| xoxoxoBruce |
10-22-2015 03:42 AM |
You're cutting off your nose to spite your face, with your analog snobbery. I also prefer 70' and even some 60's and 50's music, but that's because it invokes some ... uh, interesting memories of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. :lol:
There are some absolute gems from every year since, to my ear, just a smaller selection. Shit, thousands of albums are issued every year and in all that music there has to be some I like, no matter how many whippersnappers I'm chasing off my lawn.
Speaking of ears, from the preferences you've stated in a bunch of threads , you're no kid. That means your ears have changed, even if you don't realize it, or vehemently deny it, they have... it's science. I've got very near a thousand vinyl albums, and listened to them on pretty high end equipment for a home stereo setup. Yes they were "warm" sounding, but a lot of that was because they weren't all that clear. Living near philly I've seen a shitload of those same albums played live, and most weren't all that clear at most venues. A few friends also had high end setups, but all different, and certain albums would sound better on certain stereos, depending on what frequencies were dominant in the mix, and what frequencies that stereo reproduced best. Vinyl is really a crap shoot.
I made hundreds of casstttes for the car, and there again different brands/types of tape worked better with certain albums and certain car stereos. I never met a prerecorded cassette I liked... never ever. But that's just personal.
I also have hundreds of CD's, many of them are albums I already owned, and quite a few of them are remastered. I love 'em for the convenience and the lack of degradation from repeated use, but the digital sound on new equipment is great. Yes, it doesn't have the "warmth" because it's clearer, and not muddy like many of the vinyl albums, you can actually pick out different instruments and how they play off each other. Like hearing bees instead of hive hum.
I agree the newer recordings are usually mixed and compressed so they don't have as much dynamic range. But how much dynamic range did the Beatles/Stones, Beach Boys, Zeppelin, Dead, Eagles, Brown, or ZZ Top need to do their thing. Maybe ELP, Floyd, Yes, or Heart were fuller, but most people listened on equipment that couldn't reproduce it anyway.
I suppose if your bag is opera, or orchestration you'd be looking for less compression and more dynamic range, but if the producers feel their recording should be mixed with more range, even cheap digital players will reproduce it better than 95% of analog players ever could.
Now my ears are shit, I think half of what I hear comes from the recording and half from memory.:rolleyes: But I'm absolutely certain digital reproduction of recorded music is superior to analog, with even cheap players giving most of what's recorded, and your dislike should be directed at the producers massaging the sound into a commercial product.
God damn, I miss our resident musician/recording engineer, I learned so much from him, and the whys to what I already knew. :(
|
