Discussion in 'Pittsburgh Penguins' started by mrzeigler, Jun 26, 2018.
King Crimson has been around for 50 years and been 62 different bands in that time.
Also tons of people still record to tape, or use analog equipment and effects. And tons of “analog” records were made with solid state or digital equipment. CCR? Solid state amps. Same with T. Rex.
Oh, I saw them live last night. I meant to say they were pretty solid for such an old band.
Not tons...there’s a few...mostly older artists who used analog back in the day...Neil Young, Tom Petty before he died, Red Hot Chili Peppers and some of their members’ solo projects, Radiohead, Jack White of course...a few here and there but not otherwise....you have to be an artist with a little extra money on hand...I also believe anyone recording with Steve Albini would record to tape as he’s a big proponent
Lots of bands record analog.
That's awesome. Their current lineup has some weight behind it, I'm sure it would be fun to see. Tony Levin on bass, and I think Gavin Harrison is their drummer nowadays. He's amazingly underrated for his work in Porcupine Tree.
Tbf, there is a bit of a thing in music with bands lowering the Dynamic Range to sound loud and sounding crap. Very prevalent in Metal. I know very little about the ins and outs of it, but enough of its noticeable that I believe the people who talk about it.
I also have to agree with Andy that music has peaked in the past and will never get better, just he's wrong about which past as its early 90s Scandinavia
I probably should have clarified...what happens today is if you record in analog, the tapes are then transferred to digital files from which the albums are cut...so your vinyl record in many instances is pressed from a digital file...Page did this when he “digitally remastered” the LZ analog tapes...some people think it sounds great, but I hate it...it’s done to keep the cost of the new records down and it saves money since you can produce Mp3s and CDs from them...I’d rather buy a ‘70s LZ record or spend $300 on a classic records analog pressing of LZ II for example, then pay anything for vinyl pressed from a digital file..
Yes, but there are tons of others. John Dwyer, Ty Segall, hell, even Lady GaGa.
My understanding is that if those digital files are sampled at a high enough rate, then there is essentially no loss, but regardless, my question is....
Is this really enough to dismiss 20 years worth of music?
I have a degree in audio engineering. Appreciate the clarification though
Digital recording is so flawless these days the compression differences are not detectable by human ears.
I would assume this is when Jack White (who I'm a big fan of) and Neil Young (who's one of my all time favorites) would step in and say something about warmness.
I mean, it’s true and I understand the incentive of wanting to record analog, but the majority of it is just fans being pretentious.
@Andy99 I’m not implying you are in this camp at all.
Yeah, plus when people start talking about recording being all analog, despite things like those heavily sought-after Neve consoles used on all those recording sessions being transistor based.
I don’t work in the music industry anymore, but the situation is way more complex than that.
That said, I too would rather listen to a record than a streaming audio link, but the fact of the matter is, the method of delivery doesn’t mean much for the quality of the material in my book. It’s only my opinion, though so, if others prefer it another way, that’s no skin off my nose.
So 'warmness' comes from something that is undetectable by human ears? I can't comprehend this. (You don't have to try to explain either. I've read stuff about it before. Most of it I don't understand and I don't really care either. I'm much more interested in the music than the minor details of how it was recorded.)
As would I, but the difference between a record pressed from analog or digital? That's getting way too deep for me. I don't know. Maybe I haven't had the right experience with the right record on the right turntable with the right speakers to 'get' it.
Psychoacoustics plays a large part in it. If you think there’s a difference, your ears will try to find it, and often succeed, even when that difference isn’t there.
That’s not to say that you couldn’t legitimately hear differences between something analog and older digital technology though. But as for current stuff? Probably you won’t notice it in a blind A/B test.
Like I said, if you think you’ll hear a difference, most of the time you will. But I think a better marker of difference is just good mastering vs bad mastering. That’s going to make a bigger difference than where the vinyl master came from originally, IME.
The issue is the original file as pointed out above and by Andy.
Honestly, most pedals and effects are digital now too. So with the way music is now it is almost impossible to have a fully analog system.
Most of it, yes...but then again I’m old, curmudgeonly, and pretentious...I just hope when Sullivan, who’s my age, waxes lyrical for like the fifth time about his undying love for Billy Joel, he gets the same rejection on this Board that I get ...
That's only part of what he said. He also said that if that analog original is turned into a digital file and then pressed to vinyl, that that is not good enough for him.
I'm not rejecting what you do like. The vast majority of my favorite albums are from 1965-1975, give or take a year on either end. I just think you're missing out on a lot of great music for a reason that I can't quite understand.
What about taking a digital file, and remastering/re-recording it through analog equipment?
Reamping is an old old technique.
Also, Nebraska was recorded on a boom box and that’s undeniably the best Springsteen album.
What? Nah man, Born to Run....
Well, direct me to some music since 2000 you think I would enjoy with some great dynamics of sound...I’ve tried The Black Keys, Rival Sons, Royal Blood, King Gizzard, Tame Impala, NAA, GVF and a bunch of other rock bands...there’s been a few songs here and there I really like, but mostly disappointed with the albums consistently and I can’t get interested in them long term...the way I could listen to Zep endlessly, even bootlegs, or Steely Dan....I mean I could play Aja again for the 300th time and be more interested listening to it than any one band today...but I certainly don’t keep up with everything out there..
Post 2000, the only band I really like is Queens of the Stone Age, but I do not like their last album.
Separate names with a comma.