Well, the stereo was different in the 70's, but I don't know if you can say
it was better. Certainly what Hendrix, Zappa, and others were doing with
stereo in the 60's was arguably a much fuller exploitation of the
possibilities of stereo than what went on later. And it's very hard to claim
that recording quality improved in the 70's. The half-inch 8-track and
1-inch 16-track machines running at 15 IPS that were used in the 60's gave
better results than the 1-inch 24-track 30 IPS recorders used in the 70's
and 80's. Also, most of the studio standard mics were already out in the
60's, including the Neumann U47, U67, and U87, the AKG C12, and the Shure
SM57. You might prefer the recording techniques used in the 70's and later,
but that's more a matter of personal aesthetics than the quality of the
recording equipment.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Byron Stephens" <bstephens122...@shaw.ca>
To: "PC Audio Discussion List" <pc-audio@pc-audio.org>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: encoding older music
You can get away also with lower bitrates with metal, provided it's 192
kbps. For older music from the 60's and back, the technology of the time
wasn't as good, and they weren't harnessing stereo to it's fullest. Take the
beatles for example, allot of their stuff is split, you'd have the vocals
bass and guitars in your left ear, and the drums in the other ear. As time
progressed into the early 70's, stereo sound was beginning to be harnessed
better with better recording.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Scrimenti" <dscrime...@comcast.net>
To: "PC Audio Discussion List" <pc-audio@pc-audio.org>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: encoding older music
Once music started being recorded on tape, (1950 and later), the quality is
sufficiently good that you might not want to compromise. Prior to that, you
can get away with it more. On the other hand, do you want to risk
introducing even more degradation to something that's already pretty bad?
Also, no compromise in sound quality assumes you use a stereo system capable
of letting you discern the difference. Sometimes people obsess over bit
rates, and then listen with their computer's built-in sound card with crap
converters, a junky amp, and cheap speakers or headphones.
----- Original Message -----
From: "André van Deventer" <andred...@webafrica.org.za>
To: "PC Audio Discussion List" <pc-audio@pc-audio.org>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 11:55 AM
Subject: encoding older music
Hi folks!
I again dare to open the can of worms which is the encoding of music which
is downloaded from the internet.
But today I have a different slant.
For reasonably new stuff I do not believe that you can compromise especially
when it comes to music with large orchestras. 320 mp3 3encoding is the
least that is acceptable.
But what happens if you work with music from the 40s, 50s and even the 60s?
Is there really an appreciable difference between 128 kbps and 320 kbps
encoding - even with music which is recorded in stereo?
I realize that this is mostly a matter of personal preference and the kinds
of music I am talking about would be say before 1970.
Andre
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to:
pc-audio-unsubscr...@pc-audio.org
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to:
pc-audio-unsubscr...@pc-audio.org
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to:
pc-audio-unsubscr...@pc-audio.org
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to:
pc-audio-unsubscr...@pc-audio.org
