I love digital and please no one chime in on the vacuum tube vs microelectronic con traversy-anyway I like auto tranmissions for the traction advantage in slick conditions-Kevin
The “best” listening experience is a live performance, and that is fraught with environmental compromises. So any recording is a compromise but I feel digital is less so.
I’d suggest that a recorded production is (almost) always better than a live performance.
First, unless one’s tases run towards symphonies that perform in acoustically-opitmized concert halls, the acoustics of the building (esp. the “arena rock” of my youth) can really muddy and wash out much of the sound. Secondly, the “session tapes” are then re-mixed to ameliorate any remaining liabilities of the recording studio. Finally, any mishaps of perfomance (botched solo) or equipment (a feedback-happy LesPaul, for instance) is fixed with a re-take.
Having said that, the experience of live music is far superior to a recording.
I personally don’t believe any recording can ever match the richness of a live performance, flubs and all.
Second place in my mind is a well done recording of a live performance, like my LP of the “Beach Boys Live”, or the recent Chris Botti (sp?) and friends, or Eric Clapton’s 2009 Guitar Festival in Chicago. Or even the 1967 (???) Billy Joel concert, or the single live concert recording by Queen.
For studio work, Les Paul and Mary Ford will always remain in my mind the finest ever done. He recently passed away, but will always remain one of the most innovative music technology creators in history.
I’ve noticed somethng interesting recently about technology incompatability. I was watching a concert recording of “Big Bad Voodoo Daddy” recently and discovered that with Surround Sound on my new TV “on” vocal tracks suddenly appeared that were not discernable on my old CRT TV without the surround sound. I didn’t really appreciate the band until I got the new TV.
When I am in a tiny little night club and the band setting up on the stage is miking the drums, that’s when I go, “oh crap, I hope I got my earplugs in the car”.
Listening to a lot of intimate un-plugged acoustic performances has made me realize that it doesn’t take a 1000 watt sub-woofer to accurately reproduce the sound of a bass fiddle.
I have stopped taking stereo performance as seriously as I once did once I realized that there is no such thing as an omnidirectional and flat violin, guitar, or piano.
Even if you have a perfect stereo, what happens when you change the furniture in the room?
I’d suggest that a recorded production is (almost) always better than a live performance.
I agree if best means “controlled”. Listening environment accounts for so much of the perceived sound, it’s easier to control in a studio. But then, you’re at the mercy of what the sound engineer want’s you to hear ?
Even “live” performances are digitized, equalized and sterilized for consumption by the listener.
True audiophiles actually put much $$$$$ their listening environments, especially if the play their own instruments.
Music quality is so subjective…like opinions on cars, that forums are a good place to air them out.
Sounds like car buffs and audio buffs have a lot in common.
This is one area many newer cars have made great strides in making the listening environment more friendly. According to some local car audio install people, Honda may have taken audio environment more seriously than others in the moderately priced sedan. This and superior ergonomics accounted for a lot of buyer preference for these cars early on.
I’m not quite as staunch about it as I used to be, but count me in for manuals. Better mileage, use brakes a lot less (downshifting), can start the car with a push, more fun and if you really know how to clutch you’ll never have to replace it. And manual trannys almost never need work. Hang onto your wallet if the automatic one does.
yup thats all the points i like
I prefer small 4 cyl engines, so MT is must-do. I had an AT with a 4, and the trans fried. You can push a 4 with an MT–so long as the clutch is FULLY engaged BEFORE gas is applied, you cannot similarly expect an AT to hold up. As for durability, we went 127,000 on the original clutch on our old Celica, 175,000 on our Camry, and 247,000 (and still going strong) on our Spectra. Among the many non-durability-related benefits of MT, I can better regulate my speed in low-speed zones, I can better regulate my rate of acceleration (low or high), I can better control traction on slick pavements, and I can better control the engine speed and engine load. Besides, it’s much more fun to shift as I accelerate.
As to the use of a two-speed automatic, I do not see how a gasoline engine could efficiently work that way. My father had a '64 Chevvy Bel Aire with a two-speed on a 302 v-8. It was the first car that I legally drove. Acceleration was not a pretty sight. As I understand it, engines work most efficiently in a narrow range of RPM, and MORE gears, rather than fewer, is the key to keeping the engine speed in that range. Many times I wish my fours had six-speed trans, but they are only fives.
I think the future will ultimately be electric direct drive, like a diesel-electric motor on a locomotive, using fuel cells (hopefully hydrogen) for power. The glitch here is that a gasoline engine is much more efficient at constant high speed, and an electric engine is more efficient at low speed and in acceleration to highway speed. The current hybrids are a compromise based on the cheap availability of gasoline and the lack of viable hydrogen-based storage and distribution technologies. The carbon footprint of gasoline may tip this balance, and the lost efficiency from gasoline at highway speeds may be less of an impediment in the future.
In any case, some form of constant-velocity or computer-shifted transmission will be necessary for optimum efficiency, since few ATs and few MT drivers operate for efficiency. I will miss the MT, but who would have guessed 35 years ago that I would embrace computer-controlled EFI and never miss the 4-bbl carburetor?
And, while touching on nostalgia, I do not miss those durable old 8-cyl engines that could go 100,000 miles before needing valves or overhaul. I remember accepting the two- or three-year trade ins to avoid body rust, adding a quart of oil every 1,000 miles, and the leaking fluids on the driveway as part of the natural order of things. I have never had to overhaul my fours, and the one that died youngest went about 12 years without rust and had 205,000 miles on it when it blew a head gasket at 16 years old and was not worth fixing because of the rust.
Now if it had an automatic . . . .
Well, there are all those pros and cons. I (heck, my whole family) learned to drive with a manual tranny. My dad had only 1 car that was an automatic. He didn’t have it very long. My daughters learned on a '66 VW. Still have that car. Sort of. Personally, for small 4 cyl. cars, I prefer a manual trans. as the automatics don’t have the oomph at the higher speeds if you need to pass someone. Especially with the a/c on. I like being able to downshift for that extra torque if I need to. The big v8’s you usually already have that. Of coure, if you’ve grown up driving little 4 cyl. automatics, you’re used to that and won’t know the difference. Fuel mileage is another plus. That was why my dad got his last manual trans. car. He was legendary for his frugalness. His car was also a diesel, as back then diesel was cheaper than gasoline. Plus, if you bought it in bulk, you could get it even cheaper. So my dad did.
Well, it's not pops and scratches. Google the "loudness war". A lot of the record companies have been over-amplifying the audio on most newer CDs, clipping the audio (causing pretty bad distortions) This has been an ongoing trend (newer remasters of the same album will be louder than older ones), so older CDs do not suffer from this; older vinyl doesn't either, and the "new vinyl" producers generally realize the poor affect of overamplifying and do not do it. (Note, that said, I own no vinyl myself.)
So, that said, auto. I haven't really learned stick (I have driven a few but not a lot of practice). In theory I like the idea of having direct control, in practice I'm on hills and in traffic a lot. I like the IDEA of a stick, but have driven a few and really couldn't get a lot of benefit.
Hate to say it, but stick cars in the US are on the way out and have been for a long time -- the reason a lot of these cars now have paddle shifters, auto-stick, etc., is due to emissions -- in a lot of vehicles, they have to do enough with fuel shutoff, shifting at the exact right moment, etc., to maintain emissions that it would not work on a stickshift vehicle. I don't think a stick runs MUCH dirtier, but the limits are very low. I'm hoping I'm wrong, but am afraid I'm not.I much prefer the automatic in traffic. When I had a manual, my left leg ached during rush hour stops. A manual is more fun, but I’m no longer convinced that it provides more control of the car. You might expect a race car to record its best times with the transmission that provides the best control. But the Cadillac CTS-V recorded its best time at the Nurburgring in fully automatic mode. Heinricy tried using manual shifts after the first lap but couldn’t equal the fastest Nurburgring lap ever recorded (in a production sedan) with manual shifts.
I’m over 70 and I’ve never owned an automatic, so I guess I think manual is the way to go. I really liked Overdrive, back when a 3-speed was the only manual available.
Dag, much of my album collection was pressed before digital processing was invented. It simply did not exist. I have LPs that go back to the '50s.
By the way, the person that let me know that LPs were back and why was my son…when he was a student at Berklee College of Music. I think the folks there can pretty much all be considered audiophiles…since they have to be accomplished and trained musicians to even be accepted. They have to learn to create the sounds that mere mortals like myself enjoy so much.
It is all in good fun and healthy debate as far as I’m concerned. I respect that there are those who prefer digital, and that’s great. I have no disrespect whatsoever for the preferences of others.
I remember the first concert in which Bob Dylan performed with a solid body electric guitar. He was booed almost off stage. He was considered a heretic.
Les Paul, now considered one of the greatest innovators in the history of music, could not originally get Gibson to market his newly invented solid body guitar concept.
And when Les Paul originally invented overdubbing, many considered it heresy to use such a technique in recording music.
" Anyone who has looked at howstuffworks.com and compared a manual transmission to an automatic transmission can easily see that manuals are the way to go for simplicity, reliability, and ease of repair. "
Well I am not sure about reliability. Manuals are reliable with a skilled driver, but if you have the more typical driver, they become less reliable. As for simplicity, how much more simple (from the driver’s stand point) can it get?
From repair I would agree, but from maintenance, you should be changing the fluid in the manual as you should in an automatic.
i personally prefer manual- more driver involvement
auto box is better for cruising
although my prefernece is manual, i would never say it is better- this is down to personal choice.
Joseph, you are right from a driver’s perspective, but from a driver’s perspective, a CVT automatic is just as simple as a traditional automatic, if not simpler.
I must disagree about the maintenance. Almost all of the experts on this site (in particular Transman) agree that the best way to maintain an automatic transmission is to drop the pan and clean or replace the filter every 30,000 miles. If I change my manual transmission oil every 30,000 miles, it is a simple drain and refill, with no filter to clean or change, and no gasket to replace.
Even if you consider that most modern automatic transmissions have a drain plug, if you do a simple drain and refill on an automatic transmission, you only replace about 2/3 of the fluid. When I drain and refill my manual transmission, I replace almost all of the oil. If you go with the automatic transmission flush, you replace all of the fluid, but you pay more too, and the flush can cause more problems than it solves if the transmission has been neglected at all.
Then there is the issue of refilling the transmission. To check the automatic transmission fluid, the transmission must be at full operating temperature. You have to drive it for at least ten minutes, put it in park, and leave it running when you check the fluid level. That makes refilling the automatic transmission a multi-step process when you replace the drained fluid. With my manual transmission (which holds 1.9 quarts), I drain it, then I simply fill it all the way up to the fill hole until that extra 0.1 quart spills out (into the drain pan). Then I am done.
When I made my “howstuffworks.com” comment, I was really referring to how each transmission operates mechanically, but the same goes for maintenance. Changing manual transmission oil is a lot easier than changing automatic transmission fluid, especially when you do the transmission fluid service properly. I suppose if you cut corners with an automatic transmission, they are really not that different, but with a manual transmission, you don’t have to cut corners to make it an easy job.