The who: "Wont get fooled again" Review
Moderator: Super Moderators
HB3 wrote: I like the sound of that stuff too, but there's definitely a big difference.
yeah but I don't think that difference is attributable to it being in stereo. Hendrix or the Dead maybe, but the Who was not messing that much with panning except with the synths.
The heartbreaking necessity of lying about reality and the heartbreaking impossibility of lying about it.
― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
- Raggedyann
- Pirate
- Posts: 5250
- Joined: 08-22-2006 04:50 PM
Well I'm no expert on stereo, mono or any of this. I just know what my ears tell me. I have been a classical music and opera lover since I could walk. I can hear instruments through modern technology mediums that weren't distinguishable in my old recordings of the same music. I like the clarity and I was thrilled when CD's first came out for this reason. I want to hear every note, every little sound. The depth and impact of the base instruments in dramatic symphony is better.
“For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing.” Simon Wiesenthal
there is no "locality" in The Who's music that I know about... if there is, it is an effect and is not necessary, since I don't hear it anyways.
It is just interesting to think about why stereo matters, and I really don't think it does that much. Where it does matter is in symphonies, where you need a wide stage, but for 4 instruments... not so much.
It is just interesting to think about why stereo matters, and I really don't think it does that much. Where it does matter is in symphonies, where you need a wide stage, but for 4 instruments... not so much.
The heartbreaking necessity of lying about reality and the heartbreaking impossibility of lying about it.
― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
HB3 wrote: Well, maybe you should learn about it.
Right back at you. I think I am the only one who has explained myself as well as posted an interesting article about it. Your position is "stereo is better because it sounds better". I am saying recording tech got better, that is why the sound is better, and stereo is an extra component on top of that, one that is unnecessary in this sort of music. There, did I learn you?
The heartbreaking necessity of lying about reality and the heartbreaking impossibility of lying about it.
― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
- Raggedyann
- Pirate
- Posts: 5250
- Joined: 08-22-2006 04:50 PM
Fan wrote: Right back at you. I think I am the only one who has explained myself as well as posted an interesting article about it. Your position is "stereo is better because it sounds better". I am saying recording tech got better, that is why the sound is better, and stereo is an extra component on top of that, one that is unnecessary in this sort of music. There, did I learn you?
Dude, what? Um....yeah.
THATS AN AWESOME ARTICLE FAN!!!!!!Fan wrote: This guy makes a pretty good argument...
http://www.anstendig.org/Stereo.html (good article)
I have always loved and preferred mono buddy....Sounds nicer