advertisement


Can we hear anything, allowed to hear anything, or are you deaf/stupid?

clivem2 said:
Tony, probably a naive question as I’ve not been near a recording studio. What happens with modern music with individual musicians playing in their own booth? There isn’t any form of an original performance is there? Are you saying the final mix is what to aim at?
Click to expand...

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. As a very extreme example something like Pink Floyd’s ‘The Wall’ seldom had more than one member of the band in the studio at any one time! IIRC some parts were actually recorded in different countries! As such this work never existed as a performance at all, it was created entirely in the studio part by part, so the closest to “reality” is the sound of the main monitor rig at recording/mixdown as that is where all the real decision making took place.

Even jazz can work in a similar way, e.g. In A Silent Way, A Tribute To Jack Johnson, On The Corner etc by Miles Davis were all cut and shut together by the exceptionally talented Teo Macero in the studio long after the band had recorded hours of jams etc. The ‘Complete xxx Sessions’ box sets are well well worth hearing if like me you love this music as they show the raw material before Macero’s collage approach. Even some of Miles’ earlier acoustic jazz met with Macero’s razor blade, e.g. a beautiful sax solo was cut short in Drad Dog from the Someday My Prince Will Come (thankfully put back on the current CD issue). That was a really bizarre one for me as I had the CD issue before the vinyl and was convinced the record was jumping as it just skipped a familiar part!
 
Tony L said:
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. As a very extreme example something like Pink Floyd’s ‘The Wall’ seldom had more than one member of the band in the studio at any one time! IIRC some parts were actually recorded in different countries! As such this work never existed as a performance at all, it was created entirely in the studio part by part, so the closest to “reality” is the sound of the main monitor rig at recording/mixdown as that is where all the real decision making took place.

Even jazz can work in a similar way, e.g. In A Silent Way, A Tribute To Jack Johnson, On The Corner etc by Miles Davis were all cut and shut together by the exceptionally talented Teo Macero in the studio long after the band had recorded hours of jams etc. The ‘Complete xxx Sessions’ box sets are well well worth hearing if like me you love this music. Even some of Miles’ earlier acoustic jazz met with Macero’s razor blade, e.g. a beautiful sax solo was cut short in Drad Dog from the Someday My Prince Will Come (thankfully put back on the current CD issue). That was a really bizarre one for me as I had the CD issue before the vinyl and was convinced the record was jumping as it just skipped a familiar part!
Click to expand...
In which case the only realisic chance we have for achieving “high fidelity” is to have the same system and acoustics as the mixing room. It seems to me this is chasing an unachievable for most people. I agree we need to look at the system context, as you’ve been saying. I take your point about Tannoys etc....
 
As most of our music has never been *real* to start with, does it really make sense to "tune" your playback system to make it sound more "acoustic?"

For most people this requires lessening damping in low frequencie, adding second harmonic distortion in the upper bass/lower midrange and lowering the trebble.

After many years of doing above with very expensive tube equipment, hybrid systems, tube buffers, I have concluded that for me, this additive approach doesn't make sense.
 
DimitryZ said:
As most of our music has never been *real* to start with, does it really make sense to "tune" your playback system to make it sound more "acoustic?"

For most people this requires lessening damping in low frequencie, adding second harmonic distortion in the upper bass/lower midrange and lowering the trebble.

After many years of doing above with very expensive tube equipment, hybrid systems, tube buffers, I have concluded that for me, this additive approach doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
The music which really drives me emotionally is some 50s and 60s jazz. This is for all sorts of reasons, just one of which is that you get real inter-play between musicians. If you listen to fake music you’re starting from a hobbled position.
 
clivem2 said:
Another argument against the term High Fidelity! I suppose the definition should include 20Hz to 20kHz with 3db limits so yes almost everyone’s system/room will fail.
Click to expand...

The lowest note on a piano is around 27 Hz, a drum kit around 80 Hz, and a bass around 40 Hz. These are the lowest notes, so for most music, most of the time, most people’s systems should be ok.
 
Stunsworth said:
The lowest note on a piano is around 27 Hz, a drum kit around 80 Hz, and a bass around 40 Hz. These are the lowest notes, so for most music, most of the time, most people’s systems should be ok.
Click to expand...
Hmm 27Hz, really in most systems and rooms? A lot struggle to get significantly below 40Hz....note Tony pointing out U.K. type stand mount speakers.
 
clivem2 said:
The music which really drives me emotionally is some 50s and 60s jazz. This is for all sorts of reasons, just one of which is that you get real inter-play between musicians. If you listen to fake music you’re starting from a hobbled position.
Click to expand...
I have a big collection of vintage jazz on LP and 8track. My father was a jazz musician.

A "tuned" system made those sources sound extra vintage - like an overly sweatened drink. There is plenty of actual vintage baked into those recordings already and it comes out liud and clear through a neutral system.

However, when I listened to Phillip Glass, I don't want that recording to sound like a Rudy Van Gelder 1960 jazz mastering.
 
clivem2 said:
Hmm 27Hz, really in most systems and rooms? A lot struggle to get significantly below 40Hz....note Tony pointing out U.K. type stand mount speakers.
Click to expand...

That’s why I said most of the time. How much music uses the bottom octave on a modern grand?
 
DimitryZ said:
I have a big collection of vintage jazz on LP and 8track. My father was a jazz musician.

A "tuned" system made those sources sound extra vintage - like an overly sweatened drink. There is plenty of actual vintage baked into those recordings already and it comes out liud and clear through a neutral system.

However, when I listened to Phillip Glass, I don't want that recording to sound like a Rudy Van Gelder 1960 jazz mastering.
Click to expand...
I’d agree that many 300B amps are too cloying, if that’s what you’re saying? There are other valves which are much more transparent. Tannoys or some modern drivers?
 
DimitryZ said:
As most of our music has never been *real* to start with, does it really make sense to "tune" your playback system to make it sound more "acoustic?"

For most people this requires lessening damping in low frequencie, adding second harmonic distortion in the upper bass/lower midrange and lowering the trebble.

After many years of doing above with very expensive tube equipment, hybrid systems, tube buffers, I have concluded that for me, this additive approach doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

After substantially over-thinking it I came to the conclusion that ‘right’ for me is to run a typical studio control room system from the period of music I most frequently listen to. Much modern hi-fi sounds far too sterile, lean and dry to me. It is just not the sound I remember from the studios I visited back in the ‘80s etc (which mostly had Quad amps and 15” Tannoy Monitor Golds or SRMs). I obviously took a long detour down the Linn/Naim path (and a few others), but ultimately found that frustrating as it lacked that conceptual authenticity of actually using the kit the best studios used.

As a compromise, and don’t kid yourself, all audio is, it isn’t a bad one. The majority of stuff, classical, jazz rock or pop, sounds very good indeed, especially the huge amount of stuff that was recorded and mastered via exactly this type of system. Good modern stuff (classical, ECM etc) also sounds great, though some hopelessly compressed and bass-boosted modern pop and rap can sound over-cooked, but it just does. I’m not going to set up a system on that sort of material. I have the little near-field system upstairs which quite likes the really bassy stuff as long as the volume is kept well in check!

Since ending up where I am I’ve lost just about all interest in chasing upgrades. The main system has stayed where it is for ages now and I can’t imagine it changing much if at all in the future. Basically I’ll just fix it if it breaks. Same with the Leak/149 system. I’m just happy with both and love the difference of perspective between the two. Again, like a studio, I have ended up with a near-field and a main-monitor option. Who needs more than that?
 
My Eminent Technology 8b are as low distortion as Quad ESL, but far more reliable. They need high power, hence large SS monoblocks - two per side.
 
clivem2 said:
Well yes, that’s my point. Do we listen to something which appears to be reasonably real or watch an oscilloscope?

High Fidelity was reckoned to be achieved decades ago (with kit that some here decry so much)...that’s one viewpoint. Another view is that it’s impossible to achieve.
Click to expand...

There are two approaches to recording: the documental minimally mic'ed real stereo recording and the multi-track studio production stereo mix, and both can sound good if care is taken during all stages of the process.

Only a documental minimally mic'ed real stereo recording can sound realistic both in terms of timbres as well as of soudscape.

Have you given these ones a listen? http://www.playclassics.com/albums
 
tuga said:
There are two approaches to recording: the documental minimally mic'ed real stereo recording and the multi-track studio production stereo mix, and both can sound good if care is taken during all stages of the process.

Only a documental minimally mic'ed real stereo recording can sound realistic both in terms of timbres as well as of soudscape.

Have you given these ones a listen? http://www.playclassics.com/albums
Click to expand...
I’ll give those a try, thanks.
 
In my experience distortion(s) are detrimental to the illusion by drawing my attention to the system. It no longer sounds as if musicians are playing in the space before me but more like reproduced sound.
But I understand that some studio productions may benefit from the added "glow" and "warmth". And the Beatles in stereo sound better on systems with poor channel separation.

I wonder if there's a link between people who favour spaciousness / soundstage and vinyl or valve equipment?
 
tuga said:
In my experience distortion(s) are detrimental to the illusion by drawing my attention to the system. It no longer sounds as if musicians are playing in the space before me but more like reproduced sound.
But I understand that some studio productions may benefit from the added "glow" and "warmth". And the Beatles in stereo sound better on systems with poor channel separation.

I wonder if there's a link between people who favour spaciousness / soundstage and vinyl or valve equipment?
Click to expand...
Part of that spaciousness is depth. It took me a long time to achieve depth with digital to match my vinyl.
 
It'll never happen but wouldn't it be great if Stereophile magazine, say, arranged for a few well-known musicians with an interest in hi-fi to audition a couple of their own recordings on two state-of-the-art systems - one comprising components boasting impeccable lab test results and the other voiced primarily through listening tests?

Because I love jazz I have in mind pianist Keith Jarrett and bass player Ron Carter (both audiophiles) and, for the 'subjectivist' system (because that's my preference), an Audio Note Level 5 setup.

The musicians' thoughts would make for very interesting reading!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top