CD is dead. Long live Vinyl?

[jim goulding]

I wonder what artists with their photographs hanging in galleries use. I know Stanley Kubrick, the filmaker, had a preference for an older camera that was used in Eyes Wide Shut. Wouldn't shoot without it I read. Your close strikes me as odd. Good for you for saying it but sounds kind of brain dead to me (regards analog). Why would you derive less serious musical appreciation from what's in those grooves any less than what's it those bits? What I'm getting is that your preference for the newer technology is strong. Too strong. But you don''t have many albums, anyway. You won't be gettin nominated for romantic of the year . . maybe pragmatist. I'm bettin that if you were to spend an afternoon at my house, you'd have an serious appreciation of music on vinyl. If you could be open minded, that is. Just in case, I got somethin for that.

[Feanor]

.... Your close strikes me as odd. Good for you for saying it but sounds kind of brain dead to me (regards analog). Why would you derive less serious musical appreciation from what's in those grooves any less than what's it those bits? ....

I gave my three reasons for preferring digital, (not specifically CD), earlier in this thread. Go back and read: the reasons didn't have to do with sound quality, not even with clicks & pops.

For years my music collection was very small, and it still is relatively. My object today is today is to own some version of all the most notable classical works -- this will take my collection above 1000 CDs (or equivalent). Also, I enjoy contemporary classical composers and works. The fact is that the selection I need is simply not available on LP.

Other than that, my earliest hi-fi experience was with vinyl -- I go back a dozen years before CD was even introduced. The rituals of LP handling have no residual charm for me whatsoever.

[PeruvianSkies]

I wonder what artists with their photographs hanging in galleries use. I know Stanley Kubrick, the filmaker, had a preference for an older camera that was used in Eyes Wide Shut. Wouldn't shoot without it I read. Your close strikes me as odd. Good for you for saying it but sounds kind of brain dead to me (regards analog). Why would you derive less serious musical appreciation from what's in those grooves any less than what's it those bits? What I'm getting is that your preference for the newer technology is strong. Too strong. But you don''t have many albums, anyway. You won't be gettin nominated for romantic of the year . . maybe pragmatist. I'm bettin that if you were to spend an afternoon at my house, you'd have an serious appreciation of music on vinyl. If you could be open minded, that is. Just in case, I got somethin for that.

Kubrick was one of the few filmmakers who was also a cinematographer at the same time because he understood the motion picture camera inside and out. He knew how to get a certain 'look' and 'feel', which all of his films contain a unique signature to them that IS Kubrick. Each of his films he used a variety of cameras, but most of the time was using Mitchell and older models that often times gave a unique look, but more important to that is the film stock, which Kubrick also knew much about and would always make sure that the finished product resembled his vision and that requires the knowledge of all of the equipment. Of course BARRY LYNDON is one of the more famous stories where he retro-fitted Zeiss lenses onto the Mitchell (I believe BNC) models and was able to get the candles without any other lighting except natural lighting, this also gave the film little depth of film and flattened it out like a 17th Century painting, which was also appropriate.

The look of EYES WIDE SHUT is very interesting as well because it has a very golden tone to it, but also it has tons of grain and is relatively over-saturated to some degree, but there are contrasting golden scenes with light colder blue ones that work so well for the film and again, the result is a unique trademark that few films have this same quality.