|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2014 16:09:07 GMT -5
But if they wanted to, couldn't they record those instruments at max volume and then in the mastering stage adjust the volume? Same as when they release a classic album digitally, they aren't rerecording it, they're remastering it to be suitable for digital, but at the time that music was recorded they weren't recording at max volume, so obviously it can be done. It just isn't being done at the moment.
Yeah, a lot of new music will never have that fidelity though, because it's being recorded specifically for digital. I think as digital advances there will be an audiophile renaissance and they will have digital equipment and recordings that can meet and exceed analog, for a fraction of the price. Look at what's happened with televisions. What's happened to the average screen size, the average resolution, and the average price of a TV? It's the golden age as far as home televisions are concerned. I just think audio has to catch up. Not that modern electronic music is helping matters, but all things come full circle and before you know it rock (or something similar to rock) will be the new pop top 40. People playing actual instruments.
|
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456 
|
Post by ironchimp on May 30, 2014 16:50:39 GMT -5
The way I understand it, the loss of dynamics comes from how you have to record to digital. Like digital images, digital sound is made up of, essentially, pixels. So just like how the more pixels a camera can capture the nicer a picture will look (i.e. less pixely), you have to record as loud as possible, without clipping, to emulate a smoother sound wave. You'll visibly see this in Soundcloud, for instance, where you'll notice that 99% of the song played will have a sound wave that consistently hits the top and bottom. Anything not recorded at max volume will have that pixelated, metallic sound. Compression isn't just for saving space, it's for evening out the sound wave to make it digital appropriate. So in essence all instruments you hear in new music, recorded digitally, is all actually at the same volume. Our minds make up the difference from the context of the song. If a song is supposed to sound "softer" it'll sound that way not because of a decrease in volume but in our minds reading the context that the song shifted in tone. What this means then is that if you want to hear everything that was intended of a classical piece, jazz song or a pick floyd track, you'll probably want to listen to it on vinyl. Newer music doesn't matter as much since typically it's recorded digitally and at what is now being called "loud". "loud" today refers to compression in the audible spectrum, making music as loud as possible at the expense of compression in the audible dynamic range. It was an old trick Public Enemy used to make their music sound louder than anyone else's on the radio. It's not the medium, or the equipment but a type of post production. |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on May 30, 2014 16:57:05 GMT -5
Color me skeptical, because that hasn't been my experience at all. When people make such claims, I want to recommend a good ear doctor to them. I'll take the crisp, clear sound of a CD over the pops, clicks and hisses of vinyl every time. Ah well, to each their own. (Incidentally, I agree with jez about the album art but that's packaging, not sound quality.) Cei-U! I summon the different drummer... on digital! It's the range of high and low frequencies analog can deliver that digital could also deliver, but currently doesn't because they prefer saving file space to fit more songs on a CD. So they're mastered to have less range. Like I said, it would take a higher end stereo to actually deliver the range found in analog anyway, so if all you have is a mid to low end stereo, the highs and lows of analog won't exist anyway. Eventually, when physical media is a memory and everyone has ultra fast and cheap internet and our MP3 players all have 500gb worth of memory, digital will probably deliver audiophile quality sounds. They have the capability to do it now, but every song would be like 2gb. a record i think can reproduce up to 40khz, a cd up to 20khz but most adults can only hear up to 14khz so you arent missing anything |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,701
|
Post by shaxper on May 30, 2014 19:26:03 GMT -5
When I listen to a cleaned, well preserved vinyl recording instead of a CD, the difference varies depending upon the quality of the original recording. Some music is either so digitized or so poorly mastered that vinyl makes absolutely no difference. When an album is recorded and mastered well, though, and the vinyl is well preserved, the difference comes down to warmth. There's a soft rounded edge to the music that a CD doesn't quite capture. I suspect it comes down to the minute gaps between digits in the digital recording whereas analog is a continuous stream of information.
Whatever the case, if you gave me a blind listening test, and the record and needle were fresh enough that there wasn't even any crackling, I could tell the difference on a rich enough original recording.
Do I neee vinyl in my life? Absolutely not. Certainly not in the way that I need floppy comics. But they set an atmosphere and create a true listening experience. Sometimes I think their very inconvenience is part of the charm. They take center stage rather than being a randomized playlist of streaming MP3s that are white noise in the peripheral background. Maybe I need to get me a Reel-to-Reel player...
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on May 30, 2014 22:25:09 GMT -5
What I don't get is the DVD/Blu Ray combo. Why would you want that? Either you want the Blu Ray or you want the DVD, right? I think this was to prevent the inventory problems from early video days when stores had to carry every movie in both formats. And I imagine if a movie is available in a store as separate DVD and blu-ray, half the people end up brining home the wrong one. |
|
|
|
Post by ghastly55 on Sept 28, 2014 16:08:32 GMT -5
what does this do to the back issue market? Golden Age comics are rare enough that anyone looking to unload a collection is probably still going to get a decent price, even if they're in a hurry and not particularly in the know. But Silver Age collectors are now approaching their sixties. Within the next decade, we're going to start seeing a significant number of collections liquidated by inheritors, and those books are far less scarce. Will a high frequency of hastily sold large collections damage back issue demand and value, or can we be confident that the bulk of silver age books are in the hands of dealers and younger collectors, thus preventing the market from being flooded? I think that right now, the value of Silver Age comics is highly inflated and must inevitably come down. The only reason they're not is because comic dealers don't want to have to report drastic price declines and have them reflected in Overstreet. Think about why Silver Age comics became collectible in the first place -- because the idea of saving a comic book in excellent condition for its future investment value didn't really occur to many people until the Silver Age was virtually over. I still recall in 1969 asking my father to buy me a second hand copy of FF#1 from Robert Bell, and him bellowing "I'm not paying twenty dollars for a $%##@$^ comic book!!!" Well now the stories in virtually ever Marvel Silver Age comic -- and many of the best-remembered DC Silver Age comic -- have been reprinted in high-quality hardcovers that can be displayed on real bookshelves instead of stashed away in longboxes. Would you rather have the first 10 issues of Spider-Man available for reading in a $60 hardcover without the ads, or have to pay $20,000 for them in high-grade, sealed copies where the paper is beginning to yellow anyway? I know the real answer is that we'd all prefer to own the original comics. But we don't want to have paid twenty grand for them. Golden Age comics will also degrade in value, but for different reasons. "Key" books will always be the exception. Owning a piece of history like Action #1 or Detective #27 goes beyond simply wanting to read the lukewarm stories therein. But there is no reason on the Spaghetti Monster's green earth that Fantastic Four #56 should be worth $30 (as a current eBay seller has it). |
|
|
|
Post by ghastly55 on Sept 28, 2014 16:19:31 GMT -5
Rob Allen and I have an informal understanding that whichever one goes first leaves his comics to the other. If there's a lot of that going on in the collector community then the appearance of our generation's hoards on the open market may not be a foregone conclusion. And then comes the proliferation of headlines along the lines of...Obsessed comic collector plotted demise of friend to acquire comic stash! Details at 11....  Has anyone else out there seen a great film from about a decade ago called Comic Book Villains??? It stars Donal Logue and a few other character actors you all might recognize, and it's about a small town supporting two comic shops -- one the cool but cluttered shop owned by a "true fan" where all the collectors congregate every week to argue about whether Hulk or Thor is strongest, and the other a recently-opened immaculate, sparkling shop run by a husband-and-wife trying to profit on whatever they can. The most well-known comic collecting hermit in town -- who still lives in his mother's basement at the age of 52 -- suddenly dies, and competition between the two shops to buy the dude's priceless collection from his aged mother. Very well written, very funny and sometimes touching, it has to have been written by someone with a deep knowledge of the hobby. The scene where boxes full of Golden Age DCs go up in flames will make you sob. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2014 17:22:36 GMT -5
I had this discussion with friends before . That there seems to be a lot of people dying off or selling collection . I often wonder about old comics and would the younger generation of collectors even be interest in the golden or silver age stuff. And would values reflect this . I have enjoyed collecting over the years and realize that a lot of stuff I have bought in last five years may not make a decent return . I am pondering weather or not to get rid of my 5500 plus collection . I think if I could get close to cover value or 75 cents a issue average I would move than likely let it go . With the new generation being so digital and trays or essentials having all stories in one book . A hell of a lot easier to store .
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2014 19:01:27 GMT -5
And then comes the proliferation of headlines along the lines of...Obsessed comic collector plotted demise of friend to acquire comic stash! Details at 11.... Has anyone else out there seen a great film from about a decade ago called Comic Book Villains??? It stars Donal Logue and a few other character actors you all might recognize, and it's about a small town supporting two comic shops -- one the cool but cluttered shop owned by a "true fan" where all the collectors congregate every week to argue about whether Hulk or Thor is strongest, and the other a recently-opened immaculate, sparkling shop run by a husband-and-wife trying to profit on whatever they can. The most well-known comic collecting hermit in town -- who still lives in his mother's basement at the age of 52 -- suddenly dies, and competition between the two shops to buy the dude's priceless collection from his aged mother. Very well written, very funny and sometimes touching, it has to have been written by someone with a deep knowledge of the hobby. The scene where boxes full of Golden Age DCs go up in flames will make you sob. Yeah, that had Michael Rapaport in it as well, who has been in a couple movies that could relate to comic books now. I really liked that movie, and I think is the initial spark that made me decide I'll rent whatever low budget straight to DVD movie he's in. Haven't been disappointed yet. My favorite so far was Live Free Or Die. A hilarious, awesome movie that I'm very glad I discovered on Netflix. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,701
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 14, 2014 23:20:45 GMT -5
Golden Age comics will also degrade in value, but for different reasons. I would disagree with this. While there are many many copies of most Silver Age comics still out there in private and dealer collections, most Golden Age comics are downright scarce for a variety of reasons: 1. Many comics were lost to the recycling effort during WWII 2. Many more comics went overseas with the troops and never came back 3. Unlike the Silver Age, there was no fandom surrounding comic books. There was also no continuity. Thus, little to no reason for someone to save a Golden Age comic. 4. We had about ten years after the Golden Age in which superhero comics fell completely out of popularity, so the few loyal fans collecting these stories back in the 1940s would have had less objection to mom tossing them out in the trash one day. Now the Batman and Superman books, there are likely a lot of copies of those still out there, but you just try assembling a full run of More Fun Comics, even with an unlimited amount of cash to spend. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2014 1:40:52 GMT -5
I don't mean to derail the thread and this subject probably deserves it's own thread elsewhere.... But I have recorded 40 vinyl releases and around 15 CD releases and as much as I love records....unless you have the really expensive sound systems going which are unavailable to most people there is no real difference either way. People who make records either really love vinyl (like me) or bands that can sell 1000 or more copies or less if they add in some sort of 90s esque gimmick. CDs are still cool because they allow you to not only own a physical copy but you can also easily rip it onto your computer or mp3 player or whatever else. Both formats have their advantages.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Nov 15, 2014 7:44:47 GMT -5
I just don't get that people can't hear a difference between MP3s, CDs, LPs and higher resolution digital audio files. I think it is many people are just not real discerning listeners as to me listening to the different formats it is as obvious as the comparison to video formats.
I think the popularity of vinyl now is more to want to have a relationship with a physical object to go with the music. CDs are a format of convenience. I think the convenience of the MP3 and CD have really devalued music as a physical product. Vinyl is a market reaction to listeners wanting a higher level of aesthetics in presentation. I think that is as big an element as the sonic advantages.
Vinyl does have one other element that 'floppy' comics have in that it is in rare cases the only way you can get the music or story. It's not in print in a current format or available except in a digital bootleg method. In this situation, even CDs, tapes and other types of media start to get market value too.
At least at the local/regional level from playing quite a few punk and metal shows, I don't see that many bands selling that many CDs. Vinyl will actually sell, i've seen it at shows. CDs are more of a marketing tool, a way of handing out a business card to find listeners to go maybe check out a show or spreading the word.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2014 8:09:17 GMT -5
Earl, I agree with your comments about the physicality of vinyl being a key factor in regaining some of it's popularity. As a vinyl collecting punk and metal fan I'd love to grab a beer with you. But I think you are a little too quick to dismiss CDs as a format of merely convenience though. I have CDs from the late 80s that mean just as much to me nostalgically as any of my records do. A
As for the differences between LP/Records/MP3/high quality audio well I'll just say again that I have evaluated my own music and how it translated onto all of these formats for a long time now and while there is some difference I generally do find it to be fairly small. It's the same sort of difference you hear when you say play a song on your own record play and then take it over to your friend's house and play it on theirs. It's different sure but is it really better or worse? Very subjective. This is something we'll probably just never agree on.
This is anecdotal but I still see tons of punk and metal bands selling CDs. I will admit my vinyl releases sell better on the internet than the CDs do, but that is offset by the insane cheapness of producing CDs and people do still want them. The fact is TONS more people still have access to a CD player than a record player or even a cassette player (a format which is also making a small comeback).
And this is all coming from a guy who is a HUGE fan of vinyl and I still put it out when I can and regularly play my record collection (I have 5 different record players). It's the most fun format and simply the coolest. But the demise of CDs is premature. They aren't going anywhere for at least another decade.
Anyway I have argued this (in a friendly way) for years with people for years. The subject seems fairly evenly split between most fans and most bands that release stuff I talk to. The way to go seems to be hitting all of the formats.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,701
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 15, 2014 8:19:40 GMT -5
Earl, I agree with your comments about the physicality of vinyl being a key factor in regaining some of it's popularity. I think you are a little too quick to dismiss CDs as a format of merely convenience though. I have CDs from the late 80s that mean just as much to me nostalgically as any of my records do. I think earl's point, though, is that CDs have less significance to the current generation than they did to those of the past because CDs are no longer the default vehicle for music delivery. You go with mp3s for convenience or vinyl if you want an experience. CDs are an odd middle-road between the two that's neither as convenient as an mp3 nor as physically (and perhaps auditorily) gratifying an experience as vinyl. The difference isn't going to be apparent unless you're using a good analog stereo, a good turntable, a decent needle, a clean record, and a well mastered album. Thus, for those willing to put in the money and work, you CAN get a richer sound out of vinyl, but you don't get it just by buying a $50 turntable and some records from a yard sale. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2014 8:25:34 GMT -5
Earl, I agree with your comments about the physicality of vinyl being a key factor in regaining some of it's popularity. I think you are a little too quick to dismiss CDs as a format of merely convenience though. I have CDs from the late 80s that mean just as much to me nostalgically as any of my records do. I think earl's point, though, is that CDs have less significance to the current generation than they did to those of the past because CDs are no longer the default vehicle for music delivery. You go with mp3s for convenience or vinyl if you want an experience. CDs are an odd middle-road between the two that's neither as convenient as an mp3 nor as physically (and perhaps auditorily) gratifying an experience as vinyl. The difference isn't going to be apparent unless you're using a good analog stereo, a good turntable, a decent needle, a clean record, and a well mastered album. Thus, for those willing to put in the money and work, you CAN get a richer sound out of vinyl, but you don't get it just by buying a $50 turntable and some records from a yard sale. Just edited my post a bit, I do have access to 5 record players ranging from high end to portable crap players. The term I generally hear thrown around a lot is a "warmer" sound out of vinyl. Maybe I'm coming off as saying there is no difference. Again I love vinyl. I guess my point is that I find the differences to be pretty much inconsequential. |
|
