, I suppose.
Hmm, I'm not sure my musical experience would be sufficiently enriched by expensive hi-fi equipment to justify the cost of it. But then again, I've never had the chance to listen to my favourite music on some state of the art equipment. But nah, as long as there's some proper bass I'm happy. ;)
Hehe, as long as you're happy :) If you live in Stockholm or nearby perhaps we can meet some day and I'll play your ass off ;)
Well, thanks for the invitation. The only problem is that I live in England (although Swedish by birth) so unfortunately I can't take you up on your offer. :) Erik
participants (7)
-
Electram -
Erik Jälevik -
Luca Dassi -
Oh Jay -
Per-Olof Karlsson -
Soleil Lapierre -
webmaster＠slystone.com