appleburger17

appleburger17 t1_ja96bzr wrote

A lot of David Bazan's (aka Pedro the Lion) work fits this. His solo album Curse Your Branches is a great example. The whole album deals with alcoholism, losing faith, and being a husband and father while dealing with it all. Even with that subject matter, songs like Please, Baby, Please sound like they could be in a Disney movie if you didn't tune into the lyrics. Bless This Mess is another song from that album that fits. Regardless of whether its what you're looking for, the album is amazing.

1

appleburger17 t1_j9ccy1a wrote

The only way is to stop the sound waves from other instruments reaching the mic. You can help a little by putting something between the mic and instruments to create some level of isolation. Or move the singer and mic to another room. Or record the vocals after the fact while there are no instruments playing in the room. Or use a cardioid mic. Omni picks up sound equally from all sides. Cardioid will only pick up from one direction.

1

appleburger17 t1_j8gwwqk wrote

Do you condition it every once in a while? Hard to say for sure form the photo but it’s looking a bit dry. Leather can last you a lifetime but it does need some maintenance. I’d use a cleaner followed by a good conditioner at least once a year if not every 6mos to keep it supple and avoid cracking.

7

appleburger17 t1_j2en6xv wrote

It just takes time and practice. It seems impossible for a while until all of a sudden you’re doing it. That’s just how learning guitar goes. The more you practice the more dexterity and accuracy you build with your fingers. My recommendation is to learn how to play a G chord and a D chord. Strum G 4 times on beat and switch to a D to strum 4 times. Keep going back and forth until you can reliably not miss a beat during the transition. Then do it with two other chords and then two others. You’ll learn the shapes, build dexterity, and muscle memory. It’ll be way off beat and sound like crap at first. Keep it up and within a week or two you’ll be good to go.

5

appleburger17 t1_j21ckru wrote

I have a degree in audio engineering and have worked in recording studios and live sound reinforcement for decades. Sorry if “do your own Google research” doesn’t cut it for me.

It is a fact, which you can Google if you’d like, that digital audio (CD) is an approximation of an analog source. The quality of that approximation is most often determined and measured in bit rate and sample rate. The higher the bit and sample rate the higher quality and closer it gets to its analog source which has no such limitation. By that measure, vinyl can be higher quality. It is a more exact representation of the source.

It is also a fact, again goggleable, that CD’s dynamic range potential is higher than vinyl. In that measure, CDs can be higher quality.

Which is why I asked what measure you were using to make your case. Unfortunately, you can’t answer with anything but “google it”.

1

appleburger17 t1_j20mjnr wrote

First off, its ok to not like something even if "everyone" seems to. Secondly, Dylan's lyrics (in his hay day) were often topical commentary on political and social events of the time. They aren't laid out in a direct way that someone without the cultural context would have an easy time connecting the dots of meaning. Finally, Dylan (especially early career) was a poetic lyricist who often expressed abstract ideas in vague ways that left things up to interpretation. Just like some of the best non-musical poetry/prose. Whether Dylan did it as a deliberate stroke of genius or stoned accident is debatable. As is whether the outcome is high art or pretentious dribble. You'll find scores that will agree with whatever take you choose to adopt.

1

appleburger17 t1_j20fauh wrote

Assuming you mean to say "less quality" rather than just "less of a static visual image" (since something is either a static image or is not so cannot be less or more without introducing a measure of quality), you haven't provided enough information to answer this question. Which signals to me you don't understand the technology well enough to hold this conversation in an intelligent way.

1

appleburger17 t1_j209az0 wrote

You made a statement about what other people prefer. I'm telling you that statement is wrong and giving you a way to get the correct information. If you don't care to be corrected or find the correct information then I have nothing more to offer you. You are remaining willfully ignorant.

1

appleburger17 t1_j206gvu wrote

What measures of "higher audio quality" are you choosing to make this determination? Because in some ways vinyl is absolutely higher quality (the fact that digital creates non-perfect approximations of an analog source and is then limited by a bit and sample rate, a lowly 16bit 44.1kHz for CD) and in other ways CD is higher (dynamic range potential). A lossless digital file played through a high quality DAC has the dynamic range advantage with digital coding that is a much closer representation of an analog source than a CD.

2

appleburger17 t1_j205o9a wrote

I agree with most of what you're saying but one of the places CDs actually do improve upon vinyl is dynamic range. CDs do, as a fact, have more dynamic range potential than vinyl. A vinyl record's dynamic range is determined by the difference between its shallowest and deepest part of a groove. So its limited by how deeply you can cut the groove into the master lacquer. Since its a physical medium there is a limitation of dynamic range based on how deep you can cut groove before meeting in the middle from the other side or compromising structural integrity. Your statements and illustrations about bit & sample rate are still valid and an argument for why vinyl, despite its limited dynamic range, can still be a high quality alternative to CD.

7