[ARSCLIST] Bad transfers vs no transfers

[Marcos Sueiro Bal <mls2137@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

David,

I vehemently disagree (and let's try to keep the discussion civil). I 
would rather have a young person discover, say, King Oliver over YouTube 
than not discover him, just because there is no funding or time or 
bandwidth to listen to a beautiful transfer. Should Shakespeare be 
performed only by top-of-the-line professional troupes? I would hope not.

So, again, I applaud the efforts of amateurs, but my experience is that 
I prefer the work of professionals.

Cheers,

Marcos

David Lennick wrote:
> Marcos Sueiro Bal wrote:
> > Having said that, I always say that any transfer is usually better 
> > than no transfer (unless you damage the original, of course).
> Bullshit. Sorry. Bad transfers are bad transfers and do nothing to 
> convert the very people we want to get to listen to something other 
> than the latest hotshot tenor or headbanger. Most early LP transfers 
> of 78s were holy horrors (wow, bad joins, level flux), even when they 
> were dubbed from the 16-inch originals (Columbia's early LP transfers 
> from English and European 78s are unspeakably bad by any standards) 
> and these were followed by attempts to "modernize" them with reverb 
> and bad EQ and then squeeze 33 minutes onto a twelve-inch side. 
> Camdens for the most part were even worse. It's no wonder that a 
> generation or two had no respect for the previous 25 years of recorded 
> sound when it was presented to them in that manner.
>
> dl