IV, Music, Headphones, iPods, etc.

[Robin Landseadel]

On Oct 28, 2009, at 4:03 AM, John Carvill wrote:

>> From: Robin Landseadel
>>
>> On Oct 27, 2009, at 2:57 PM, John Carvill wrote:
>>
>>> We know Pynchon loves Rock 'n' Roll, yes?
>>
>> Maybe?
>>
> Eh? You're joking, yes? Maybe.

Not really. Inherent Vice is shot throughout with ambivalence towards  
Rock 'n Roll.

>> . . . say "rich chocolaty goodness."
>
> Eh?

Mucho Maas, way back in 1964, is having an epiphany concerning sound  
and sound production when he utters that deathless phrase. Oedipa  
confuses Mucho's quantum leap with insanity but speaking as a one time  
audio engineer, I don't.

>>> Is he, as has
>>> been suggested, making a sly reference to iPods?
>>
>> He is making a sly reference to anything digital in 2009 in as many
>> places as he possibly can.
>>
> Yes, I know, but I meant that particular passage.

But of course. Thing is, the more time one spends looking at these  
sorts of considerations within IV the bigger the imprint of the 2009  
world of 'all things internet' becomes.

>>> Mostly what it reminded me of was Steppenwolf . . .
>>
>> I Like Smoke & Lightning . . .
>
> I get it! I get it! Get the motor runnin'....
>
> I meant this stuff from Herman Hesse's novel:

I know you did, that's why my following response is:

	"Listen to those basses stride. . ."

I really don't know how many times I've read Steppenwolf—it was a  
favorite of my ruined youth. I recall Mozart telling Harry that the  
bones of the music survived through the massive distortions of record  
playing gear circa 1927.

>>> I'm just now getting back into vinyl, having
>>> compared the Beatles remasters to some old vinyl and realised that  
>>> the
>>> new CDs cannot possibly compete. Not exactly news, of course, but  
>>> the
>>> extent of the disparity is striking.
>>
>> Guess it all depends on your playback gear. "Beatles For Sale" sounds
>> better from my 2009 CD remaster than on my 30 year old Parlophone  
>> vinyl.
>>
> Not sure it depends on your gear that much. (I mean, I know some
> audiophiles get way out there. Heard of a guy recently who had a huge
> metal spike buried under his house, to improve the sound of his
> hi-fi.)

Well, that's one way to get a decent ground path. I've done something  
like that myself.

> But, if you have *really* crappy gear, then you can still get
> great sound from an LP.

No. Sorry, but I don't buy into that whole "a child's Fisher-Price  
record player sounds better than a Wadia" diatribe. Sometimes bad is  
bad.

> If you have *really* good gear, you can get
> good sound from a CD

You can get amazing sound from a CD.

> and amazing sound from an LP.

You can get amazing sound for the first fifteen minutes of an LP—good  
news for Beatles fans as their records mostly run somewhere near 35  
minutes each for the most part.. After that the resolution of an LP is  
more like a typical "high-end" CD player. If the record plays long  
enough it's more like an MP3. It's the inherent vice of the medium— 
hearing the liveliness of the sound die out the closer the stylus gets  
to the spindle. Kinda like "going epidermal."

> I have a Pro-Ject
> Debut turntable, often cited as the cheapest 'proper' turntable on the
> market, can be bought brand new for less than £200, and it sounds
> incredibly good.

I've got a Strathclyde Transcription Developments 305m with an SME III  
tonearm. This is not the cheapest proper turntable. Of course when the  
table's logo screams "STD" propriety goes out the window.

> I still think the Beatles remasters are very good, a big improvement
> on the existing CDs. But the CD format is one I won't regret seeing
> the back of, in so many ways. Listening to my copy of  'A Collection
> of Beatles Oldies (But Goldies)', original 1966 UK vinyl, the
> difference between that old vinyl sound and the new CDs is shocking. A
> friend of mine described the vinyl sound as being 'more fluid', which
> is a description I cannot better. It has infinitely more emotional
> punch. With the CDs, yu feel as though you're listening to CDs,
> whereas with teh vinyl, you feel you're listening to music.

Also depends on what sort of CD playback you have as well. The key to  
getting digital to work "right" is to isolate everything as far from  
AC as possible and in particular getting the "clock" as far away from  
AC glitches as possible. I used to do that with gel cells—battery  
power. I now do it with a Bybee filter. The whole Bybee filter thing  
sounds like something out of "Loonies on Leave":

	The theory behind his Quantum Mechanical Filters is that of
	superconductivity. While electrons travel through most electrical
	wires somewhere around 50%-60% of the speed of light, it was
	discovered that the use of certain ceramics mixed with such
	rare earth metals such as Zirconium, Yttrium, Neodymium,
	Praeseadoyium, and Lanthanum oxides could create
	conductivity at 92% of the speed of light at room temperature.
	Bybee Quantum mechanical filters were also developed to
	create a barrier to clean, align, and stabilize individual
	electrons, while the surrounding damped mass absorbs the
	irregular discarded electrons. Pretty heady stuff, eh?

http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/duvall06.htm

Jack Bybee handed me the power-line filter I'm using on a lowly Sony  
semi-universal player. Digital has the potential to sound better than  
analog. Alternatively, MP3 has the potential to bury the recording  
industry altogether.