View Single Post
Old 10-13-2021, 03:39 AM   #56
drofgnal
Wizard
drofgnal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.drofgnal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.drofgnal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.drofgnal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.drofgnal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.drofgnal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.drofgnal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.drofgnal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.drofgnal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.drofgnal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.drofgnal ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,410
Karma: 10519918
Join Date: Dec 2009
Device: Ipad Pro/Kindle Oasis 3/iPhone 13 Pro Max
Quote:
Originally Posted by crane3 View Post
Still true! The "newer" vinyls are touted to be heavy compared to the past vinyls, especially in the 1970's during the oil crunch where the recording companies started to use recycled vinyl. That's when I invested in a record clamp to 'flatten' any warped record.

RCA sold some SACDs that sounded nicer & fuller than the CDs of the same artist (Rubinstein) claiming that it was using the original masters where some had used a 3 microphone recording. Why the difference as both the SACD & the CD were digitals? The recording engineer and/or the producer wanted to create a certain sound to their tastes. I have a "producer's cut" recording where Emmy Lou Harris sounded from the front speakers while the guitar was coming from the back; does not make sense.
The RCA "Living Stereo" series of SACDs were classical music recordings that were recorded in 3 channel, left, center, right. For CDs you get two channel with the center being mixed equally in right and left. For SACD, you get the full 3.1 channel mix.
drofgnal is offline   Reply With Quote