|
A few decades of tech press has made it hard for most people to view devices through any kind of lens other than like... technical specifications. Fidelity, accuracy, precision, and maybe most of all, convenience, as if those are the objective priorities of all people in all matters. With a lot of stuff I like, those aren't my priority. Why should they be? I'm a human being. drat. There's nothing objective about how we like to experience music anyway. This isn't to poo poo on anyone I just think "spec" conversations miss the point when we're all irrational around such irrational things as hobbies and/or interests anyway.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
Deep Glove Bruno posted:A few decades of tech press has made it hard for most people to view devices through any kind of lens other than like... technical specifications. Fidelity, accuracy, precision, and maybe most of all, convenience, as if those are the objective priorities of all people in all matters. With a lot of stuff I like, those aren't my priority. Why should they be? I'm a human being. drat. There's nothing objective about how we like to experience music anyway. I don't know what you're talking about. I use my loving ears.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 22:50
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:I don't know what you're talking about. I use my loving ears. What I'm talking about is you like fidelity, cool. Plenty of people care about other things more. It's not some objective measure of good or bad
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 22:56
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:that depends on the genre and simulation. for example the mellotron is a highly valued instrument in many musical circles specifically because of it's distinct tape-based sound and the elements of distortion and warble that are often part of it. The Mellotron is an interesting example, for sure, because IIRC even at its time it was pretty expensive. Obviously artists like the Beatles could have afforded the even-more-expensive route of hiring session musicians and recording them but they chose to use the instrument instead, probably because they were weird little guys who liked experimenting. That said, it's still just a sampler. Again, do you think that the inventors of the Mellotron wouldn't have jumped at the chance to use pristine DACs and HDD recorders instead of tape if they were around in the 1960s? Do you think the guys in Pink Floyd weren't simultaneously a little bit frustrated that "it's a bit warbly and you can hear where the tape loops back innit" at the same time as impressed with the novel technology? And again it's not really the same thing. It's a sampling instrument, not a recording medium for an entire performance. My whole point of contention ITT is with posters who think that we 'lost something' by moving everything to digital. We used analog recording media at the time because it was what we had, and when digital came along and (took a few years to) blow it out of the water in every objective metric by which you can measure 'fidelity', everyone who mattered got on board. And some people said "hey I miss that dirty thing that tape/vinyl had," so we figured out exactly what caused that, and recreated it digitally. One more time, there's nothing wrong with enjoying inherently-flawed media like tape or vinyl, or even preferring that listening experience to digital. But conflating your preference with 'fidelity' is objectively wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 22:59
|
|
|
syntaxfunction posted:Yeah see again, you're discounting people who don't like it and do see it as flaws. i'm not discounting them at all. the claim that i'm challenging is that people who enjoy tape and other forms of distortion "like it because it's bad". the people who don't like that sound, obviously, think it's bad, but that's not what i'm addressing. i'm talking about people who intentionally seek out distortion to listen to or to use themselves because they enjoy the sound of it. not all of those people are doing so because they think the sound is "bad". in most cases they find the sound, in various contexts, pleasurable, or good. Mister Speaker posted:But conflating your preference with 'fidelity' is objectively wrong. i agree with this, but i do not equate "fidelity" with "good". to me fidelity is more comparable to accuracy. a low fidelity recording is less faithful to the original sound of what was recorded. that is not at all the same thing as "bad". a high fidelity sampler sounds more similar to the instrument that it is sampling. since it's 2023 i, a broke rear end nobody, have direct access to affordable software samplers that sound way more like an actual string section than the string section tape reels used in a mellotron. but that doesn't necessarily mean they sound better. that question depends on the specific nature of the piece in which it is being used, the atmosphere i intent to convey, etc. and in many cases the low fidelity sound is what's better for that occasion. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Apr 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 03:19
|
|
|
evobatman posted:I have some tape things. And other things. Jeez, Sony really was the portable music hardware king for so long. I had an MZ-N1 mini disc player that was such a beautiful device.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 03:29
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:. a low fidelity recording is less faithful to the original sound of what was recorded. that is not at all the same thing as "bad". Yes, it is exactly the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 04:41
|
|
|
evobatman posted:I have some tape things. And other things. WOOF
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 06:04
|
|
|
evobatman posted:I have some tape things. And other things. Nice collection! Do they all still run pretty well? Deep Glove Bruno posted:A few decades of tech press has made it hard for most people to view devices through any kind of lens other than like... technical specifications. Fidelity, accuracy, precision, and maybe most of all, convenience, as if those are the objective priorities of all people in all matters. With a lot of stuff I like, those aren't my priority. Why should they be? I'm a human being. drat. There's nothing objective about how we like to experience music anyway.  Mister Speaker posted:Yes, it is exactly the same thing. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 07:39
|
|
|
The museum of fuzzy warbles
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 08:03
|
|
|
cmon man news flash: painting is objectively bad because it is inferior to photography's fidelity to reality. it's ok if you like it because it's bad but you have to admit. all painting: bad
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 08:15
|
|
|
That's absolutely a false equivalency and you know it. A more fair comparison would be film vs. digital photography, and guess who wins that one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 08:19
|
|
|
syntaxfunction posted:... And also honestly I just stream music now. I was with you up until you said this. But if the quality of streamed music satisfies you, you might as well just listen to the sound of your own farts instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 08:19
|
|
|
BigBadSteve posted:I was with you up until you said this. But if the quality of streamed music satisfies you, you might as well just listen to the sound of your own farts instead. Most of the major streaming services use 320kbps MP3, IIRC. Unless you're listening on a really nice stereo with a quality DAC, and the material is jazz or classical or something else with a really wide dynamic range, honestly that's more than fine for most music produced in the last 20 years. This is probably even more controversial than my "you like it because it's bad" assertions that seem to be going over a few peoples' heads, but the vast majority of music produced and released these days does not have the dynamic range to necessitate a higher-resolution file. Dynamic range is arguably a more easily-noticeable factor in determining the fidelity of a medium (compared to frequency response), and so much music these days is limited in the mastering stage so heavily that it's sitting north of -12LUFS, which is really loving loud. Of course, people don't just stream modern music, so to an extent I agree with you about the quality of streaming services. But if you're paying for TIDAL's high-resolution audio just to listen to contemporary pop tunes (or buying 96kHz EDM tracks to DJ, lmao), you're wasting your money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 08:30
|
|
|
replacing the belts on my DRW-750 was a nightmare, if you want an easily serviceable deck get something that isn't dual well.  see that thing in the middle right? thats the right cassette well which i had to pry open vertically to access the belts, which were almost molten worth it in the end tho! im currently looking for an early 90s sony dolby s deck, those are pimp but expensive
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 08:46
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:Most of the major streaming services use 320kbps MP3, IIRC. Unless you're listening on a really nice stereo with a quality DAC, and the material is jazz or classical or something else with a really wide dynamic range, honestly that's more than fine for most music produced in the last 20 years. This is probably even more controversial than my "you like it because it's bad" assertions that seem to be going over a few peoples' heads, but the vast majority of music produced and released these days does not have the dynamic range to necessitate a higher-resolution file. Dynamic range is arguably a more easily-noticeable factor in determining the fidelity of a medium (compared to frequency response), and so much music these days is limited in the mastering stage so heavily that it's sitting north of -12LUFS, which is really loving loud. This is the poo poo that haunts audiophiles in their sleep lol Next you'll probably double blinds, or cancellation tests, you absolute nutter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 08:52
|
|
|
AEMINAL posted:replacing the belts on my DRW-750 was a nightmare, if you want an easily serviceable deck get something that isn't dual well. Yikes I just got one of these. It's not Dolby S but it's dual well and looks easy enough to do belt replacements in https://youtu.be/g5gNYWG8pdE there's two or three other video walkthroughs of belt replacements on this model as well
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 08:54
|
|
|
syntaxfunction posted:This is the poo poo that haunts audiophiles in their sleep lol I admire Mister Speaker's passion. I opened this thread in GBS knowing full well that I'd get poo poo for it, but I didn't expect anyone to really stick to their guns like he's doing here. I've personally decided, after many years of being a music collector, that fidelity (as Earwicker defined it) should take a backseat to ritual and fetishism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 09:00
|
|
|
olives black posted:Yikes you're lucky, looks very serviceable AND has loving youtube videos on how to do it all! are you happy with the deck?? sadly nothing available rn here in sweden but i enabled a search notification thing for "sony deck"  bonus pic, here's a 1974 Fergusson with Dolby B and mixer sliders that I got from an old engineer I met on a bike ride (he was cleaning his garage out)  i would have kept it but sold it for 20 bucks because i couldn't be bothered to fix it. the play/pause button was hosed and the belts obviously melted to goop. hopefully the nerd i sold it to services it back to working order. cool looking deck for sure tho
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 09:04
|
|
|
y'all listening on cans or what I won a pair of Massdrop x Sennheiser 6XX's at work last year and I'm really partial to them for listening to my analog stuff. I won a pair of HD280s as well, but I much prefer the 6XXs - the 280s are so flat they'd be great for mastering something but I don't feel like they're as enjoyable to just listen to, say, a High on Fire record or Heavy Temple tape with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 09:07
|
|
|
syntaxfunction posted:This is the poo poo that haunts audiophiles in their sleep lol lmao yes listen to this poo poo: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ifPF41EqDFZwQqV1QNHaz3hg0iPtTdjy/view?usp=share_link it was recorded from my PC onto ferric UR-90 tape, then recorded back digitally onto my PC into .flac barely noticeable quality-wise from the original machine girl track (track #2 here https://machinegirl.bandcamp.com/album/gemini), heck some may say it sounds better - a bit less harsh on the eardrums edit: also here are some of the custom J-cards i've made!!!   god i love cassettes!!!!!!!! AEMINAL fucked around with this message at 09:14 on Apr 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 09:10
|
|
|
AEMINAL posted:you're lucky, looks very serviceable AND has loving youtube videos on how to do it all! are you happy with the deck?? Yeah, it's not bad so far! Already used it to record a few of my records to tape. My only complaint is that you have to push and hold in the door on the left cassette well when you rewind, as it sometimes just spins without engaging the cassette. Not sure why, but it's a only a minor annoyance. AEMINAL posted:bonus pic, here's a 1974 Fergusson with Dolby B and mixer sliders that I got from an old engineer I met on a bike ride (he was cleaning his garage out) That's a nice beefy boi
olives black fucked around with this message at 17:43 on May 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 09:19
|
|
|
I have beyerdynamic DT700s. I use DT100s and DT700s a lot at work and they're the most comfortable big headphones I've used. Sound good for the money too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 09:23
|
|
|
Deep Glove Bruno posted:I have beyerdynamic DT700s. I use DT100s and DT700s a lot at work and they're the most comfortable big headphones I've used. Sound good for the money too. noice i use the cheaper AKG k371s with new brainwavz ear cushions and a equalizer apo config to make it sound flat, along with a 6 dB <80 hz bass boost because i'm a deviant bass-head would recommend. v. good price/performance if you enjoy bass and hardy long lasting headphones. i fall asleep with them on most nights!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 09:33
|
|
|
Real cassette decks have wood trim!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 10:54
|
|
|
olives black posted:Nice collection! Do they all still run pretty well? The WM-D6C is mint, and I have done the belts on it. I've done the belts on the TC-D5 too, but it does need a bit of trim on the output pots and it does have motor noise in the sound, so some capacitor is gone, which is beyond my ability. The Discmans (discmen?) are metal body top of the line players, and I have also owned the Z555. The D350 runs but is extremely sensitive for discs and movement, while the other one takes power, but does not spin. The minidisc players are in perfect shape, but replacement gumstick batteries are a pain. They usually come with battery caddies for AA or AAA batteries, but that of course affects the ~aestethics~ Minidisc players are really a miracle of electronic and mechanical engineering, and in my experience by now they usually work perfectly or are completely unfixable. Some other fun stuff I have owned: Beocord 8002, god-tier tape deck:   Denon tower of power with DRS-610, 710 and 810, minidisc player and SACD player:   Sony DAT Walkman, the most fragile thing ever created:  Beocord 7000 tape deck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8FwmHKSviE This is really just scratching the surface of all the vintage hifi and stereo stuff I've gone through. Being a mid 30s white male in an unhappy marriage gave me a LOT of time to browse classifieds and go out to buy things from other white males in the same situation. Edit, what the hell, let's throw in a few more! Sony ES system:  Bang & Olufsen with KEF LS50:  Sony ES tower of power:  Tapes I bought together with the D6C:  Repair and servicing-fest:  Decks, decks, decks: 
evobatman fucked around with this message at 11:05 on Apr 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 10:57
|
|
|
i'm simultaneously jealous and ashamed
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 11:58
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:Yes, it is exactly the same thing. lol sorry, but it's not. if i'm composing a piece in which lo-fi sounds are more appropriate for the tone or atmosphere, then using hi-fidelity recordings or samples without any warble or distortion or whatever are going to sound worse then hi-fidelity ones. fidelity does not mean "good" because the goal of recording sound onto a medium is no longer about replication of the exact sound that was recorded. perhaps when recording technology was first invented that was the only goal, but in today's current reality that no longer makes sense. today, many older means of recording technology - and the distinct sounds of those means that were once considered flaws or imperfections - are now instruments in and of themselves. whether a piece of music sounds "bad" or "good" depends on the subjective interpretation of the audience. but it also depends on the context of the music, the genre, the mood, what the composer is trying to do, etc. and in today's current reality with today's current audience there are many circumstances in which equating sonic fidelity with "goodness" or sonic quality in general is absolute nonsense. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Apr 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 13:44
|
|
|
Nah, you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 13:46
|
|
|
evobatman posted:The WM-D6C is mint, and I have done the belts on it. I've done the belts on the TC-D5 too, but it does need a bit of trim on the output pots and it does have motor noise in the sound, so some capacitor is gone, which is beyond my ability. The Discmans (discmen?) are metal body top of the line players, and I have also owned the Z555. The D350 runs but is extremely sensitive for discs and movement, while the other one takes power, but does not spin. This guy FUCKS
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 14:31
|
|
|
generally when fruit spoils, we say it's "gone bad". most people avoid eating rotten fruit. the basic process of spoiling means the growth of mold and bacteria and this results in the fermentation of sugars into alcohol. over the course of history we have learned to control these processes and use them on purpose to create a wide range of new foods, drinks, and important methods of preservation and even live saving medecins. if you feel like eating some grapes, and you see some rotten grapes on the ground, yeah you'll be disappointed. and those grapes will probably taste bad. but that doesn't meant the process of spoilage is "bad" in and of itself, because it's clearly resulted in so many things that are widely considered good. from wine to penecillin. innovations in the arts work much the same way. the inventors of the mellotron were probably not going for a warbly, scratchy sound. but in terms of the overall flow of art, the inventors of the mellotron are far less important than the users of the mellotron, and all of the pieces of music that have been made with them - many of which use it specifically because of the warbly scratchy sound. because of the lesser fidelity. characteristics like "warbly" are constant and fairly objective, but conditions like "bad" and "good" are subjective judgements. they shift with context or even emotional states. to one person in one context something warbly may sound bad, and to another it may sound good. same with distortion and all kinds of other aspects of sound that are frequently used in ways that may contrast with the intent of their origins, and now things like distortion that were once just a sign of a bad signal or overwhelmed speakers are controlled and created and enhanced intentionally. just like the process of rot is controlled by winemakers. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Apr 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 14:34
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:That's absolutely a false equivalency and you know it. A more fair comparison would be film vs. digital photography, and guess who wins that one. Depends which things you're comparing. Cost per megapixel? Film wins, easily. Speed? Lol, film's dead. Dynamic range? Pretty much identical with slow, modern color negative film, though rapidly being surpassed. Weight? Forget it. Convenience in shooting high fidelity pictures? LOL. If you need literal wall sized prints that can withstand pixel peeping, analog medium format is a rational choice. Type 120 film at 50 or 100 iso can get you resolutions of close to 100 megapixel with a 500ish euro camera. A direct comparison is hard, because film grain is not as intrusive as seeing literal pixels. If you need resolutions of literal hundreds of megapixel, you can choose for sheet film. In almost all other cases, film is obsolete. DSLRs have gotten better than film in many departments. Especially film speed. The fastest color film is 800 iso, and the resolution of that film in 24*36mm format doesn't even come close to that of a DSLR's resolution at that speed. That said, i don't shoot film for perfection. I shoot it for a specific look, without having to edit my pictures on the computer (a job i hate). I can grab a crappy east german compact camera, and end up with the whimsical look i'm going for in certain pictures. A 25 euro japanese SLR that weighs as much as a brick, if i want nicely saturated colors, with slide film, i can project on the wall to have a striking and sharp look. Or an old box camera if i want to just push a button and get a picture, and not care about quality too much because you simply cannot get much quality out of one. My phone's camera shoots higher fidelity pictures than about half my analog cameras, but typically i do like the analog pictures better because they force me into a specific process that i have a hard time doing voluntarily on my phone. LimaBiker fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Apr 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 15:14
|
|
|
AEMINAL posted:replacing the belts on my DRW-750 was a nightmare, if you want an easily serviceable deck get something that isn't dual well. The Technics RS-B965 that I mentioned earlier has dbx instead of Dolby S, which is better!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 18:47
|
|
|
afen posted:Real cassette decks have wood trim! Sony ES equipment typically came in different versions of essentially the same models, which were usually the same except for the inclusion of the wood side panels, gold plated jacks, and some other cosmetic stuff. The main feature of Sony ES is that the preamp on ES equipment is different than the preamp on non-ES equipment (obviously it's better).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
LimaBiker posted:Depends which things you're comparing. We're comparing the fidelity of a medium designed to capture or record a reproduction of what our senses perceive. Digital wins that battle every drat time. quote:In almost all other cases, film is obsolete. quote:i don't shoot film for perfection. I shoot it for a specific look without having to edit my pictures on the computer (a job i hate). See, this exactly. There are pretty objective things about the quality of 'fidelity'; you used the term 'perfection' which is something we strive for in capturing sensory experiences and something that has only improved in both aural and optical media with the advent of digital. To repeat myself again, fine, use your Pentax 35mm or your TASCAM cassette recorder, nobody is saying you can't enjoy the specific look or sound you're chasing by committing yourself to that level of quality and workflow. But that's why you enjoy it; the imperfection, relative to more accurate media that entire industries have embraced for capturing moments in time and space. Certain people ITT are getting it twisted, and waxing philosophical nonsense, making false equivalencies and moving goalposts like this: In some crusade to defend the analog medium and their own personal definition of the word 'quality'. Remember that this cat even thought Brian loving Eno's treatise on the charm of imperfection in old recording media was "short sighted." This was in the same reply over on page 3 where they demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between using a distorted medium as a creative element within an audio mix, and using the same medium to capture an entire performance when you have the option not to. Those are two different things, which I already addressed with my example of using a driven tube guitar amp because the instrument can sound cool through it, whereas you would not run your entire song through that same driven amp at the mastering stage and expect it to increase the fidelity of the mix. It wouldn't even sound subjectively 'good,' and there isn't a mastering engineer alive who would disagree with me. There's nothing wrong with throwing a tape sim on the master of a mix, or abusing the hell out of a pair of 1176s, All-Buttons-In through a back bus to crunch up some drum or guitar tracks and add perceived loudness without actually eating up headroom, or telling your singer to record the second verse through a loving megaphone; all of these things sound pretty drat cool when done right. But you would not do such aggressive things every single time to every single recording you mix, because sometimes they're the wrong choice in capturing the nature of a performance. I don't want to hear Josh Groban through a megaphone, or even a Buddy Rich drum solo slammed through some back-bus compression like you'd treat a Dave Grohl drum track. The information loss in those cases would be extremely unpleasant. Entire industries moved over to digital, and I'm not just talking about music. We archive court proceedings and public address speeches from politicians with digital recorders (and the old ones that were recorded to tape? It's someone's job to improve them by using spectral and de-noising tools to remove the distortion and noise that the analog medium imparted). We capture the voices of radio DJs and news anchors and interviews using systems that are virtually entirely digital right from the preamp onwards. In fact these digital media are so perfect, that if you do decide you want to make a creative change later and you want it to sound 'like analog' (by adding noise and distortion and reducing the frequency response), you can do that with plug-ins that simulate the varieties of possible tape distortion better than you could get with actual tape. I produced, AD'd and location recorded a friend's short film last summer, and while we shot it in 4K, he used some After-Effects plug-ins to make it look like wobbly Super-8. He also added camera motor noise and tape hiss to the audio tracks I painstakingly de-noised and carved out the sounds of cicadas and airplanes that we couldn't avoid in iZoTope. Am I mad that he did that? gently caress no, because we went in knowing that his creative vision for the project was he wanted it to look and sound like a home movie shot on a crappy Super-8. We record dialogue and background noise and sound effects on film sets, and nobody is doing that with reel-to-reel location recorders anymore. You wouldn't record a scene of dialogue in a room with a ground loop and a buzzing air conditioner and tons of standing waves if you could avoid it (and in film, you can avoid it). You'd kill that noise or wait until the helicopter finishes flying over for the quietest set possible (SNR!!!) and then use a sound effect library in post-production to see if you really wanted that room to sound lovely, because having that level of control affords you more creative options than being stuck trying to remove noise and de-reverb a space because it didn't sound as quaint as you thought it would. I suppose, in some sick way, you and I are essentially saying the same thing from different angles, Earwicker. Earwicker posted:i'm talking about people who intentionally seek out distortion to listen to or to use themselves because they enjoy the sound of it. not all of those people are doing so because they think the sound is "bad". in most cases they find the sound, in various contexts, pleasurable, or good. Mister Speaker posted:You like it because of its distortion. You even agreed with me on this. Our point of contention seems to be in the application of the word 'quality'. But to my mind, 'distortion' is antithetical to 'quality'. I'm not going to go all Webster's on your rear end here but it IS right there in the definitions. If you want to read some more folks way more qualified than me who are using the term 'quality' as a fairly objective measure, you can check out this study from the Council for Research in Music Education. Mister Speaker fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Apr 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 21:29
|
|
|
if you think i'm some sort of analog crusader you've got me entirely wrong. i use digital tools and recording methods to make music every day as part of my job and in my personal work as well. a lot of my music is 100% digital. what i'm talking about in terms of "bad" or "good" is not quality, it's aesthetics. i think that's where we may be misunderstanding each other. i'm simply saying that sounds that were once created unintentionally as flaws are now considered desirable, and aesthetically good. i'm a pretty big fan of brian eno. i think he's one of the most important musical minds of the last half century, but that doesn't mean i have to agree with him on everything he says, and yes i think he's a bit short sighted in that quote. "distortion" once had specific associations that are no longer universally the only associations with that sound, because of the way it's been used in music over the last several decades. i also find piss far less interesting than eno does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 21:42
|
|
|
As someone who collects tapes the worst part is storing the loving things. They take up so much goddamned space.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 21:54
|
|
|
Marx Headroom posted:As someone who collects tapes the worst part is storing the loving things. They take up so much goddamned space. Records take up way less space but man, a box of records is h e a v y a s f u c k.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 22:14
|
|
|
That's really more what scares me about getting into vinyl. I own a handful of records but am kind of glad I never had the space for more than a couple of crates, because it could get out of hand easily. I actually just sold my Technics 1200 mk2s  as much as I was absolutely not using them to spin records at all, it's always sad to part ways with a prized piece of gear.Earwicker posted:
Yeah definitely, it's a semantic debate at this point and we're not going to see eye to eye about it. You've definitely made a more reasonable case than a lot of people who've gotten into this with me, so big up yourself for that. I think we just fundamentally disagree with the way the scales of objectivity and subjectivity are weighted when the word 'quality' comes up. This thread is cool, buzzkill that this debate may have been. I enjoy looking at pictures of vintage electronics and nerding out about how they work, as much as the next dweeb. What really blew my mind growing up was learning that the MiniDisc is kind of a hybrid medium; its encoding method is not fully optical or magnetic, it's kind of both. I wonder if the engineers that designed it found some efficiency there, or if it failed deservedly because simple optical PCM was more elegant. All I know is that playing around with my MD collection felt like handling the NOC list, and that's cool to a 14-year-old boy. I think the cassette tapes that got the most play from me as a kid were probably Tull's Crest of a Knave and Born To Laugh At Tornadoes by Was (Not Was). The latter is an absolute trip in 80s synthpop full of excellent guest vocalists that's still obscure enough that you can blow peoples' minds with it. Many trips in rental cars with my Dad were spent listening to those albums on repeat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
Marx Headroom posted:As someone who collects tapes the worst part is storing the loving things. They take up so much goddamned space. Yeah, I'm looking around at different solutions (drawers/cases/etc.) for dealing with this problem. The Container Store has nothing last I checked, which is a bummer because I really like their vinyl crates. I live in an apartment with walls that don't take anything heavier than a framed picture, so whatever I go with needs to be free-standing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 22:23
|
|