As far as vinyl goes, I sorely miss the covers and playback, but do not miss the inconvenience, maintenance etc. But one day I would want to get a good deck, if only to play some records we have that have never been released on CD.
I would be interested to know what those records are?
Remember when the demise of vinyl was inevitable? I rest my case. CD is a vastly superior recording medium to vinyl.
But with none of the romance or visceral pleasure of vinyl.
No signature worth mentioning...
whole swathes of LPs never got released on CD, and never will be.
Well over half my LP collection has never been available on CD, especially the old M-O-R / big-band stuff from the 50s and 60s that belonged to my dad, by the likes of Ted Heath, Edmundo Ross, James Last, Andre Brasseur, Les Whitmore, Percy Faith, Quincy Jones, Peter Appleyard and loads more.
Even my very favourite version of the 1812 Overture (Decca Phase 4, Sharples, London Festival Orchestra) remains steadfastly unreleased on anything but LP (quite common in stereo, rare in quad) and 3½IPS open-reel tape (rare and poor quality).
Main system: Mac Mini 2011 • HRT II+ DAC • Marantz CD 63 mkII KI & PM66 KI • MS 10i speakers [borrowed]
In storage: Thorens TD160 (no cart) • Cyrus 2 & PSX • Cyrus tuner • Technics SL-P777 • Nakamichi DR-1
There are quite a lot of Ted Heath and Quincy Jones cds available. James Last hopefully not.
I was not saying there were not many available I was just interested in knowing which ones in case some would be of interest to me. Sorry none of those are of interest to me. I'm sure there are some great jazz albums that still have not been released as cds.
Oh there will be loads! In fact some really early stuff will never have made it past 78s I bet. Mind you they wouldn't have been recorded on tape to start with so not much you can do about that unless a studio can source some really good 78s to use as masters.
... it reminds me immortal pseudo-photography debate: film vs digital [ dynamic range, lost highlights and shadows, resolution etc] ... fact - film and digital capture are " totally different and incomparable technologies"
I am not sure about your facts.
There is a general assumption on websites like this that just because the poster doesn't understand a technical point, then no one does. This gets reinforced by other posters who have a similar view - and before you know it, it is accepted fact. Engineers active in the field generally don't bother to post on sites like this, they are too busy earning a living. As a result, a very warped view of reality is developed, unfortunately helped by commericial interests with an axe to grind.
Of course CDs and vinyl are comparable - they are supposed to do the same thing aren't they? I was at a well known national broadcaster just as CDs were being introduced for broadcast use. What do you think we did? Sat on our hands and said 'good heavens, this is incomparable to vinyl, there is no point testing or measuring it'?
The same is true of film. Grain size, distribution and levels of sensitivity are directly comparable to pixel depth and resolution in digital. At the same national broadcaster, I was fortunate enough to work on a wetgate telecine transfer machine. Film to TV transfer - an incomparable technology? So we didn't bother making any measurements or do any analysis?
I think lpv agrees with you!
As for the points you make - spot on
As for film, I'm quite happy to see the back of it - the hours spent cleaning other people's mess in various darkrooms before I started doing any enlarging is where it belongs - in the past! The dynamic range of modern CMOS sensors is probably greater than film, high ISO noise is vastly better. I can't think of any area where film is better (apart from not needing to clean a sensor's LPF which is a pain) not even pixel / grain size is better these days. The real limiting factor is lens resolution.
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds - the pessimist fears this is true."
James Branch Cabell
MAIN: Apple TV2, Mac Mini (controlled from various iThings using Remote), CA Azur 751BD & Panasonic P42V20B into audiolab M-DAC, feeding a Primare A34.2 class D power amp via XLRs, 2x 5m of Atlas Ascent 2 firing up Totem Arros. DALI Kubik Free in my kitchen
ON THE HOOF: iPhone 5S/Sennheiser MM450.
Beethoven's Emperor Concerto by Sergio Fiorentino (piano) / George Hurst (conductor) 1965 with the Pro-Hamburg Orchestra, for starters. Frankly I have yet to hear a better performance of this piece. It has drama, emotion and subtlety in spades, and in the 2nd movement which in other recordings are either too fast or too slow, this one gets it just right. A CD pressing of this would be worth more to me than gold.
Arcam Solo Mini/Monitor Audio RX1/Cambridge Audio 751BD/Samsung 37” LCD
busb - I can see you're on flickr... just search for groups like 'medium format', '6x6', 'contract killers' ... check out Martin Parr new and old work, see differences? film looks different than digital. that's all.
Marantz M-CR510/ Dali Zensor 3/ MacBook
I'm a photographer. People like shouty digital photos, clinical and clean, colourfull and sharp... same with music.
busb: "As for film, I'm quite happy to see the back of it - the hours spent cleaning other people's mess in various darkrooms "
well.. I recommend you watch Trent Park documentary from his long Australian trip where he developed negatives on back of his car and let it dry hung on the tree. hardly sterile enviroment. still, you can find his pictures in galleries, books, magnum photo website. only amatures cares too much about silly things like dynamic range, resolution, cmos, ccd, pixel count, grain, noise, iso etc...
same with audio...
Its only amateurs, and the guys who really understand the stuff and design it who "cares too much about silly things like dynamic range, resolution, cmos, ccd, pixel count, grain, noise, iso etc... "
The armchair experts have no need of such nonsense to have an opinion.
Not sure about dieing, but I do think they're dying.
© 2014 Haymarket Publishing