advertisement


"Audiophile" quality hardware in the music industry.

Alan,

Thanks. My guess was that reasons 2 and 3 were the main culprits — basically, good technique and uncomplicated recording pathways being key to good sound.

Does anyone record music today with vintage mics, consoles and tape recorders? It would be interesting to see if some of the other reasons you cite, like a noisier grid and more RFI/EMI interference, contribute to the crappier sound of many current recordings.

Joe

most high end studios do this but you are missing two major points - the old studios were normally big enough to cram more than 30 players in and were naturally good sounding rooms picked by the engineers and producers and the fact that they were in constant use nearly 24 hours a day like a production line.
the old motown records actually sound that way because they had a fault on the main desk that was undiscovered for years until they wanted to upgrade the studio and the new desk couldn't be used to get the sound they had used as a basis for years so much testing was done and the old desks fault was revealed.
they could never emulate this fault condition and gordy eventually moved the studios from detroit.

having spoken to some desk designers they say that the current signal path is probably shorter than in the past as well.

audiophiles should visit a studio ans see how records are made as they believe in some 'magic dust' scenario which is just not accurate.

making music is work.
not magic.
 
Nobody has ever made a loudspeaker which adds (or subtracts) nothing. Everything is a set of compromises, all anyone can do is choose a sound that seems right to them.

Indeed. That, among others, is why the term 'high-fidelity' is an oxymoron. Fidelity? To what?

Everything is just an instance of possible renditions. Some renditions are more plausible than others. Some are more likeable. If you want the rendition the engineer heared, then by all means pack up and move into the same studio.
 
Thanks. My guess was that reasons 2 and 3 were the main culprits — basically, good technique and uncomplicated recording pathways being key to good sound.

this article here goes into some depth about how Rudy Van Gelder achieved the sound he did for Blue Note ... Which I guess is almost the same question. It's also a fascinating read with interviews from several people involved including Van Gelder.

Broadly speaking microphone placement, microphone choice, the room, the best gear available at the time and an awful lot of practical expertise. Interestingly those Bluenote recordings were close miked with multiple mics.
 
Who isn't partial to a bit of nice valve compression and eq?
Used cleverly/subtly it sounds lovely which is surprising when you consider I'm not using Kimber cables, mana stands, solid silver digital interconnects, a Lavry DA10 etc.
 
it depends though really as one man's awesome engineer is anothers deaf muppet.
i know people who have used the tube guy and some of the stuff sounded nice whereas the eden house stuff sounds murky , pitchless at the bottom end and very dreary.
good dynamics though.....
 
this article here goes into some depth about how Rudy Van Gelder achieved the sound he did for Blue Note ... Which I guess is almost the same question. It's also a fascinating read with interviews from several people involved including Van Gelder.
Thanks, Uncle.

I'll give it a read tonight.

Joe
 
dave,

yes we all know you like to follow me around for an argument but your wrong.
it shows the lack of your understanding of recording and modern digital sampling techniques which is why you have added a little proviso in your comment about a mythical device that can copy bohnam.....
but even though you have 'jack' knowledge of recording in modern studios you still pursue your magic 'prat' argument and you always aim it at me for some strange reason....
for instance it is quite easy in a modern studio to replace drum sounds by creating a new audio track that sync's to the original drum strike.
also the music recognition software shazam works very well even analysing highly distorted versions of music inputted into it.
and i can easily use the nuance of a player like bonham if i had recorded the drum strikes as midi info and lets not mention sampling.
for your info i saw herbie hancock play a mechanical piano that recorded his playing then played it back perfectly as he listened on and then joined in on another piano....live mate like magic....it must all be the devils music to an audiophile purist like you but your way out of the loop nowadays.
you just don't like the fact that some people know and understand more about music.
stick to fiddling with bolt tightness and mains leads slackness i'll stick to dealing in truth.

Darryl,

First, get off the cross, we need the wood. Secondly, you may be able to pattern match some tunes stored in a database somewhere but until you can anticipate and create what a specific musician would have actually played I remain unimpressed.

regards,

dave
 
Studios require enough expensive boxes and wires without silly external PSUs, silver wires and other such bollocks. I'm not surprised people aren't interested.
 
Darryl,

First, get off the cross, we need the wood. Secondly, you may be able to pattern match some tunes stored in a database somewhere but until you can anticipate and create what a specific musician would have actually played I remain unimpressed.

regards,

dave

ever the comedian dave.
but why do you so desire a computer that could do this , just what has it got to do with music....did you take drugs in the 60's?
 
ever the comedian dave.
but why do you so desire a computer that could do this , just what has it got to do with music....did you take drugs in the 60's?

I don't have desire for a computer to do this. It was brought up as part of the explanation for why PR&T can't be created nor how it can be a distortion mechanism. Again, it is a signal attribute just like bass, treble and imaging.
 
Darryl,

PR&T is a signal attribute which distinguishes the real John Bonham's nuances from an electronic drum kit programmed to play a John Bonham-style beat. No device on the planet that I'm aware of can analyze a tune and determine JB was the drummer and then create and inject his drumming into the signal. In other words, this attribute can't be created knowingly by a circuit or through some distortion mechanism.

Most of the music on our planet is created by humans for other humans within each culture and almost always with very predictable patterns. Fortunately, it takes a lot of signal alteration to obliterate enough of this attribute (PR&T) to make the end result unrecognizable within its culture yet smaller amounts gone missing easily causes displeasure for some individuals as the patterns are no longer what's expected. This level is different of course for each of us. If you agree to this definition of PR&T (those who originally adopted the acronym would), you'll understand it's a lot more than tempo which may be changed subjectively or otherwise according to engineers with frequency reponse tailoring, etc.

Answering your last question..any device downstream has the potential to damage or distort the signal received or the potential to pass it accurately. The quality of the signal received has nothing to do with this fact. Imagine the worst recording ever made by mankind. You can always degrade it further by passing it again through one or more distortion generating devices until the signal becomes totally unrecognizable as music. So yes, a "crap" signal produced by "crap" recording gear can easily be degraded further. In contrast, the "crap" signal could theoretically be reproduced with full fidelity preserving whatever PR&T, etc was present.

regards,

dave
Dave, in reality, isn't PRaT just an acronym to describe systems that have been deliberately tweaked to minimise (s)low frequencies and accentuate leading edge dynamics? In itself, this is not remotely high fidelity.
 
Dave, in reality, isn't PRaT just an acronym to describe systems that have been deliberately tweaked to minimise (s)low frequencies and accentuate leading edge dynamics? In itself, this is not remotely high fidelity.

No Greg, it's an attribute present in the signal coming out of all systems to a greater or lesser extent.
 
it depends though really as one man's awesome engineer is anothers deaf muppet.
i know people who have used the tube guy and some of the stuff sounded nice whereas the eden house stuff sounds murky , pitchless at the bottom end and very dreary.
good dynamics though.....



Andy had no involvement in the actual recording of the first album and wasn't in the band then (and neither was my gf). They approached him for mastering and it went from there.

The forthcoming album has been recorded with much superior eqpt. Telefunken V72's, DAD converters, valve compressers / EQs etc..

It is also much less Goth!!

Obviously I can't post up any files of work in progress.. you'll just have to buy the album to satisfy your curiousity. :p
 
your trying to change the subject again dave with your so desired mythical computer generated musicians.
prat as described by hi fi buffs like yourself can be created in the studio, where it can be manipulated to be more exagerated or less so.
now back to the topic.
 
to alan.

i will i think they are an excellent band.
i play the stuff in my dj sets....

the covers project was fun....in a goth way :)
are you now in the band?
 
in reality though, it's not really how the acronym is perceived or used, is it?

It's defined as above by the folks that recognize it and use it for evaluating equipment. Not suprisingly, it has no meaning or is used in any fashion by those with agendas.
 


advertisement


Back
Top