Lies about vinyl vs digital

[vmartell22]

On 7/4/2018 at 3:18 AM, 4est said:

If your vinyl rig was worse than digital in the 80s, it must have been pretty bad.

 

haha

 

Guess that was the case for many of us - just a kid then, was around and upon hearing CDs for the first time, music emerging out of digital silence, yes it was a big deal. And yes it was miles away from my vinyl system then. So yeah, I was one of those that could not wait to drop vinyl...  Might as well, I knew lot less then that I know now about taking care of vinyl, so guessing those records condition was not fantastic... now, well, analog system is way better... 

 

v

[vmartell22]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

Would 16/44 classical recordings from the 1980's have been brickwall limited?

 

In general no  - not from the 80s 90s or beyond - in general , might be exceptions.  That does not imply there are no bad sounding classical CDs, be it the master, the hall, the recording philosophy, etc...

 

v

[vmartell22]

4 hours ago, The_K-Man said:

 

Read my reply to Rexp.  And NO: the earlier the CD release, of any music style or genre, the less likely it was brickwall limited, not more.  

 

(sigh... so many misconceptions to sweep up around here!  I'ma have to let my boy Monte loose up in here pretty soon!)

 

 

hmm - well  - lemme explain my answer - I think we agree... true - the earliest CDs are more likely not to be brickwalled, classical or pop or anything - they might have had other issues, but not brickwalling.  

 

BUT 

 

As the late 90s and 2000s came, it was the pop CDs that got brickwalled, not the classical.  It is NOT ABOUT THE MUSIC STYLE. It's about the MARKET. Of course, anything can be brickwalled. But I am sure that if the classical market had the need to sound fantastic on FM radio or crappy earbuds,  the record companies would have forced brickwalling. It is just not needed, so it has not been done, in general,  of course might be exceptions, but I don't know them.

 

v

 

[vmartell22]

7 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Turns out most people don't want wide dynamic range music. It's a great idea and a high-fidelity ideal, but the truth is that people don't want to keep raising and lowering the volume of their playback to keep from blasting the family and neighbors on crescendos or to adequately hear the triple pianissimos.

 

yeah -  over at the TalkClassical forum, a couple of members were complaining about that:  they  turned it up for the ppp passages,  only to get blasted by the fff passages - some where actually asking on how to brickwall -  REALLY.  My advice to them was,  go to the loudest section, set it at a comfortable level or a bit higher if you wanna rock and leave it there. Let the ppp be ppp - I mean, if you are in the hall, those passages will be quiet... let them be...

 

noobs

 

v

[vmartell22]

21 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Interesting ... I tend to run a system on the maximum level it can comfortably handle - if competent, the quiet passages work exactly as intended; and the crescendos just do what they're intended to do - provide some exclamation marks(!!!) to the moment. Raising and lowering the volume while playing ... what a strange concept ...

 

YES - my point in my reply above.  If you are sitting, let's say, in the back of the orchestra section, those pianissimo passages will be quiet - otherwise the composer would have marked it forte.

 

It reminds me some forums I read somewhere (I wish I could remember so I could link it) where someone wrote about how he corrected the Culshaw/Parry recording of Solti's Ring, by tweaking the EQ  OF THE RECORDING using plugins... he went on and on about Culshaw and Parry's "mistakes"... really

Guess is the same thinking that makes the people described above wanting to brickwall... missing the point

 

v