• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Daltry Disses Digital

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet
Sort by date Sort by votes
Taosman

Taosman

Your Cousin In New Mexxico
<TABLE cellPadding=5 width=500 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Daltry Disses Digital at Download Service Launch! Won't Get Fooled Again! </TD></TR><TR><TD class=tiny>
thewhoap.jpg
At an event promoting the launch of a new HMV record chain MP3 digital download service, Who frontman Roger Daltry shocked the event organizers by crapping all over the new technology, calling it "...a decrease in quality" from vinyl. Continuing to slam the download service, Daltry went on to say, "If I was a billionaire, and had my time all over, I would invest all of my money in setting up a factory to produce vinyl records again." Summing it all up, the great Who singer said "Nothing beats the rich sound quality of vinyl, it's a fact." To quote Flounder from Animal House, "Oh boy! This is GREAT!" Unfortunately, we don't have any reaction shots of the HMV crowd while Dalty was dissing them. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 
Well, I guess I'll be the first to talk about analog vs. digital...

First of all, Daltry is right in a sense. The best analog recordings of anything will always be better than digital. He's not just an old fart that is stuck in the good ole days. The point that he fails to realize is that digital recordings make decent sounding music more attainable to the general public. It takes a lot of money, and a lot of time and effort to get the music you want on vinyl at a quality level equal to or surpassing a CD, mp3, or lossless digital recording.
 
Upvote 0
jlb1705 said:
Well, I guess I'll be the first to talk about analog vs. digital...

First of all, Daltry is right in a sense. The best analog recordings of anything will always be better than digital. He's not just an old fart that is stuck in the good ole days. The point that he fails to realize is that digital recordings make decent sounding music more attainable to the general public. It takes a lot of money, and a lot of time and effort to get the music you want on vinyl at a quality level equal to or surpassing a CD, mp3, or lossless digital recording.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%

I don't know you jlb, but maybe your ear is so good that you don't realize that not everyone hears the difference. I have known enough audiophiles in my time that I am satisfied that they can hear the difference; but I cannot. Most people I know can't hear the difference.

It doesn't really bother me that I don't have that kind of ear, because I can buy a $500 sound system that sounds as good to me as a $10,000 audiophile's system. I can also enjoy concerts etc. without overanalyzing everything. I once went to a concert with a friend, one who hears the difference between top-quality vinyl and digital recordings, and he spent the entire concert grinding his teeth. When I asked him what was wrong, he said that one note on the piano was slightly out of tune and it was driving him crazy.

Aside from the fact that I can't hear the difference; there is the fact that I can now store a "peach crate" worth of music in a device that I can wear on my arm while I work-out. I love music, but it would be a bitch to have such a good ear that I would have to devote an entire room of my house to storing what now resides in a "corner" of my computer's hard-drive.
 
Upvote 0
DaddyBigBucks said:
Agree 100%

I don't know you jlb, but maybe your ear is so good that you don't realize that not everyone hears the difference. I have known enough audiophiles in my time that I am satisfied that they can hear the difference; but I cannot. Most people I know can't hear the difference.

It doesn't really bother me that I don't have that kind of ear, because I can buy a $500 sound system that sounds as good to me as a $10,000 audiophile's system. I can also enjoy concerts etc. without overanalyzing everything. I once went to a concert with a friend, one who hears the difference between top-quality vinyl and digital recordings, and he spent the entire concert grinding his teeth. When I asked him what was wrong, he said that one note on the piano was slightly out of tune and it was driving him crazy.

Aside from the fact that I can't hear the difference; there is the fact that I can now store a "peach crate" worth of music in a device that I can wear on my arm while I work-out. I love music, but it would be a bitch to have such a good ear that I would have to devote an entire room of my house to storing what now resides in a "corner" of my computer's hard-drive.
Click to expand...

The out of tune piano would drive me nuts as well.

I would be surprised if someone could tell the difference between a high quality digital recording vs. high quality analog recording. What I bet your friend is hearing is the "noise" inherent in all recordings (along with a few other things that would be too lengthly to get in to in this post). The "noise" is the dead giveaway. Digital "noise" sounds completely different from analog "noise". And actually, it's not just the "noise" but also the "noise gating" or "limiting" used during the recording process that also gives it away...Yes, technically, Daltry is correct that vinyl is the best recording medium, sound wise, but only very few people would ever be able to tell the difference...And whatever perceived quality difference there is, is totally outweighed by the convenience that digital recording affords, as you point out...I personally think that digital recordings sound great, even if there is a more "sterile" feeling...The options available to you and the ease of use of those options, in the digital environment is far and above anything analog can offer...
 
Upvote 0
My ear is not that good. Actually, I'm not as picky as my digital music as a lot of people are. I'm seeing a lot of VBR stuff out there that's running at 500 kbps and over, and I can't hear the difference between that and the stuff I rip from my CDs at 160 kbps. I can tell the difference between 160 and 128 though. I was a percussionist growing up, so that's where I can really hear the difference. I know intuitively what a crash cymbal is supposed to sound like, and some digital recordings are just so poor or have been compressed and recompressed and converted so many times that information gets lost and it begins to sound like ass.

Personally, I have no desire to invest in vinyl. Actually, I bought a CD yesterday for the first time in a while, and kinda regretted it. I use my iPod for everything, and that CD is just gonna collect dust.
 
Upvote 0
Yeah, I can easily tell if something is 128 vs. 160 or 192. Anything higher than 192 is indistinguishable to my ear. While I'm not an audiophile, I certainly enjoy a good sound system. Bass that hits low with no distortion, clear mid level, and subtle highs - all while keeping those proportions at any volume level.
 
Upvote 0
How about that! Good ole Roger might have something there!
I just found my autographed program from him,I got signed in 1998 when he was touring in Tribute to British rock at Heinz Hall in Pittsburgh,Pa~ I was even LUCKY enough to meet him & get my picture taken with him:groove: :biggrin: (MELT)!!!!
They did Stones,Pink Floyd,Beatles & of course Who music. Roger sang Procol Harem's "Whiter Shade Of Pale" & Beatle's "Let It Be" and it was spectacular. He is a not so tall dude but a hunk! I think he is only 5'7" ~not much taller than I am,I'm 5'4"! That's okay,Ellie thinks he's fine!
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top