Quote Les (from the Island of Lesbos):

---

While we're talking Vinyl, I have a SUBERB old turntable made by a company called Goldring Lenco. It's 70's, with lovely wood body, tiny little weights for the tone arm and a fabulous sound.

trouble is, I cant find a cartridge for it

Any ideas anyone?

---

Dunno, but I'm sure someone on Lenco Heaven will!

Quote The real musiclover:

---

Quote Jon Dickinson:

---

As for vinyl being better than CD, I prefer to concentrate on the emotion of the music

---

I agree with that bit.

---

Music doesn't have emotion, people do. Music has 'intensity' - all other responses are due to learned references, as Eduard Hanslick said back in 1854.

Music gives an immediate emotional response. Not only that, the feelings it creates can last a lifetime. A sense of place, of smell, of time - it can all be triggered by listening to music. Perhaps, your love of Vinyl is derived from this emotional connection. The spinning endless slick crackling at 45 rpm, as you dream of loving the girl who never looks your way. No advancement in technology can take away the memory of your first love.

Rock on
Audiobuffer

The emotion that is subjectively conveyed by the music, perhaps?

steve you're a legend, thank you for the music and all that

is sound quality the only criteria that interests you wrt to vinyl over other mediums?

what i find really interesting about vinyl and also the continued use of analogue equipment throughout the music production process is how it interrupts the popular narrative that, as technology advances it improves

certainly for something like building an aircraft, advances in aerospace engineering are welcome and by and large contribute to safer, faster and more comfortable aircraft, something we all want and arguably is objectively an 'improvement'

that the move from analogue to digital recording technology and analogue to digital delivery formats arguably isn't an improvement is manifest of the inherent nature of the matter at hand; the appreciation of music and sound, and specifically the fact that that is subjective, non-quantitative and imbued with personal emotion and experience

fine artists, museums curators, art historians etc don't, as far as i know, dispute the general merits of oils over watercolours, it is understood they are different mediums with different qualities and that the focus is on what has been expressed and how the uniqueness of each medium has facilitated that

lurking beneath the differences between the example above and the music business is, just that, 'business'. a stagnated recording technology or format delivery market is unacceptable in economic terms, there can be no growth without innovation, and if corporations like to do anything it's grow!

so what fascinates me about vinyl (and old recoding equipment) is that it's fetishisation is no less than a political act in this global economy of unrestrained corporate growth, cynical engineered obsolescence and aggressive marketing and consumer bullying

recycling technology, stepping off the innovation timeline because you like things the way they are at a given point and denying the market it's supposed improvements regains a little of our autonomy, empowers the individual beyond the status of passive consumer and ultimately encourages a less monochrome cultural space, which ultimately is where music must belong

ymmv

jim

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com

Quote Jupiter_4:

---

You seem to suggest that all CD players sound the same (the inference taking from your cartridge change on your turntable), surely you cannot be suggesting that every CD player will make a CD sound exactly the same if played through the same amp and speakers?

---

Good point. Yes, I agree that CD players from different manufacturers and at different price points do sound slightly different -- and only the best are as tonally accurate as they should be. The variations are normally because corners have been cut in the analogue output circuitry. However, I would maintain that the sonic differences between a cheap £50 CD player and a reference grade model at £2000 are considerably smaller than the sonic differences between a cheap Fidelity record Player and a Linn Sondek or a Townsend -- which span a similar price range.

Quote:

---

The other problem is that D/A A/D converters and digital converters in digital desks do not all sound the same.

---

Again, I agree with you. The best quality stuff is always more accurate than the cheap budget gear. But again, I would suggest the differences are far smaller than between equivalent analogue equipment. A big Studer two-track machine sounds quite different to a cheap Akai machine -- even if both are set up optimally. A far bigger sonic difference than that between a budget and high end converter!

Digital gear, while not entirely perfect is still considerably more consistent than analogue recorders and replay machines ever were.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

.....No, I'm afraid not. By the eaerly 1990s we had already achieved all that was possible with analogue technology. The very best analogue tape machines were excellent, but huge, heavy, and extremely expensive.......

---

I would rather argue with my wife over the kitchen than you over any technical issue.

But I cant get my work, with my limited technical knowhow to sound as good with my limited digital setup as I could get it to sound, more quickly with an equally limited tape and desk setup of say fifteen years ago. No matter what I try. I cant get the thing to spring.

I transfered some tapes recently from an old R8 via an aw4416 for archiving. And we sat here grinning as the tapes were playing. And i cant find that sound. They sound lovely in the daw actually too.

Maybe I need to spend some more money on convertors or some other such thing.

I was dreaming maybe about the project 32 track tape machine. But it don't hurt to dream.

Quote mattneighbour:

---

A bit like tape compression and distortion making things sound good, and having to work harder with digital to get similar sounds.

---

Well, this was another thing I thought was interesting about Mr. Albini's comments in the interview . . . he said he does not like to use compression at all in his mixes. But we can talk of tape compression, and I assume also that music that is mastered to vinyl is run through compression/limiting to accomodate the smaller dynamic range that vinyl as capable of.

If I'm not mistaken, the venerable Fairchild 670 was originally built for just that . . . for mastering to disc. Otherwise, back in the earlier days they didn't typically use compressors to tape or on their mixes.

I guess that was going to be my next question for Mr. Albini.

--------------------
Scott
--Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

Quote ow:

---

is it true that vinyl/tape can provide a greater frequency range than a cd.

---

Kind of. CD specs say it can accommodate 5Hz to 20kHz, and with full amplitude at any frequency and a consistent signal-noise ratio.

A well set up and maintained analogue tape machine running at 15 ips will better that bandwidth slightly (maybe 25kHz), and at 30 ips it might reach 30kHz. However The bottom end won't go down as far, and certainly not as smoothly, and the signal-noise ratio gets significantly worse at higher frequencies. The overall dynamic range of analogue tape is also significantly worse than CD of course, unless you use Dolby SR on tape, but that opens a whole new argument...

The vinyl record is far more compromised. In theory you can cut high frequency signals to 40kHz or so, but only with very small amplitudes -- the headroom at HF is quite restricted. The amount of bass you can record is also heavily constrained by the effects of the RIAA recording curve, as well as considerations of playing time and tracking distortion. And as for dynamic range, let's not even bother thinking about how bad that is...

Digital recording at 24/96 is orders of magnitude better (in the strictly technical sense) than even the best tape recording.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote ow:

---

I would rather argue with my wife over the kitchen than you over any technical issue.

---

That's the nicest thing someone has said all day...

Quote:

---

But I cant get my work, with my limited technical knowhow to sound as good with my limited digital setup as I could get it to sound, more quickly with an equally limited tape and desk setup of say fifteen years ago.

---

That could be because your expectations are highier now and your listening is more critical. More likely to be because the digital medium exposes flaws and imperfections far more readily than analogue ever did.

Quote:

---

I transfered some tapes recently from an old R8 via an aw4416 for archiving. And we sat here grinning as the tapes were playing. And i cant find that sound. They sound lovely in the daw actually too.

---

Which proves the point that digital isn't 'bad' if it is used appropriately.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote jerry123:

---

I was under the impression that digital tape ran magnetic particles north-south to replace ones and zeros, and that analog tape actually lays down a constantly fluctuating field.

---

You are correct.

Quote:

---

Is Hugh saying that they are both using north south (digital representation) magnetic particles?

---

Yes. because that's all you can do with magnetic particles.

Quote:

---

If so, what is the real difference?

---

In a digital recording on magnetic tape, the particles in a given area of the tape are all magnetised to face the same direction. That part of tape is fully saturated either as N-S or S-N to represent the required binary 1 or 0.

In an analogue recording on magnetic tape some particles are aligned N-S while others are aligned S-N, and the relative numbers of each in a given area determine an overall level of magnetisation corresponding to the required anlogue signal level.

In effect, each magnetic particle corresponds to a single bit in a digital system. magnetic tape is, inherently, a digital medium and exhibits the same quantisation effects as digital audio systems. This is also the reason why very slow speeds or very narrow tracks in analogue tape recorders are inherently noisier than fast and wide tracks. Fewer magnetic particles -- fewer bits -- higher quantisation noise.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Just to clarify Hugh, I don;t mean "better" as in more technically accurate, but better as in "sounds better, more enjoyable" which vinyl is.

I don't think its possible to technically accurately reproduce the sound of a rock band, because, for example, if you are playing in such a band, as the guitarist, then your own guitar will be louder, walk over to the bass player and you'll hear him louder etc... plus, listen in different parts of the room and the sound changes. At a gig, the sound changes with (hopefully) a hall full of people and I have played both types of gigs.

Plus the close micing technique is not representative of the sound of guitar or drums a few feet away. So we eq and compress to try and get the sound back to sounding like that rock band, or at least make it sound good like it did in the room in front of the band.

When you listen to a loud band, your ears and brain apply a kind of psychoacoustic compression so at high volume, so things sound different again. So how do you define the accurate sound of a rock band???

Plus variations in the listeners room and system make accuracy impossible. However, I do prefer the sound of CD for classical.

But Highway to Hell DOES sound fantastic on vinyl!!!!

--------------------
Chaas
cJ na

Perhaps the real issue is the medium. For instance if I was a painter working in watercolour and thats how i learned and progressed then moving to oil on canvas is a whole new medium. Could be quite restrictive. Not in an experimental phase, but in a pour it out creative phase. I dont really want to just be 'someone who works on tape'. Want to embrace the flexibility of technology and have. Have given it five years to learn. I dont think the results are 'bad'. But maybe its just not me. Maybe the same for the listener. Nothing looks quite like bit of wedgewood.

Wish I could find a way to enjoy recording to a daw like i used to love recording to tape. I could lose days. Now I have to take my statutory half hour eye rest.

Went a bit off the subject there. Bear with me...

Goldring were as far as I recall a fairly common consumer brand, not that expensive. Unless the tone arm has been messed with there is no reason any modern cartridge should not fit.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Yeah but what this thread is all about is really an exciting male baboon contest for people to show how cool and quirky they are, versus how rational they are.

As usual though, Feline1 can trump ewes all cos he is soooooo cool that he doesn't even listen to *recorded* music any more, which is soooooooooo 20th century,
and instead keeps his own chamber ensemble under the stairs, feeding them on jaffa cakes and cocoa pops.
Don't worry though, they're all getting paid full MU rates.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote jellyjim:

---

steve you're a legend, thank you for the music and all that _snip_
so what fascinates me about vinyl (and old recoding equipment) is that it's fetishisation is no less than a political act in this global economy of unrestrained corporate growth, cynical engineered obsolescence and aggressive marketing and consumer bullying

recycling technology, stepping off the innovation timeline because you like things the way they are at a given point and denying the market it's supposed improvements regains a little of our autonomy, empowers the individual beyond the status of passive consumer and ultimately encourages a less monochrome cultural space, which ultimately is where music must belong

ymmv

jim

---

I agree with that absolutely- its rebelling against the modern corporate consumer capitalist culture- which is good, Rock n Roll should be about rebellion! and for the same reasons I like old cars- in many ways cars from the 1960's (or older) are better than modern cars. Not in every way are they better, but in many important ways. That also fits in with liking analogue and vinyl over digital/ CD.

--------------------
Chaas
cJ na

Quote Scottdru:

---

Quote mattneighbour:

---

A bit like tape compression and distortion making things sound good, and having to work harder with digital to get similar sounds.

---

Well, this was another thing I thought was interesting about Mr. Albini's comments in the interview . . . he said he does not like to use compression at all in his mixes. But we can talk of tape compression, and I assume also that music that is mastered to vinyl is run through compression/limiting to accomodate the smaller dynamic range that vinyl as capable of.

If I'm not mistaken, the venerable Fairchild 670 was originally built for just that . . . for mastering to disc. Otherwise, back in the earlier days they didn't typically use compressors to tape or on their mixes.

I guess that was going to be my next question for Mr. Albini.

---

maybe he just drives the meters well into the red when tracking (which you can't do in digital, it sounds horrible....)

--------------------
Chaas
cJ na

Quote feline1:

---

Yeah but what this thread is all about is really an exciting male baboon contest . . .

---

Kinda says it all, really.

--------------------
www.the-byre.com No longer Forum Member

And while Feline Dreams and The Byre go off into the distance, comparing the size of their organs (my A100 is bigger than your Roland!) have read of this:

http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_pa ge_id=37/

--------------------
www.the-byre.com No longer Forum Member

Vinyl is better than anything else.

No, looks like its just different to anything else.

Hello Steve and other proper format fans (vinyl)

I think the difference is like comparing a Green pepper from Tesco to one grown in your garden. One just should be eaten the other (from tesco) thrown at people who think CD's are better than vinyl.

Were compressors used as much on vinyl recordings as they are on digital recordings ?

I think music now is compressed so much that all the sounds are too squashed. Some how to get 'the' sound on digital formats you have to squash it to the point of losing a lot of the performance sound. I dont include Classical or Jazz music in with this I am talking about pop and rock.

QUOTE

"For instance my original copy of Highway to Hell (AC/DC) sounds superb, the drums at the start have so much more depth and air than anything I've ever heard from CD and the guitar riff, has real crunch, and when the vocals come in, phew...its like Bonn Scott is still alive and in the room."

QUOTE


The ACDC comment about Highway to hell is so bang on I just think that Vinyl sounds so good for Rock music. Pop junk is far more suited to CD because the zingy sound outways all of the talent. Shrink wrapped sound for a shrink wrapped society. Bugger I sound old......

I think a great performance sounds better on vinyl, anyone who doesnt agree with me is poo.

--------------------
www.myspace.com/kenwynmaslow
www.myspace.com/mcmagico

Quote kenwyn:

---

Hello Steve and other proper format fans (vinyl)
_snip-The ACDC comment about Highway to hell is so bang on I just think that Vinyl sounds so good for Rock music. Pop junk is far more suited to CD because the zingy sound outways all of the talent. Shrink wrapped sound for a shrink wrapped society. Bugger I sound old......

I think a great performance sounds better on vinyl, anyone who doesnt agree with me is poo.

---

AT LAST! someone who knows what I'm on about of course I agree with kenwyn, especially as he also makes a dig at Tesco- and yes, home grown food does taste much better too!!!

--------------------
Chaas
cJ na

A good recording of a good performance is a good recording of a good performance... I have just as bad vinyl recordings as bad cd's. Only do all the vinyl's sound worse because of the noise, the limited dynamics and the distortion.

--------------------
Expert in non-working solutions

Dare I say a CD is like a joint without any dope in it.

The 'vinyl is better' argument would appear to be lost. Getting the best from vinyl was always a bit of an exclusive exercise as the good equipment is so expensive. Back then it would cost you around £1000 for a Linn Sondek without cartridge or arm. You had to be a big fan then. You would want to be mad now!
I'd still love know what turntable, arm and cartridge Steve Albini uses.

--------------------
.. is this thing on?

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

The vinyl record is far more compromised.

---

I mentioned earlier... vinyl albums run at 21 ips (start) to less than 10 ips at the end.

I always wondered why nobody seems to acknowledge how poor vinyl can be in the middle of the record.

No pro would use tape running at 8 ips.

Quote Scottdru:

---

Quote BigAl:

---

On the other hand, a Korg which sounds similar to a Rhodes - well so what if it's not a Rhodes.

---

I've yet to hear a Korg or any other box that's not a Rhodes sound as good as a properly tuned and maintained Rhodes.

---

Have you heard the Scarbee Rhodes (RSV '73)?

Quote BigAl:

---

Is anyone actually getting my point?

---

Yes, I did.

The Byre's original point was completely circular. Of COURSE the only thing that "sounds like" a piano (or Rhodes, or whatever) is a piano, because that's the only thing that IS a piano!

But what he implies by that, and what a lot of people assume, is that automatically makes the real piano superior in all circumstances to any sampled or synthesized "piano-ish" sound. It doesn't.

Sample developers have spent untold man-hours over the last few decades chasing ever-closer imitation of real instruments, and in some cases (such as the Scarbee Rhodes I mentioned) they have come incredibly close. But now we're entering a new phase (IMO) where some of these sample sets just sound so damn BEAUTIFUL as instruments in their own right, that who cares what infentisimal differences there are between them and the original instruments?

I think they had to go through the search for authenticity to get to this point, because that was the only way to get the variety and organic shaping into the sound that could achieve that level of beauty. But now it's there, can't we all just enjoy it, in and of itself? Without having to prove how much we know about music technology by wetting our pants over the fact that the harmonics in the piano sustain aren't exactly the same as a real Bosendorfer in the Royal Festival Hall, or that the imitation Leslie effect doesn't spin up exactly the right way.

I've let go of this stuff ages ago. If it sounds rich, interesting and organic, my ears are drawn to it and I'll explore it. If not, I won't (and that could just as easily be the case for a badly recorded piano played by a poor player).

Quote Chickenjohn:

---

I think the problem with digital is that it isnt really music its just numbers. When you look at a vinyl record, you can SEE the music, you can SEE the soundwaves as the grooves, turn the volume down and you can still hear music coming directly off the surface of the record, wheras digital is merely a numerical representaion of chunks of loudness, the sound is "squared off" by both the sampling rate and bit depth and thats what you can hear on a CD that is irritating compared to the smooth warm, relaxing sound to a vinyl record.

---

I don't buy that argument at all. In both cases, what you are hearing is analogue sound. You're misrepresenting the CD by looking at "the numbers", because they belong to an earlier stage of the process that is irrelevant to your ears. Somewhere after that in the chain, those numbers have to be converted back to analogue, and at that point you have just the same physical representation of soundwaves.

Now you may argue that the conversion to digital on the CD has ruined that irreperably, but I would say to that that it's only another process in the production of the final product. I think people have this highly misguided idea that an analogue recording is somehow "the same" as the original performance. It isn't. The soundwaves have been through a process in being committed to the recording medium. Somebody had to choose to record them from a particular point in the room. Somebody applied compression and EQ and God knows what else to them. Then, as has already been pointed about, the simple fact of pressing the vinyl distorted them beyond all recognition.

"All art is artifice". A vinyl recording is just that: a RECORDING. It can no more make you THERE in the studio listening to the Beatles than reading a Playboy can make you there in the bedroom with Miss September.

A lot has been said about distortion in this thread, but the real distortion is the distortion of nostalgia. For the "good old days" when you could leave your door unlocked, children didn't answer back and recordings were made the "real" way, which somehow imprinted the very molecular structure of the musicians on the record. The truth is, it was just a technique. If some of the products of that technique did and still do sound great, it's because the musicians were great and the technique was applied in an expert and/or inspired way. It doesn't make it inherently better than a different technique.

The only judge of that is the ears. I have plenty of CDs that sound fantastic to me. You might not think so, but there's no more objective basis for that then for the fact that your favourite colour is green and mine's purple.

Quote kenwyn:

---

Hello Steve and other proper format fans (vinyl)

I think the difference is like comparing a Green pepper from Tesco to one grown in your garden. One just should be eaten the other (from tesco) thrown at people who think CD's are better than vinyl.

Were compressors used as much on vinyl recordings as they are on digital recordings ?

I think music now is compressed so much that all the sounds are too squashed. Some how to get 'the' sound on digital formats you have to squash it to the point of losing a lot of the performance sound. I dont include Classical or Jazz music in with this I am talking about pop and rock.

QUOTE

"For instance my original copy of Highway to Hell (AC/DC) sounds superb, the drums at the start have so much more depth and air than anything I've ever heard from CD and the guitar riff, has real crunch, and when the vocals come in, phew...its like Bonn Scott is still alive and in the room."

QUOTE


The ACDC comment about Highway to hell is so bang on I just think that Vinyl sounds so good for Rock music. Pop junk is far more suited to CD because the zingy sound outways all of the talent. Shrink wrapped sound for a shrink wrapped society. Bugger I sound old......

I think a great performance sounds better on vinyl, anyone who doesnt agree with me is poo.

---

That's confusing two arguments. You can compress the hell out of vinyl (see much modern club mix stuff) and you don't have to compress the hell out of CD (see a lot of classical music especially e.g. niche players like Naxos).

Compression or lack of it has absolutely nothing to do with the inherent quality of the medium.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Hello again.
You sure like to type fellas. I couldn't read everything yet. But I have to tell you something. If you could get rid of just one your very own village idiot BigAl you would have much more meaningful discussion here. And this thread wouldn't be even half as long.
Hugh Robjohns is a good man. You listen to him.

O.K. I'm gonna call it a day.

I personally find vinyl to sound more alive and breathy. OF course many CDs that carry the label 'digitally remastered' aren't that well translated into the CD format and making a proper vinyl master takes quite an experience with the cutting lathe. A mastering engineer who had worked in Motown during its heyday explained to me all of the painstaking process needed for this and said he wouldn't like to be anywhere near that machinery again!

Anyway, vinyl indeed has some technical 'faults' but who said that a recording medium needs to be technically perfect (or 'flat' as many seem to translate 'perfect') - the incredibly foolish human ear is nowhere near linear and flat. Maybe vinyl fits our nature...

Quote Steve Albini:

---

Hello again.
You sure like to type fellas. I couldn't read everything yet. But I have to tell you something. If you could get rid of just one your very own village idiot BigAl you would have much more meaningful discussion here. And this thread wouldn't be even half as long.
Hugh Robjohns is a good man. You listen to him.

O.K. I'm gonna call it a day.

---

Brilliant!!!! Post of the year!

--------------------
"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent."

back to the goldring, I got a Goldring Erica cartirage for my thompson record deck a few years back, sounds quite good!

--------------------
P.I.G.L.E.T - where is polly?

Quote Chickenjohn:

---

Just to clarify Hugh, I don;t mean "better" as in more technically accurate, but better as in "sounds better, more enjoyable" which vinyl is.

---

To you, possibly. You are expressing a purely subjective opinion -- not that there is anything wrong in that -- but you should make that fact clear.

Quote:

---

I don't think its possible to technically accurately reproduce the sound of a rock band

---

Obviously. Just as a film can not capture every detail and nuance of real life. Both 'records' and 'films' are attempts to capture the essence of something and portray that in an aesthetically pleasing way -- with a combination of art and science.

The point is that once that essence has been captured, the delivery medium shouldn't change it... and vinyl records clearly do. A 16mm print from a 70mm master may be perfectly acceptable to watch -- enjoyable even, but I don't think anyone would try to claim it was 'better' than the 70mm original -- either technically or 'looks better, more enjoyable'. I think that is quite an appropriate comparison... but the debate will rumble on...

Quote:

---

But Highway to Hell DOES sound fantastic on vinyl!!!!

---

Sounds great on my CD too Meridian 508 --> Benchmark DAC 1 --> Bryston 4B -->PMC IB1 --> lug'oles

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Tangent - I remember seeing AC/DC supporting The Who at wembley, years ago. They had stated they would play louder than Concord taking off. Half way through their set they lost the main PA. And i was half way back and could still here them off the stage. Do you think they would make good mastering engineers?

Thanks Mr. Robjohns - you worked well hard and it made for a great read.

--------------------
.. is this thing on?

Quote jerry123:

---

One more thing, drag a nail across a record and then, do the same to the CD version of the release. Let me know which one sounds better then.

---

jerry that's a very good point, and interestingly connects to Steve Albini's comments about mastering to tape over any other format, for it's longevity. It is definitely a concern, the question of whether the digital format you record to now will be functional in years to come. I've heard people say, yeah, chances are whatever OS and hardware we're all using in 20 years, it will still be backwards compatible with CD roms containing wavs/aiffs but backwards compatibility means nothing when the disc is unreadable. Reel to reel can be anywhere from a sticky tape that makes muffling sounds and jams a lot right up to a perfect master with the odd imperfection or background hiss. The important thing being that when it's partially, or significantly damaged, something's still readable. With CD and DVD, nothing is readable when the most minor damage occurs.

And I should point out to everyone, that this is also the reason why you get people who "collect" old vinyl, going right back to the first half of the 20th century. It has actually lasted, and some old records can be in incredibly good playable condition. I wonder if people in the year 2080 will be "collecting" old CD albums, or more to the point, will even 1 of those CDs be playable, and will there be any devices to play them on?

Quote ow:

---

Surely the point is that we generally like the sound of analogue recordings because they are in fact "coloured" by the recording process itself, and the holy grail of making digital sound like analogue is actually a quest to mimic those "colourations".

Why are we trying to mimic something that doesn't sound 'better'

---

Why paint a watercolour when you can take a photograph?

Quote Steve Albini:

---

(773) 539-2555
www.electrical.com

I can waive my fee.
But you still have to pay for studio time.
Business is business, you know.

---

Could I just say... that is the top answer to a question this year.

--------------------
Google less; read more!