|
|
Post by esquire on Jan 3, 2018 16:02:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 3, 2018 16:18:15 GMT -5
Wowsa! What a great video!! HILARIOUS! He taught a jury what good sound quality and soundstage was and it freaked out the defense so much that they gave in in exchange for expunging from the record everything he said! Lol. Legendary
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 3, 2018 16:35:01 GMT -5
That was great. Super interesting.
And did you see his speakers in the back ground? Man I wish I could afford those ugly Wilson things.
|
|
|
|
Post by lesliew on Jan 3, 2018 17:44:07 GMT -5
Great Story
But Damm, I feel that I need to listen to BAD when I get home now
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 3, 2018 17:53:23 GMT -5
Great Story But Damm, I feel that I need to listen to BAD when I get home now It would be cool if some recording engineer would cut and splice the 3 recordings back and forth as you listened so it would be obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 3, 2018 18:20:50 GMT -5
So which recording was the good one? Can anybody link to the album? I do remember some of the Michael Jackson songs felt REALLY good to listen to with excellent punch and low bass.
I'm still imagining the jury -who are all regular joes and probably wouldn't have known anything about audio suddenly figuring out all this stuff. He even showed dynamic range graphs and everything! According to him, his education was very effective and the audience were definitely reacting to the difference.
I can't believe they allowed it in court.
I don't think the opposition had even expected the tactic "what if they just made the audience listen to the difference?" as being one that anybody would try.
If the opposition was as well educated as him, they could have objected with "leading them as to what to listen for introduces bias" and "was it level matched". Or argue about "nobody listens with Wilson Sabrinas". etc. etc. This has to be some sort of first in the court room.
But they didn't know their Schiit and couldn't handle a true audiophile. Lol!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 3, 2018 18:26:30 GMT -5
So which recording was the good one? Can anybody link to the album? I do remember some of the Michael Jackson songs felt REALLY good to listen to with excellent punch and low bass. I'm still imagining the jury -who are all regular joes and probably wouldn't have known anything about audio suddenly figuring out all this stuff. According to him, his education was very effective and the audience were definitely reacting to the difference. The original. Basically when Michael and Quincy did it originally, they did it right, as any real artist in charge of quality control would do. With Michael gone the control has switched over to some other folks who just wanted louder, so they added compression. When you look at those graphs in the video, it's the one that looks more spiky with lots of lines you can see. The compressed ones become more solid looking. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 3, 2018 18:27:46 GMT -5
So which recording was the good one? Can anybody link to the album? I do remember some of the Michael Jackson songs felt REALLY good to listen to with excellent punch and low bass. I'm still imagining the jury -who are all regular joes and probably wouldn't have known anything about audio suddenly figuring out all this stuff. According to him, his education was very effective and the audience were definitely reacting to the difference. The original. Basically when Michael and Quincy did it originally, they did it right, as any real artist in charge of quality control would do. With Michael gone the control has switched over to some other folks who just wanted louder, so they added compression. When you look at those graphs in the video, it's the one that looks more spiky with lots of lines you can see. The compressed ones become more solid looking. Any links? How do I know which is the original? Do you think the other albums are as good? |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 3, 2018 18:32:29 GMT -5
The original. Basically when Michael and Quincy did it originally, they did it right, as any real artist in charge of quality control would do. With Michael gone the control has switched over to some other folks who just wanted louder, so they added compression. When you look at those graphs in the video, it's the one that looks more spiky with lots of lines you can see. The compressed ones become more solid looking. Any links? How do I know which is the original? Do you think the other albums are as good? You edited your post while I was answering. As to your second part, yeah, I think the defense must have been taken off guard, because what you say is true. A knowledgeable lawyer could have gotten it knocked out. As to a link, no, I don't have one. Wrong person to ask. But I'll be there are some out there already. Now if I could just afford the Wilson's I'd be happy. |
|
|
|
Post by lesliew on Jan 3, 2018 18:57:08 GMT -5
his education was very effective and the audience were definitely reacting to the difference. I can't believe they allowed it in court. True Come to think about it, he was leading them big time. Basically telling them what to listen for, instead of allowing them to hear both recordings un-guided and allowing them to make their own decision, un-educated or not if the differences were that profound this should not have been necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by esquire on Jan 3, 2018 19:04:15 GMT -5
I would proffer that the Plaintiff (Jones) survived Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony following Fremer's deposition.
|
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Jan 3, 2018 22:17:02 GMT -5
There was no motion to exclude the testimony, the plaintiff's attorney agreed. They had elements of their case to prove, and the defense conceded those points in exchange for excluding the testimony. That means the jury can't hear it read back. We have a saying, which is why the plaintiff's attorney agreed to the deal "a jury can't unhear what was said."
If he was brought in to prove they compressed the recording, and took away the soundstage, the case was pretty much over. If the jury got to hear that testimony again during deliberation (or even the recordings again, if CA allows that) the verdict could have been higher. Taking a sure win was probably worth the trade.
|
|
|
|
Post by socketman on Jan 3, 2018 22:23:43 GMT -5
That was great. Super interesting. And did you see his speakers in the back ground? Man I wish I could afford those ugly Wilson things. Somewhere on analog planet there is a video of an interview with him and all his stuff ,interesting stuff fun to watch . dont agree with everything he says or thinks but he is very charismatic |
|
|
|
Post by amped on Jan 4, 2018 9:09:55 GMT -5
I can and will testify here in the court of public opinion that I have all original pressings of "Bad", "Thriller" and "Off The Wall" and I also have rereleases of all three as well and without a doubt the originals are 100% better sounding and not just "to my ears" or "IMHO" or any other phrase that politely tries to avoid controversy. When I was (re) new to vinyl I wanted to rebuild my collection of old classics that I have long since lost and the idea of buying a used 30 year old used album did not excite me so I looked for the "new" replacements and the first one I bought was Off The Wall and as soon as I dropped the needle I almost asked myself why again am I doing vinyl? It sounded like an Ok CD just with more noise. So I took a leap of faith and found a "Mint" copy of an original pressing paid the $50 and bought it well the rest is history and with the exception of MOFSL, Analogue Production and very few re-pressings I exclusively look for the original press.The original pressings have higher dynamic range, better soundstage and transients all do to the uncompressed nature of the recordings. I have heard as I am sure all of you about "loudness wars" and it IS a thing and very true and it applies not only digital but to vinyl. Not to mention that most new pressings are simply pressed using a digital copy and NOT the original tapes and some are "remastered" and that usually is performed by some engineer who wants the original to sound the way they always wanted it to sound or some disgruntled semi former band member that was always angry that his cowbell contribution was edited out or pushed back!
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Jan 4, 2018 13:49:59 GMT -5
Funny how you can see the turntable is spinning in the background.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Jan 4, 2018 14:04:06 GMT -5
Basically all they needed to do was to provide proof of the record being compressed. Everything else was kind of wordy. I don't think being passionate about something makes you an expert.
|
|
