TOS wrote: i know, let's argue about it, shall we? that would be grand!
damn skippy
The Random Image Thread (keeping it PG-13 at the worst)
-
ukimalefu
- Posts: 44210
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 pm
- Title: want, but shouldn't, may anyway
- Location: Failed State
radarman wrote: [img]california/nevada%20pool[/img]
That's cool, but IMHO, California should be on the left, you know, like on a map. And if you take the picture from the other side of the pool, the text should be inverted.
ukimalefu wrote:DukeofNuke wrote: so much warmer!
And it still doesn't sound better because it's physically impossible for vinyl to match the frequency range and signal to noise ratio of digital.
But it's ok if you prefer it.
While most of the vinyl love is just curmudgeonly luttiteness, There is some historical basis for it. When CDs came along most albums were not remixed for digital so they sounded terrible compared to the vinyl version. A good example is how really terrible the first Pink Floyd and Led Zeplin CDs were.
Then not long after producers got used to mastering for digital the "loudness wars" began which has made most music worse than back in the day when skilled producers crafted skilled and beautiful mixes.
The death of vinyl coincided with the art of mixing going down the toilette.
A good digital mix will sound better than a good analogue mix but a bad digital mix sounds much worse than a good analogue mix and most digital mixes are terrible.
Not even duct tape will fix stupid, but it can muffle the sound.
Put it this way, the way your ear hears sound and the way vinyl plays back sound is more in the same phenomenal ballpark than digital. Vinyl is the only lossless analog recording just about anybody can grab. It has its limitations at the extremes, but in the early days of CDs, they started off on the wrong foot too, cymbals and high end was tinny and thin. Vinyl offers a very rich midtone if the grooves are wide enough. On paper, digital wins every category, but it just doesn't always come out that way. I don't think either is really "better" than the other, they both have strengths and weaknesses. But I also like the quirkiness of vinyl, with its noise levels and hiss and pop and occasional warble, it's collectibility, limited runs, colors, etc, the way the format divides the album into sides that you have to physically go over to the player to flip over. It's got character. Never felt like any digital file had anything close to that, vinyl is the only format I feel is worth paying money for. But, more often than not, admittedly, I'm listening to the free downloaded files that came with the record on my iPod.
Remember we're a minority and every one of us counts.
StaticAge wrote: Put it this way, the way your ear hears sound and the way vinyl plays back sound is more in the same phenomenal ballpark than digital. Vinyl is the only lossless analog recording just about anybody can grab. It has its limitations at the extremes, but in the early days of CDs, they started off on the wrong foot too, cymbals and high end was tinny and thin. Vinyl offers a very rich midtone if the grooves are wide enough. On paper, digital wins every category, but it just doesn't always come out that way. I don't think either is really "better" than the other, they both have strengths and weaknesses. But I also like the quirkiness of vinyl, with its noise levels and hiss and pop and occasional warble, it's collectibility, limited runs, colors, etc, the way the format divides the album into sides that you have to physically go over to the player to flip over. It's got character. Never felt like any digital file had anything close to that, vinyl is the only format I feel is worth paying money for. But, more often than not, admittedly, I'm listening to the free downloaded files that came with the record on my iPod.
Vinyl is better because it is worse. Got it.
I'm sorry, but as an actually-no-shit-trained musician who cares about musical performance, I want - no, NEED - a recording technology that accurately represents the original sound of the live performance, with every little detail. Vinyl is, at best, like listening to a concert through earmuffs.
And as soon as the needle hits the vinyl the second time, it's no longer "lossless" so don't even start that human waste.
-
Metacell
- Posts: 11131
- Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:58 am
- Title: Chocolate Brahma
- Location: Lidsville
- Contact:
I mainly liked vinyl because the whole product felt more substantial...the cover art, the liner notes and lyric sheet all felt more important. Usually more thought went into them. But it's all sort of a oldskool 25 minute serial vs. modern 45 minute episode argument, because ultimately it's the quality of the music that matters, and if I want extra warmth, I can always hook my stereo up to my Fender Hot Rod Deluxe.
Remember, people, to forgive is divine. In other words, it ain't human.
I actually said that I didn't think it was better. I've recorded music and played out and toured etc un-professionally, but enough to know my way around. All I got is an opinion. To me it's like saying that darkroom photography is worse than digital, it's aesthetics. Vinyl is more fun. Like I said, the only format that feels substantial to me enough to pay money to own is vinyl.
Remember we're a minority and every one of us counts.
-
DukeofNuke
- Posts: 33305
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:33 pm
- Title: FREE RADICAL
- Location: Scintillating!
-
Séamas
- Posts: 6905
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:32 pm
- Title: Honorary Consul General
- Location: Where am I?
TOS wrote: dammit, there goes my tip
Just got back from a dinner out where the waiter dropped two glasses of red wine on a nine month old baby.
Not as bad as that though.
And Proteus brought the upright beast into the garden and chained him to a tree and the children did make sport of him.
-
macaddict4life
- Posts: 4945
- Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:37 pm
- Location: Taichung City, Taiwan
- Contact:
ukimalefu wrote:radarman wrote: [img]california/nevada%20pool[/img]
That's cool, but IMHO, California should be on the left, you know, like on a map. And if you take the picture from the other side of the pool, the text should be inverted.
I believe that's the pool at the old CalNeva on the north side of Lake Tahoe. The pool actually does lie half in California and half in Nevada. The property has quite a history, and if you visit now you can tour the secret tunnels that various celebrities like Sinatra and Monroe used to enter and exit. Sadly the property has not been particularly well maintained, and the casino is particularly small and unimpressive now, but when I was there a few years ago they were in the process of remodeling the property. The lack of new construction in the Tahoe area, the difficulty of permits for new projects, and the ability to leverage the history of the CalNeva hopefully gives the property a chance.
Ernest
Remember folks, this is from the 70's. Expect some NSFW pictures in the gallery.
-
DukeofNuke
- Posts: 33305
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:33 pm
- Title: FREE RADICAL
- Location: Scintillating!
radarman wrote:
Remember folks, this is from the 70's. Expect some NSFW pictures in the gallery.
did not need ...
what VANS are for ...
intellectual/hipster/nihilist
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."
-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."
-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Note, image was produced in Minecraft.
TOS wrote:
I found this explanation (which has a linked YouTube video from Korean ESPN): this was a celebrity game at a South Korean ballpark. The hit-by-pitch was pre-arranged as was the hopping on one foot to simulate fighting.
There are some people who are claiming that this is how real Korean (or Japanese) ballplayers "get around" the rule for no fighting.