Page 147 of 149

Re: Music talk Thread

Posted: February 23 21, 11:03 am
by BottenFieldofDreams
heyzeus wrote:
February 23 21, 9:18 am
Just heard this song, which is good and I like it:
I effing love that guitar solo. I've listened to it a million times. So raw and messy and wonderful. I just assumed it was the guy on second guitar (aren't those guys there for the solo?). But it's the singer/songwriter, which I love on a couple levels.

Here's my other favorite by them:

Re: Music talk Thread

Posted: February 23 21, 1:22 pm
by heyzeus
BottenFieldofDreams wrote:
February 23 21, 11:03 am

I effing love that guitar solo. I've listened to it a million times. So raw and messy and wonderful. I just assumed it was the guy on second guitar (aren't those guys there for the solo?). But it's the singer/songwriter, which I love on a couple levels.

Here's my other favorite by them:
That's a beautiful song! It reminds me in some ways of Kurt Vile - melancholy, beautiful, guitar-driven. I only heard of this band for the first time yesterday, but I'm already a fan. Other favorite songs?

Re: Music talk Thread

Posted: February 23 21, 4:05 pm
by Smith Corks One
Yeah, love both of those songs. Always liked “Shark Smile” a lot, too.

Re: Music talk Thread

Posted: February 23 21, 5:34 pm
by haltz
That's a beautiful song! It reminds me in some ways of Kurt Vile - melancholy, beautiful, guitar-driven. I only heard of this band for the first time yesterday, but I'm already a fan. Other favorite songs?
I'm going through some of their stuff a bit on Spotify thanks to this thread. Ver voice is fantastic. After listening to that first song you posted "Not" I was surprised by this one. Right off the bat there's some dreamy crooning here that has a whiff of Jeff Buckley or Regina Spektor, which I didn't expect and might not make sense anyway.

Re: Music talk Thread

Posted: February 28 21, 8:46 pm
by Radbird
heyzeus wrote:
February 23 21, 1:22 pm
BottenFieldofDreams wrote:
February 23 21, 11:03 am

I effing love that guitar solo. I've listened to it a million times. So raw and messy and wonderful. I just assumed it was the guy on second guitar (aren't those guys there for the solo?). But it's the singer/songwriter, which I love on a couple levels.

Here's my other favorite by them:
That's a beautiful song! It reminds me in some ways of Kurt Vile - melancholy, beautiful, guitar-driven. I only heard of this band for the first time yesterday, but I'm already a fan. Other favorite songs?
That did have a nice Kurt Vile vibe to it.

Re: Music talk Thread

Posted: March 3 21, 7:42 pm
by Jocephus
Tupac's first film appearance was in 1991 in Nothing but Trouble

Re: Music talk Thread

Posted: March 17 21, 10:39 am
by Jocephus

Re: Music talk Thread

Posted: March 20 21, 5:38 pm
by Radbird
Image
If I had a million dollars....

Re: Music talk Thread

Posted: March 22 21, 2:46 pm
by pioneer98
This article explained really well the difference between vinyl and digital formats.

Basically, streaming really sucks due to compression. That's obvious even to my crappy ears. CD's are a big step up from streaming, but there is still a difference between CD's and vinyl. This article explains that really well. I think you'd need pretty good ears to hear the difference though (better ears than mine). The explanation blew my mind. CD's get sampled at 44KHz, which is fast enough to resolve all frequencies within human hearing range. The highest we can hear is about 20kHz. To resolve that frequency, you'd need to sample at >2X that frequency. So they picked 2X 20kHz, plus a 10% margin of error. Problem is, our ears can't resolve frequencies higher than 20kHz, but our neurons are capable of resolving *information* much faster than even 44kHz. In fact, we can tell when a sound hits one ear before the other (that's one way we can tell what direction a sound is coming from). That's on the order of 2 to 3 microseconds. So our brains are capable of resolving information from our ears every 2 to 3 microseconds, but a CD is only sampled once every 22 microseconds (1/44000 seconds). So there is still a tiny stair step squareness to the sound of a CD player that some people can detect.

TL;DR - You'd have to increase the sampling rate of a CD player by about 10X to make it impossible for any human to be able to tell the difference between a CD and a record.

Is Vinyl Better Than Digital?
Neil Young was a famous rock musician in the 1970s, specializing in live performance and weird acoustic spaces, like the echo-filled iron sawdust burner I once camped in as a kid. In a recent interview for The New York Times Magazine, he claimed that digital compression technology — CD, MP3, streaming — undermines human dignity. Of the thousands of comments in response, many readers denounced him as emotional, anti-scientific, a Luddite and even partly deaf. But might Young know something the rest of us don’t?

Put another way, if a sensitive, world-acclaimed innovator denounces his industry and its technology for undermining human dignity and brain function, something big is up. Who could be more qualified than a world expert — with loads of experience and no incentive to fib — to call the alarm about widespread technological damage?

Young isn’t the first to denounce digital and acclaim analog. Legions of self-proclaimed audiophiles have lamented the loss of vinyl LPs since digital CDs first appeared in the 1970s. Likewise, legions of people who grew up talking for hours on old-fashioned analog telephones hate talking on digital cellphones now. For decades, there has been a deep-set conflict between those who claim analog has some ineffable “presence” missing in digital versus those with technical know-how who can explain how analog and digital actually work. In essence, the producers of digital tech claim it is flawless, while the most sensitive consumers claim it is awful. They can’t both be right.

Re: Music talk Thread

Posted: March 22 21, 3:05 pm
by pioneer98
And so my question is - why don't we just increase the sampling rate of CD players? Computing power is several orders of magnitude what it was in the 1980s (and CDs were actually invented in the 1970s). It seems like increasing the sampling rate should be doable. Maybe there are other barriers to doing that than just computing power, I don't know. But if you could do that, you'd have the best of both worlds - you'd get away from the fragility and wear down of records without losing any sound quality. And you'd get it in a more portable format.