Re: [ARSCLIST] Bad transfers vs no transfers

[David Lennick <dlennick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marcos, sorry..I was referring to bad transfers for commercial issue. As for 
YouTube, I'll leave that to the people who actually devote time to looking at 
such things and thinking they're hearing and seeing something revolutionary. 
But please don't call it better than nothing, because it's a travesty. You can 
buy wonderful new 3-speed record players and play all your grandmother's 78s on 
them, but unless someone guides you to purchasing a proper cartridge and 
stylus, you're going to hear garbage. You can buy an antique phonograph and 
think you're going to have a ball with all those 40s and 50s records you found, 
and every one of them is going to be chewed up in the first five seconds. Let's 
not call this something it's not, okay? I repeat..bad transfers are bad 
transfers and are worse than no transfers at all. Want me to say it again?

dl

Marcos Sueiro Bal wrote:
> 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