Anthony MD Posted January 20 Author Share #221 Posted January 20 Advertisement (gone after registration) 34 minutes ago, Paulus said: I’m sorry, I thought it was an exemple of quality. Maybe I was too harsh. Some have other opinions…! Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/418225-why-do-photographers-want-to-make-their-digital-images-look-like-film-anyway%E2%80%A6/?do=findComment&comment=5743593'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 20 Posted January 20 Hi Anthony MD, Take a look here Why do photographers want to make their digital images look like film anyway…?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Deeetona Posted January 20 Share #222 Posted January 20 I think we are talking about different "goldes ages" here. I am talking about the period when recording technology (mixing desks, tape recorders, signal processing) became transistor based, but sound creation remained largely tube based (guitar amplifiers). Let's listen to Steely Dan's 1970s records. Pleasant to the ear (besides the wonderful complex songwriting). "Gaucho" in 1980 was supposed to be digitally mastered, but the actual sound creation and processing was analog. While ARP and then Seq. Circuits started to use microprocessors, they largely did so to control the tune of oscillators. "real" digital sound creation (e.g.by sampling) happened later. Use cases were drums (the famous Linn), and mostly gimmicky applications of Fairlight CMI. At NAAM in 1981 the first mainstream digital multitrack recorders were launched. Over time, music became squared off to the nearest 16th note, due to coarse resolutions of early sequencers. Zappa's "Francesco Zappa" is a good example of the sterile digital-ness of FM synthesis, later brought into mainstream by Yamaha's DX-7 and its cheesy "Rhodes" piano. The era of CDs brought coldness to our ears. Eventually bass players became redundant (with the exception of Davie504 and Ellen Alaverdyan), drums are either sampled and looped, or the x-th reiteration of 40 year old TR 808/909 sounds. In Jazz, your mileage might vary. Then 19" racks with valve units came up. But valves in recording tech were obsolete once the 70s arrived. using a 19" valve unit, or, worse, a computer plug in to simulate valve distortion or tape hiss, is the equivalent of a "filter" most us here would shy away from using. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 20 Author Share #223 Posted January 20 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Deeetona said: I think we are talking about different "goldes ages" here. I am talking about the period when recording technology (mixing desks, tape recorders, signal processing) became transistor based, but sound creation remained largely tube based (guitar amplifiers). Let's listen to Steely Dan's 1970s records. Pleasant to the ear (besides the wonderful complex songwriting). "Gaucho" in 1980 was supposed to be digitally mastered, but the actual sound creation and processing was analog. While ARP and then Seq. Circuits started to use microprocessors, they largely did so to control the tune of oscillators. "real" digital sound creation (e.g.by sampling) happened later. Use cases were drums (the famous Linn), and mostly gimmicky applications of Fairlight CMI. At NAAM in 1981 the first mainstream digital multitrack recorders were launched. Over time, music became squared off to the nearest 16th note, due to coarse resolutions of early sequencers. Zappa's "Francesco Zappa" is a good example of the sterile digital-ness of FM synthesis, later brought into mainstream by Yamaha's DX-7 and its cheesy "Rhodes" piano. The era of CDs brought coldness to our ears. Eventually bass players became redundant (with the exception of Davie504 and Ellen Alaverdyan), drums are either sampled and looped, or the x-th reiteration of 40 year old TR 808/909 sounds. In Jazz, your mileage might vary. Then 19" racks with valve units came up. But valves in recording tech were obsolete once the 70s arrived. using a 19" valve unit, or, worse, a computer plug in to simulate valve distortion or tape hiss, is the equivalent of a "filter" most us here would shy away from using. What is amazing about the late 1950’s to 1960’s Golden Era classical audiophile Lps is the performance went to the mike to the amplifier to the lathe, all tubes, with limited processing…🎙️ Edited January 20 by Anthony MD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeetona Posted January 20 Share #224 Posted January 20 Super amazing, still - the output is Elvis through a Grammophone, i cant stand that sound 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 20 Author Share #225 Posted January 20 10 minutes ago, Deeetona said: Super amazing, still - the output is Elvis through a Grammophone, i cant stand that sound Needs to be the audiophile Golden Era LPs from the 50’s to 60’s…🎙️ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted January 20 Share #226 Posted January 20 vor einer Stunde schrieb Anthony MD: Did you listen to this recording on the actual 1959 Lp? Why do you think this recording is poorly played…? Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! I’m an expert in performing and interpreting music of J.S.Bach in major ensembles in Europe. I can hear it. Sorry if this sound blasé, but it was my work. “ You get it, if you get it.” 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 20 Author Share #227 Posted January 20 Advertisement (gone after registration) 18 minutes ago, Paulus said: I’m an expert in performing and interpreting music of J.S.Bach in major ensembles in Europe. I can hear it. Sorry if this sound blasé, but it was my work. “ You get it, if you get it.” May I ask what was the medium used to evaluate the sound…🎙️ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted January 20 Share #228 Posted January 20 vor 12 Minuten schrieb Anthony MD: May I ask what was the medium used to evaluate the sound…🎙️ Music. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 20 Author Share #229 Posted January 20 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Paulus said: Music. Was it an audiophile Golden Era LP from the 50’s and 60’s, or a lesser quality LP, cassette or CD…🎙️ Edited January 20 by Anthony MD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted January 20 Share #230 Posted January 20 (edited) Not that it matters much but there are perhaps a dozen (or thirty+) violinists whose performances I would rather listen to than Menuhin(*). For example my absolute #1 performance of Paganini's #1 goes way back to Leonid Kogan's 1958(!) recording which I had on the Supraphon label. It might not be (and I assure you it most certainly isn't!) a 'Golden Era' Audiohile-quality recording which would cause a 'true' audiophile to go into rapture but considered solely as an outstanding emotional virtuoso performance? Peerless. IMO, of course. I say 'which I had' because I loaned the record to a very close friend around 45 years ago and they liked the recording so very much that I now send the LP an annual 'Birthday Card' to remind my friend that...... I have many versions of Pag #1 to hand - most of which are far more 'polished' in execution than Kogan's. I was listening to one not four hours ago but they don't 'move' me in quite the same way as that on my now long-gone LP. Fortunately I have the original bookmarked on my laptop so can access it whenever I like but still....it's not the same as having the original '58 vinyl to hand....'Golden Era' or not... Philip. * By a weird coincidence at this moment I'm listening to Nathan Milstein going 'Solo' through some bits from his extraordinary Deutsche Grammophon portfolio. Utterly sublime... Edited January 20 by pippy 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 20 Author Share #231 Posted January 20 12 minutes ago, pippy said: Not that it matters much but there are perhaps a dozen (or thirty+) violinists whose performances I would rather listen to than Menuhin(*). For example my absolute #1 performance of Paganini's #1 goes way back to Leonid Kogan's 1958(!) recording which I had on the Supraphon label. It might not be a 'Golden Era' Audiohile-quality recording which would cause a 'true' audiophile to go into rapture but considered solely as an outstanding emotional virtuoso performance? Peerless. IMO, of course. I say 'which I had' because I loaned the record to a very close friend around 45 years ago and they liked the recording so very much that I now send the LP an annual 'Birthday Card' to remind my friend that...... I have many versions of Pag #1 to hand - most of which are far more 'polished' in execution than Kogan's ( I was listening to one not four hours ago) - but they don't 'move' me in quite the same way as that on my now long-gone LP. Fortunately I have the original bookmarked on my laptop so can access it whenever I like but still....it's not the same as having the original '58 vinyl to hand....'Golden Era' or not... Philip. * By a weird coincidence at this moment I'm listening to Nathan Milstein going 'Solo' through some bits from his extraordinary portfolio. Utterly sublime... The sound of the Stradivarius is awesome no matter who plays it…🎻 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted January 20 Share #232 Posted January 20 Just now, Anthony MD said: The sound of the Stradivarius is awesome no matter who plays it…🎻 Errmmm....don't give it to me... 😸 P. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 20 Author Share #233 Posted January 20 Just now, pippy said: Errmmm....don't give it to me... 😸 P. I’ll listen again to the Bath recording with more scrutiny…🥸 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 21 Author Share #234 Posted January 21 59 minutes ago, Anthony MD said: I’ll listen again to the Bath recording with more scrutiny…🥸 After a bath…😂 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted January 21 Share #235 Posted January 21 vor 7 Stunden schrieb Anthony MD: Was it an audiophile Golden Era LP from the 50’s and 60’s, or a lesser quality LP, cassette or CD…🎙️ Interpretation and playing off key has nothing to do with the way it is recorded, but with the way the musicians play, so the recording is irrelevant in this matter. to stay on subject: a bad photo will not be better with a superb camera, but will stay bad because of it’s inherent quality and craftmanship which is not available . If you cannot see that a picture is bad, there is no reason to discuss the camera or film or digital recording of this fact. Stating that the sound of a Stradivarius is always awsome, doesn’t really do much to me. It sounds like: “ With a M11 the photo is always awsome!” No it’s just a tool: when you use it wrongly the result will be of mediocre quality. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeetona Posted January 21 Share #236 Posted January 21 That is right. And if you look at what amateurs with superb equipment actually produce..."I am thinking about buying a Q3 43 but is the autofocus good enough to capture my kids running around the house?". Nothing against kids and/or autofocus. But most Leica users are over-equipped and from the many posts about Summilux-APOASPH-this and that, a lot of users are focussed on pixelpeeping and specs instead of working on their technique. Yes, in a gear-focused monobrand forum, that kind of angle is to be expected. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 21 Share #237 Posted January 21 11 hours ago, Anthony MD said: May I ask what was the medium used to evaluate the sound…🎙️ This is rather like asking about viewing a photography by HCB. I've seen original prints in galleries, reproductions in his original, contemporary books (I have a copy of "The Decisive Moment" which would have been prepared and printed without the use of digital tecnology), reproductions in current versions (reprints of his books which will have used digital technology) and of course reproductions (digital obviously) online. Some of his photographs are extraordinary and the way they are viewed or prepared for viewing may have a marginal effect, but the subject, lighting and content are what matters. The 'golden age' of music or photography varies (as in it doesn't really exist) and has little to do with the technology and everything to do with content. I have a 'wire photo' from WWII which by modern standards is hardly of the best 'quality' but it is fascinating because of content. Ditto stereo prints from the 1850s and of course many modern photographs. Its all too easy to mistake the technology as being essential for their interest but in reality, whilst it has an effect its often considered disproportionately important. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted January 21 Share #238 Posted January 21 Dipped into this thread to see why it was still going, and noticed the diversion to Yehudi Menuhin and the Bath Orchestra. As a school kid, we were taken to the Assembly Rooms to see Menuhin rehearsing the orchestra for the Bath Festival. I have no recollection of it other than a visual image of him and the orchestra in that magnificent room (and we were in the front row). It was just one other building block into my lifelong preference for live performance over recorded. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derbyshire Man Posted January 21 Share #239 Posted January 21 23 hours ago, Homo Faber said: "Abbey Road" by the Beatles was the first (and their last unfortunately) record the band recorded on the TG12345. One clearly can hear the difference to their earlier records like the White album which were recorded with a tube console. But iirc the lads didn't care as much for the different sound as they were keen on the more advanced TG12345 because of expanded recording options. For the first they were able to record a whole album to an eight track tape recording machine. I don't know if someone has already posted this but it ended up in a skip https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/beatles-console-found-discarded-skip-34003767 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony MD Posted January 21 Author Share #240 Posted January 21 (edited) 5 hours ago, Paulus said: Interpretation and playing off key has nothing to do with the way it is recorded, but with the way the musicians play, so the recording is irrelevant in this matter. to stay on subject: a bad photo will not be better with a superb camera, but will stay bad because of it’s inherent quality and craftmanship which is not available . If you cannot see that a picture is bad, there is no reason to discuss the camera or film or digital recording of this fact. Stating that the sound of a Stradivarius is always awsome, doesn’t really do much to me. It sounds like: “ With a M11 the photo is always awsome!” No it’s just a tool: when you use it wrongly the result will be of mediocre quality. Playing off key might be just an opinion caused by inferior sources. Maybe, but when one of the greatest violinists plays one of the best Stradivarius violins ever made will sound amazing using the right equipment and recordings…🎙️ Edited January 21 by Anthony MD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now