[sdiy] Nifty Slider/Fader alert

[Rude 66]

> >that is still the biggest misconception of vinyl ever. yes, a lot of old
> >vinyl sounds crappy. but if you have a decent turntable with needles, the
> >vinyl you buy today is of superior quality to the old pressings.
>
> Sure. And a DVD-A master created with the absolute top end gear -
including
> Pultec EQs, or whatever you want - will sound just as good, if not
> significantly better.
>

the point was vinyl quality. in the old days of mass volume pressings, a lot
of crap was pushed out. these days there seem to be 2 types of pressing
plants left: the real good ones and the real crappy ones. todays good vinyl
won't crackle or pop over the years when taken care of, or do it
significantly less.

to be honest, a crackle or pop never bothered me, only when it sounds like
there's an open fireplace in the background.

> >even though
> >they still use the old technology, they develop as well. today they have
> >crackle-free coloured vinyl, for example. if maintained well and played
with
> >decent needles, it should last a crackle-free lifetime.
> >
> >we've compared the masters on our vynalogica label with the vinyl
release.
> >the cd was cut to vinyl with a neumann machine, pultec eq's, etc. the
vinyl
> >sounds much better, warmer and fuller than the original cd master.. in
the
> >right hands this equipment can really make a difference.
>
> Yes, but that's using vinyl as a special effect.
>
> Hell, if you like the sound so much why not cut to vinyl, record off that
> and use that as the CD master? ;)

>
> The bottom line is that analogue has a *sound.* A lot of people like it.
> *I* like it. But what it isn't is a neutral delivery medium, or one
without
> obvious deficiencies - timbral neutrality and dynamic range being two of
> the most obvious.

well, that's the crucial point in all this. everyone's holy grail is this
perfectly neutral sound or medium that with total clarity shows all places
in the stereo (or 5.1 or whatever) image, with unlimited dynamic range, etc.
the cd was one step, sacd is aonther.
but maybe the recording and production process is integral to the whole
process of making a track or a record. maybe things like analogue tape,
tubes, vinyl, and what not else offer a more pleasing interpretation of the
recorded piece than the piece itself. it's something i hate about surround:
it's not only often unnatural but to me it sounds tiring. i'm interested in
the whole final result, and i don't have to know where the 2nd violin player
was sitting in my sound image. it's a gimmick.
i feel too many people listen to marketingtalk about all this stuff being
'better'. sure digital audio has its advantages, i use it as well. it's
great to be able to cut and paste in the computer with audio, and that cd's
are so cheap to send compared to 12" vinyl...;-)

r./