PMA you are truly an expert in audio design, and virtually completely conversant in digital design and recording. You know the theory, seem to have the 'ears', have sophisticated test equipment, and, I presume, pretty good digital recording equipment. We have it too, and have been dealing with this for more than 30 years. One of the companies that Damian and I work with, Constellation Audio, has put forward its best effort to make the finest digital playback possible, regardless of cost, yet I am not completely impressed. I would rather go down the hall and listen to a vinyl record played through tube electronics. Why this is so, is my question and concern. As long as people cannot hear or believe the limitations of the digital medium, they will be reluctant to 'fix' it so that the rest of us can really enjoy it, truly.
John,
Possibly. That said, excellent recordings that deliver on 'emotion' or 'reality' can be made today.
Maybe. Yet some exceptional Eterna (East German) recordings where the result of cutting DMM with the dreaded 16 Bit/48 KHz preview delay.
My feeling is, to a very large degree, yes.
In "those days" there was a sonic ethics that demanded an attempt to be faithful to the event. Over time Conductors and Producers got more involved and recorded music was more and more made an artifice, rather than a document.
Alt Nazi Karajan was probably one of the earlier cases of a conductor interfering in the recording process with the result that many later Karajan productions place you at the conductors rostrum, not the audience.
Then came artificial reverb (eventide anyone - hey guilty as charged, I loved my eventide SP2016 reverb processor), multiband compressors, loudness wars and all that Jazz and nowadays much recorded music is to real music what McDonalds "Fast Food (GM)" is to Real Food (TM).
This is not to say that it is not possible to make exceptional recordings these days, even digital and ones at that that exceed the best turned out by Verve Jazz or Decca and Mercury Classical (who's recordings are justly famous and admired). It is just almost no-one does such recordings any more, certainly not in the mainstream, for high profile artists and I refuse to audiophile recordings of third or fourth rate artists...
Ciao T
Possibly. That said, excellent recordings that deliver on 'emotion' or 'reality' can be made today.
Maybe. Yet some exceptional Eterna (East German) recordings where the result of cutting DMM with the dreaded 16 Bit/48 KHz preview delay.
My feeling is, to a very large degree, yes.
In "those days" there was a sonic ethics that demanded an attempt to be faithful to the event. Over time Conductors and Producers got more involved and recorded music was more and more made an artifice, rather than a document.
Alt Nazi Karajan was probably one of the earlier cases of a conductor interfering in the recording process with the result that many later Karajan productions place you at the conductors rostrum, not the audience.
Then came artificial reverb (eventide anyone - hey guilty as charged, I loved my eventide SP2016 reverb processor), multiband compressors, loudness wars and all that Jazz and nowadays much recorded music is to real music what McDonalds "Fast Food (GM)" is to Real Food (TM).
This is not to say that it is not possible to make exceptional recordings these days, even digital and ones at that that exceed the best turned out by Verve Jazz or Decca and Mercury Classical (who's recordings are justly famous and admired). It is just almost no-one does such recordings any more, certainly not in the mainstream, for high profile artists and I refuse to audiophile recordings of third or fourth rate artists...
Ciao T
It is my opinion that if you already have recorded in digital, then you can do little damage with an extra digital step. I will not say that you are not completely happy with some recordings, today, I even like a few CD's, one of which I demoed the Blowtorch to a Stereophile reviewer, about 10 years ago, with good results. But still, my business partner had both the CD and record, and he maintained that the record was better. Since he had even better 'ears' than me and a $10,000 turntable, I'm sure that he was correct.
Of course, old recordings have their problems, but they can still sound better than almost anything made today. Let's not quibble about exceptions to the rule.
Of course, old recordings have their problems, but they can still sound better than almost anything made today. Let's not quibble about exceptions to the rule.
I must clarify, My Ella and louis playback is actually digital. I unfortunately do not have a turntable, and have never heard an original vinyl of it. It is the verve remaster (I think 24/96) on plain old CD.
The first time I heard it though I was blown away with the quality of the recording, and was amazed to see the date of said recording.
I believe that there was some noise reduction performed in the remaster (not having heard the original I can't say if this is a good or bad thing), but it is one of the most natural sounding CD's that I own, or have heard.
Tony.
The first time I heard it though I was blown away with the quality of the recording, and was amazed to see the date of said recording.
I believe that there was some noise reduction performed in the remaster (not having heard the original I can't say if this is a good or bad thing), but it is one of the most natural sounding CD's that I own, or have heard.
Tony.
Well, the original recording is probably better, but I won't quibble.
Back in those days, they used either full track 1/4 inch recording at 15 or 30 ips, with Scotch 111 tape, or for 3 channel, they used a film recorder with 35mm sprocketed magnetic film stock with full tracks for each, running at 18ips and a 111 equivalent (but slightly thicker coating) tape. These machines were pretty good, especially the older ones, I had lots of experience with them, even making frequency response and noise with frequency graphs of them.
I doubt that many are left who know whether they are listening to all analog or partially analog recordings. Digital is an integral part of our society, and as such, is everywhere. At this moment, I am watching a Japanese film made in 1954. However, it has been digitalized I am sure, to show on cable television, both the audio and visual tracks, so it is difficult to compare to the original film, so it looks OK. But I suspect the movie version would look even better.
Back in those days, they used either full track 1/4 inch recording at 15 or 30 ips, with Scotch 111 tape, or for 3 channel, they used a film recorder with 35mm sprocketed magnetic film stock with full tracks for each, running at 18ips and a 111 equivalent (but slightly thicker coating) tape. These machines were pretty good, especially the older ones, I had lots of experience with them, even making frequency response and noise with frequency graphs of them.
I doubt that many are left who know whether they are listening to all analog or partially analog recordings. Digital is an integral part of our society, and as such, is everywhere. At this moment, I am watching a Japanese film made in 1954. However, it has been digitalized I am sure, to show on cable television, both the audio and visual tracks, so it is difficult to compare to the original film, so it looks OK. But I suspect the movie version would look even better.
I have some Jazz recordings (on CD) from the early 60's and they are very good. But, I also have recordings made in the last few years on the latest technology and they are also very good. I would think a modern recording with sensitive and artistic engineering, should be better than one made 100 years ago, or even 50. Like I have said before, and so have a few others around here, the recording is probably the biggest single factor in the sound (speakers and room interaction next).
Last edited:
Tony: But if you played it back with the best equipment of 1956 versus now?
Actually, if they were still alive, you could make a far more realistic sounding recording now than you could then. The colorations from the mikes and studio electronics (not to mention the noise) are attractive and still sought after. But we can make things far more neutral these days, if that's what we want to do. I wish more engineers/producers thought that way...
Equipment today may measure slightly better but I doubt it is audibly better. The move in recording technique has been in the direction of less painstaking and expense.
John
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/atta...-blowtorch-preamplifier-part-ii-1915_blur.png
Well Pavel did a snapshot, so what is the signal to noise as shown? What is the noise source? Is the noise correlated to the signal? Why are there spikes of energy at specific frequencies? Can we determine the size of the recording or reproducing horn?
Done a small analysis, if you don't mind
100 years after, we have one freq. decade below, one decade above, and sharp cut-off
Well Pavel did a snapshot, so what is the signal to noise as shown? What is the noise source? Is the noise correlated to the signal? Why are there spikes of energy at specific frequencies? Can we determine the size of the recording or reproducing horn?
Well, having owned some classic mikes and tape gear and now using digital and modern mikes, my experience is somewhat the opposite. I can make a far more neutral and natural sounding recording now than I could in the days when I was lugging around Ampex suitcases. As with amplifiers, some may not like "more neutral" and "quieter," so "better" is rather a slippery term.
The statement, "This sounds a thousand times better" has no meaning in any language. Maybe to Alice.
Now your in the land of relativism. Placing a dollar value is completely a personal issue i.e. relative. A GE one piece bought at a yard sale for $1 that still plays 45's might sound less good than your $1000 system calling it 1000 times less is pretty silly. The price has little to do with the sound.
By high profile do you mean Joshua Bell, Yo Yo Ma, etc. or maybe Kenney G? The current emphasis on technical proficiency over tolerance for personal excentricity does not necessarily lead to the highest listener satisfaction. Traditionally soloists frequently took liberties with scores that are now abhored by contemporaries.
Those poor third and fourth rate artists.
Last edited:
Even in the world of "more neutral" and "quieter" there are still fifty year-old recordings that stand out above many modern ones.
The "sound" of pop music heard through a PA system is a poor way to judge the quality of a recording especially since most of those systems today are universally bad. Your own recordings of Southpaw Jones and others ought to sound utterly different than what they'd sound like at a live venue.
John
It is such a pitty that some of the albums I like best are definitively recorded below todays standards. Roxy Music, Traffic, Neil Young, Wonder, Pink Floyd; the list can be made much longer. All before the advent of digital.
The album Ella and Louis is a case in point. It is a nice recording, well balanced, with natural voices, but at the same time to me it appears severely bandwith limited and distorted. I would have loved this recording more, had it been done up to the technical standards of today.
There are good old recordings, but technically, much of it it is rubbish by todays standards. It is like looking at old photographs. You may still enjoy the contents, while at the same time regretting that better technology was not at hand when the occasion happened.
vac
The album Ella and Louis is a case in point. It is a nice recording, well balanced, with natural voices, but at the same time to me it appears severely bandwith limited and distorted. I would have loved this recording more, had it been done up to the technical standards of today.
There are good old recordings, but technically, much of it it is rubbish by todays standards. It is like looking at old photographs. You may still enjoy the contents, while at the same time regretting that better technology was not at hand when the occasion happened.
vac
I read with interest yesterday of the planned uber-box set of PF which will include blu-rays of concerts etc.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.