Post by zeus August 3, 2003 (1 of 49)
|
|
See this week's Stereophile Soapbox:
http://www.stereophile.com/showsoap.cgi?328
Some context: Tony Faulkner is a highly regarded recording engineer working in the classical field and has been for many years. Some of my best recordings (on CD and SACD) carry his name. He's now launching some of his own recordings on vinyl and maybe this has something to do with this public stance. Also, in an earlier conversation with him, I got the impression that labels weren't falling over themselves to pay the premium he was presumably charging for high-resolution masters, even if the recording was done in high-resolution as a matter of standard practise.
Comments?
|
|
|
Post by Khorn August 4, 2003 (2 of 49)
|
|
zeus said:
See this week's Stereophile Soapbox:
http://www.stereophile.com/showsoap.cgi?328
Some context: Tony Faulkner is a highly regarded recording engineer working in the classical field and has been for many years. Some of my best recordings (on CD and SACD) carry his name. He's now launching some of his own recordings on vinyl and maybe this has something to do with this public stance. Also, in an earlier conversation with him, I got the impression that labels weren't falling over themselves to pay the premium he was presumably charging for high-resolution masters, even if the recording was done in high-resolution as a matter of standard practise.
Comments?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Tony Faulkner: "I do not believe that SACD and DVD-Audio as currently offered deliver the goods, except in very rare combinations of player, disc, and system."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what this guy's been hearing but I certainly can hear SACD "delivering the goods" and I listen in 2 channel Stereo. I also don't have a "very rare combination of player and system although I must say some of the discs are "rarely good" :-)
Good luck selling you're vinyl Tony ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Dinko August 4, 2003 (3 of 49)
|
|
Poor Tony must be losing his wits.
I really wonder what spurred this weird attack on SACD and DVDA.
Much of what Faulkner writes there can easily apply to LPs too. To truly experience the superiority of vinyl you need a particular combination of a good turntable and a good amplifier setup. No different from SACD/DVDA.
Sure the official SACD/DVDA propaganda about both formats is perhaps somewhat excessive, presenting both formats as sonic Gods (much like CD was presented), but that's no different from LP freaks walking around yelling all over the place how LP sounds much better than anything else. Fanaticism is always bad, and it doesn't matter if it's a corporation fanatically pushing a product to milk consumers, or if it's zealous audiophile weirdoes fighting on the internet as to which sounds better between SACD vs. DVDA vs. vynil, not to mention DTS vs. Dolby.
I for one have yet to hear an LP which offers the type of clarity, dynamic range and instrumental accuracy as some of the better produced CDs. Yes, LPs can sound more pleasant, but that's pretty much their only advantage. They also happen to be cumbersome, easily deteriorated, and hold small amounts of music.
Tony can release as many LPs as he wants, I probably won't be buying any of them, they wouldn't be worth the trouble of listening to them. I'd have to transfer them to minidisc if I want to take the music with me. But then, I can transfer a CD to MD in about 10 minutes. Transfering an LP (or a non-hybrid SACD or a DVDA) to MD would take about as long as transfering the LP to audio tape. Just another disadvantage of all formats relative to CD at the moment.
As for Faulkner's recordings in general, I'm highly pleased with his work. At times the CDs could use a bit more volume (a mastering procedure?), but they offer an extremely natural sound, with great instrumental transparancy, good dynamic range, etc. It's also nice to find an engineer who doesn't impose his personality on the recording while still maintaining a personal touch. With some engineers (Simon Rhodes for example), you can almost immediately identify the engineer, as you can identify the composer.
Oh well...
|
|
|
Post by zeus August 4, 2003 (4 of 49)
|
|
I've approached Tony Faulkner to participate in this discussion. In the meantime, here are his replies, reproduced with permission:
"Thanks for the link. It reads as a bit of a rant, but that is the nature of the column. It is intended to be provocative, and I accept it will be unpopular in some places. A bit like how Washington and Westminster are having to respond to the realities about how the some of the stated and published justifications were put together for the military action in the Middle East.
"I shall make sure I have my soldier's metal hat and bullet-proof vest on for the next week or so. It will be interesting to see who, if anyone, takes any notice. Seen from here in the UK classical recording industry I think that a giant yawn has already split the cosmos as far as high density disc releases are concerned.
"This is a triangle of wishful thinking fools being fed propaganda to attempt to suspend corporate disbelief - the player manufacturers who have been told that the record companies and consumers want it and will support it; the consumers who have been told the record companies and player manufacturers want it and will support it; the record companies who have been told the hardware manufacturers and consumers want it and will support it.
"As a niche minority carrier, I believe there is insufficient demand to justify major record companies making the discs, to a lesser extent for companies to make the players. The only things keeping this concept in the air are the cheque book and the propaganda machine. For it to be a proper commercial success, the format(s) must make significant volume penetration beyond fashion-driven audiophile circles - how can this ever be ? - that is my message.
"If someone comes up with a solution and hard evidence beyond a cheque book and propaganda to buy support, I am ready to be convinced. For most committed audiophiles the vinyl lp remains supreme, and this is an extraordinary irony. The lp's strongest feature is its known track record, the huge existing player base and its immediately identifiable differences in operation and appearance."
and:
"Very fair comments, which I am happy to accept. For the record (as it were) we have not recorded any new analogue yet, let alone pressed or released any. Assuming we proceed, the first few lp releases will be in February 2004. In this specific case the chicken came before the egg - my realisation that high density audio discs formats were not going to take the world by storm happened a long time before any notion of making analogue recordings and lp's again. We shall not get rich doing analogue, any more than we have from DSD & 96kHz - but at least there is a chance of more of an audience, and the sad thing (for SACD and DVD-Audio) is that well made analogue still sounds great."
|
|
|
Post by zeus August 4, 2003 (5 of 49)
|
|
My reply to Tony:
I'm convinced that vinyl is no solution to the current decline of classical recording. Fun and an opportunity for you to be rewarded for your efforts but this is as far as it goes.
Now I know from personal experience that your dismissive comments on the achievability of better sound isn't as improbable as you make it out to be. And many others report similar experiences. To me, SACD presents a real chance for the industry to put value back into the equation. I'm reluctant to pay full price now for a CD because I know the industry can offer me something better. There must be a stop to this endless repackaging of the same tired old recordings, often with no attempt at remastering. Or just plain catalogue fillers. I'm old enough to remember really looking forward to recordings I'd just bought, something that I lost when I was buying CDs in quantity. Today I'm buying less and listening and enjoying more than ever. I really don't understand your negativism here. Sure it's all a big gamble, but what are the alternatives?
|
|
|
Post by Kenneth August 4, 2003 (6 of 49)
|
|
zeus said:
See this week's Stereophile Soapbox:
http://www.stereophile.com/showsoap.cgi?328
Some context: Tony Faulkner is a highly regarded recording engineer working in the classical field and has been for many years. Some of my best recordings (on CD and SACD) carry his name. He's now launching some of his own recordings on vinyl and maybe this has something to do with this public stance. Also, in an earlier conversation with him, I got the impression that labels weren't falling over themselves to pay the premium he was presumably charging for high-resolution masters, even if the recording was done in high-resolution as a matter of standard practise.
Comments?
I read this week's Stereophile Soapbox by Tony Faulkner with alarm and concern.
My alarm came from Tony's comments deriding the available high resolution recordings as not making the grade. Any way you look at it, DSD or 24 bit resolution recordings represent a major step up for the listener. I'm sure he knows as well as we that the difference from a listening perspective is significant. I'm going to assume his comments were made during a period of utter frustration. Nevertheless, comments of this ilk from a respected recording engineer can only be counterproductive for us all.
My concern lies in the fact that Tony seems to be giving up on high resolution music and has decided to give sway to the 16 bit medium and go back to the vinyl niche market. Please Tony, don't give up on us. We need you. Be innovative. Find a way to make it work for you (i.e. to make the project financially feasible).
|
|
|
Post by kostavox July 13, 2011 (7 of 49)
|
|
Kenneth said:
I read this week's Stereophile Soapbox by Tony Faulkner with alarm and concern.
My alarm came from Tony's comments deriding the available high resolution recordings as not making the grade. Any way you look at it, DSD or 24 bit resolution recordings represent a major step up for the listener. I'm sure he knows as well as we that the difference from a listening perspective is significant. I'm going to assume his comments were made during a period of utter frustration. Nevertheless, comments of this ilk from a respected recording engineer can only be counterproductive for us all.
My concern lies in the fact that Tony seems to be giving up on high resolution music and has decided to give sway to the 16 bit medium and go back to the vinyl niche market. Please Tony, don't give up on us. We need you. Be innovative. Find a way to make it work for you (i.e. to make the project financially feasible).
Hi Chaps,
It's good that Tony has pushed a few buttons. The "Hi-Rez" march stalled quite a while ago. We've got 64bit operating systems on our computers and still stuck in 24bit "gear" or 1-bit "gear" is our pursuit of serious audio. We should have AT LEAST a 384k or 512k/64bit recording system set up by now. A TB HDD costs $100!
The current state of digital recording equipment is still far behind the analog standards of "tape" at it's peak in the late 60's/early 70's. We are STILL buying re-issues of recordings from that era. What is desparately needed is a HI-END Audio approach to the recording setup. What's the point of writing about silver-wired single-ended amplifiers of plasma-flame speakers if we can't create NEW recordings to listen to?
Armed with my portable modified Stellavox tape recorders, I've recorded over 300 concerts for fun over the past 6 years. Every year, I trawl through the latest recording setups only to be disappointed.
High-End mags need to seriously start reviewing High end recording solutions. It's as simple as that. Then we'll be able o get off the vinyl-tape bus.
rgds
Kostas Metaxas
www.metaxas.com
www.exero.com
|
|
|
Post by tailspn July 13, 2011 (8 of 49)
|
|
kostavox said:
The current state of digital recording equipment is still far behind the analog standards of "tape" at it's peak in the late 60's/early 70's.
Care to clarify?
|
|
|
Post by steviev July 13, 2011 (9 of 49)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by steviev July 13, 2011 (10 of 49)
|
|
kostavox said:
The current state of digital recording equipment is still far behind the analog standards of "tape" at it's peak in the late 60's/early 70's.
tailspn said:
Care to clarify?
I can help: it was just a simple typo on Kostavox's part. He accidentally typed "far behind" when he meant to say "absolutely and without question beyond" in the above sentence. It's perfectly understandable; just a slip of the finger. Could happen to any of us.
|
|
