Denver's Coolest HiFi Store | Aural HiFi Tour 

This one is very fun and unique!

@@audioarkitekts Here is proof that the rip off of remastering the 1973 RECORDED The dark side if the moon every 3 years is a terrible sounding album. Most of my records were recorded in 1971 & before. In 1972 I thought the sound on all records were was more harsh, that the sound wasnt as good. I was suspicious that something solid state transistor digital was added, but 2 sound engineers swore I was wrong. You here all this talk that digital didnt start till the very late seventies. Michael Fremer from Stereophile confirmed I was right all along. Fremer JUST said this, so I googled it up what he said. The Doors and The Elektra Records Sound Part 1. Also below when it is talking about DISCRETE recorders, it's talking about tiny tralnsistor Integrated integrated IC transistors that dont sound as good, for example early seventies Sony stereo amps with more expensive & complicated hand wired transistors sound better than today's IC amps, but still tubes recorders sound better. Guitarists today love guitar tube amps better. Analog Planet www.analogplanet.com › content › doors-and-e... Apr 30, 2010 - When I came back to do some mixing in 1970 it was still the same, except that they changed the console to solid-state. The whole control room was all brick, and it had individual panels of acoustical tile to deaden it down. Basically it was a very live room. The console sat on a platform, which was about six or eight inches off the floor. The tape machine sat behind us; we had an old Ampex 200 three-track, which had separate record and playback electronics so that you could select separate record or playback curves. They had a thing back then called A.M.E., which was Ampex Master Equalization, and then they had N.A.B., so if you recorded A.M.E. and played it back N.A.B., it would come out brighter. It's like recording with Dolby and not decoding. We also had an Ampex 300, I believe, three-track, which I converted over to a four-track with sel-sync (the ability to perform overdubs). BB: No, the room stayed the same from the day I walked in the door, which was about 1963 to 1968. When I came back to do some mixing in 1970 it was still the same, except that they changed the console to solid-state. But anyway, back to the console. Tutti used to go to England a lot, and he purchased a solid-state console over there. For the life of me, I can't remember the name of it. We all thought it was kind of cool. It had a lot of features that the tube console didn't have. It sounded different, you know? Tubes still sounded the best. Anyway, Jac Holzman purchased one as well, and we had it customized for our needs at Elektra Studios. So, that's how the console got there. BB: I still like mono to this day, because there aren't any distractions. It's like a black and white movie, where you can create incredible dimensions, depth-wise, and hide things. That's very hard to do in stereo. That's because we don't record in stereo: We record multi-track point-source discrete audio. The difference in the mix was when we would open it up to stereo, we would have to change things, because it didn't fall in the same place. Spatially, things would fall into other places. MG: It sounds to me as if the first Doors album had the best high-frequency extension, transient snap, and overall transparency, and that with each album— sonically fine as they are—those qualities seemed to diminish. Would you agree or disagree? BB: I'd agree with that to an extent, because the first album was all tube. Strange Days was done on a tube console, but with a solid-state eight-track. From then on it became all solid-state consoles and solid-state tape machines. There was also this direction that Paul wanted to take it, a more intellectual kind of a sound, not as raw as the first album. The sound started to become more scientific as it went along, a little more clinical, because studios, by and large, are hospitals, they're not places to record music. Technology is the evil person here. MG: I guess that's not fighting technology, it's kind of going around it. BB: Sound since the 1960s has gone backwards instead of forwards, in my estimation. In the recordings that I do today for motion pictures, I use tube microphones, tube microphone pre-amps, and I try to bypass the solid-state consoles as much as possible. It's more open, it's rounder, it has more depth. I can give you an example. If you take a room that has some reverberation— not a chamber, just good clear liveness— and you put an earphone in the middle of the room with a click going through it, so you hear the “tick, tick, tick.” Plug up a good microphone, maybe a (Neumann) U-67 or something like that, split the signal so it goes into a tube microphone pre-amp, and then the solid-state pre-amp, bring them both up on the console, and switch back and forth, and listen. With the tube, you'll hear all the reverberation in the room; the solid-state will close down. Ten times out of 10. So that's somewhat what you're hearing. Even the equalizers back then were tube; we had Pultech EQ-P1A's. MG: What's your opinion of digital multi-track recorded sound, and your opinion of digital recording, period, compared to analog? Which do you prefer? BB: I would venture to say that 95% of the music that I've recorded in the last eight years has been all digital. Digital does not basically sound better than analog, but what it does do, is that the sound doesn't change from what you're recording. With analog, you record it, and when you play it back, you will get a fair representation of what you heard on line-in. Play it back a half an hour later, and it will have changed, there are less highs. Play it a day later, and it will really have changed. The high end just changes, it's a natural process of the magnetism of the particles, and when you magnetize, record them, they change. The magnetic particles have a memory and want to go back to their original inert state. It's just the way it is. In digital, you record it, and it doesn't change. The problem with digital is the quality of the analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog converters. At this point in time, the A-to-D and D-to-A's are getting where you can record on it and it doesn't sound “digital” anymore. “Digital” meaning that it sounds cold. “Cold” meaning that digital doesn't show you all of the details, like the depth of the reverb and harmonic room tone. Because there's lack of detail, and especially lack of harmonics going way out, that sound would seem colder, and "digital." Right now, I'm recording 96 K, 24 bit, and whew! It's good! I mean, you're really, really hard pressed to tell it from the source.

It’s great isn’t it!

Lol 😆

Thought I needed to get out of my cave for a bit 🙃

Thank you so much Chris!

Thank you Charles!

Thanks!

Thank you, my friend. I am glad you liked it.

I'm glad you liked it! 👍

🤘you rock 🤘

Come on down!

The store name checks out if you say it fast. 😂

This is definitely heaven.