Date:Sat, 25 Oct 2008 11:18:28 -0400
Reply-To:Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender:Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
From:Clark Johnsen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: Cedar, was: Aren't recordings original sources?
Comments:To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:<FCC9BA5A39E043AFAF4AE5DEB00D466C@TOMOFFICE>
Content-Type:text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition:inline
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> No, I was talking about CD's. Low-grade lossy downloads are something that
> only the foolish pay money for.
;-)
>
>
> CD's aren't antiquated because they necessarily sound bad -- in fact there
> are plenty of examples where they sound great if proper care is taken during
> recording and mastering --
(and equal care before playbeack)
> it's that they are inconvenient for most users and are overpriced (note
> that pricing has crept back up to where it was during the collusion of the
> 1990's).
Inconvenient?! Why, convenience was their selling point! How the old order
do changeth...
>
>
> A properly-valued model would have at least CD-resolution individual songs
> available for download at $1 or so and CD-length albums for $8 or so. This
> would still be very profitable because there would be zero manufacturing
> costs and very low distribution costs. Plus, if the megaglomerates had one
> inkling of future-thinking or basic business acumen, they'd be selling
> directly to customers rather than paying a middleman fee to Apple and
> others.
Agree. But yet...
>
>
> The low-grade lossy stuff should be commodity priced, around 25 cents per
> song or a couple bucks per album. This price point is low enough that there
> will be a quantity leading to plenty of revenue and also it's a good entry
> point for someone who either doesn't care about sound quality but wants
> zillions of tunes in their iPod or someone who wants to try out an artist
> or, for instance in the case of a jazz fan like me, save a little dough on
> albums I know were poorly recorded so stand little chance of sounding good
> in any resolution.
Q: How does one determine (a priori?) that an album is poorly recorded?
>
>
> As an aside, Apple's standard iTunes format works just fine for older
> recordings, mono material sourced from disks or early tape masters, if the
> A-D transfer was done right, especially over earbuds. No, it won't work to
> play back those files over a big corner horn to try to get every last ounce
> of music out of the signal -- a lot of it was stripped out by the lossy
> format. I'm just saying that, for car or earbud listening, the format is not
> as objectionable with that kind of format as with higher-fidelity stereo
> material, which tends to be plagued by digi-swishies and other
> super-annoying artifacts.
And has sounded that way since the get-go.
>
>
> Back to the main point, today's technology also offers the opportunity to
> offer for download better-than-CD resolution. Some small players (Chesky,
> for example) are dipping toes in these waters. But this is another factor
> making the physical CD sold in retail stores an antiquated way of selling
> recorded music.
Let's just say "old fashioned".
clark
>
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clark Johnsen" <[log in to unmask]
> >
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 2:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cedar, was: Aren't recordings original sources?
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]
>> >wrote:
>>
>> Given the current state of the music business, I would say consumers are
>>> voting with their wallets. I definitely believe that part of the business
>>> cratering is due to putting out an overpriced, bad quality product in a
>>> format that has been antiquated.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You're speaking of course about MP3...
>>
>> clark
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clark Johnsen" <
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> >
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:02 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cedar, was: Aren't recordings original sources?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>> >wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, I'm certainly not vain enough to speak for anyone else on this
>>>> list,
>>>>
>>>>> but ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Then we apparently don't have on this list the majority of reissue
>>>>> producers and remastering engineers out there. Their lousy work speaks
>>>>> for
>>>>> itself.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And there you have it!
>>>>
>>>> But one must wonder whether joining this list would serve the cause.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps an outreach effort should be made?
>>>>
>>>> clark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Parker Dinkins" <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 6:20 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cedar, was: Aren't recordings original sources?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think most people here are aware of all that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Parker Dinkins
>>>>>> CD Mastering + Audio Restoration
>>>>>> http://masterdigital.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> on 10/23/08 3:53 PM US/Central, Tom Fine wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not when it's overused and sucks what little life is left out of the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sound.
>>>>>>> With all digital NR, it's a very fine line between slightly improving
>>>>>>> clarity
>>>>>>> and sucking the air, space and depth out of the sound. My own bias is
>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>> toward less but I've made and heard others' examples of judicious use
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> digi-tools where audibility and clarity are improved. Rare with
>>>>>>> well-recorded
>>>>>>> full-range music; the trained ear seems to prefer some hiss or
>>>>>>> surface
>>>>>>> noise
>>>>>>> with the entire pallet of music as opposed to a quieter background
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> colors muted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: "Parker Dinkins" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 3:52 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cedar, was: Aren't recordings original
>>>>>>> sources?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tom Fine wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, many 78 transfers made for CD sets are awful. People do seem
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> lop
>>>>>>>>> off the bass -- these records had plenty of low end, it was the TOP
>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>> where they had no musical content. Yet people roll off the bass
>>>>>>>>> (maybe
>>>>>>>>> because they have rumble-plagued playback systems) and crank up the
>>>>>>>>> EQ
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> the upper midrange, which just accentuates the surface noise and
>>>>>>>>> unnatural
>>>>>>>>> resonances from the original recording devices. Then you apply an
>>>>>>>>> overly
>>>>>>>>> aggressive treatment with CEDAR or whatever else and you get ...
>>>>>>>>> crap.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Seems like CEDAR would be just what is required after all that
>>>>>>>> torture.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Parker Dinkins
>>>>>>>> CD Mastering + Audio Restoration
>>>>>>>> http://masterdigital.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
