I'll be the first to try something, if it has been proven to make an improved audible difference.
You keep refusing to prove your claims.
John you impress with how sanguine you are at level of personal attacks you receive from some many people. Some day I hope to achieve your level . Others here have farther to go than I.
The recording engineer's job is to capture/record the event, it is your job to play it back unaltered.
Fidelity is the ability of the gear to reproduce the recording.
It is not your job to reproduce the musical event, as that depends on the skill of the recording engineer.
IME reproduction of the musical event is what happens, always happens, if the playback system has a low enough count of weaknesses - it can't but help sound that way. If one wants to hear "conventional" sounding reproduction then just leave enough flaws in the setup, that automatically is the result one will get ...
I liked that answer overall, but I hope it could be agreed that "a different time" has nothing whatsoever to do with the reproduction quality.
Ditto "like hopping around the world," but I won't make any fuss about that one.
Yeah. But different times had different styles of acoustics, at least in recording studios, maybe night clubs. Tho I do admit, it would be hard to tell the decade from the acoustics alone.
As for hopping around the world, that's something you know before you hear it. A temple in Japan, a opera hall in Italy, the inside of the great pyramid, a thunderstorm on great plains. The fun comes from knowing where it is, and then hearing what it's like.
As for hopping around the world, that's something you know before you hear it. A temple in Japan, a opera hall in Italy, the inside of the great pyramid, a thunderstorm on great plains. The fun comes from knowing where it is, and then hearing what it's like.
Hi,
And fantasizing about it.
I enjoy that endlessly when you can hear the acoustics of the recording venue, thinking about how tall it would be, is it made of wood? Bricks? Is it hot?
On some records you can almost feel it, it's that real.
The salience between the notes isn't really silence, it's filled with acoustic clues. It's fun, it's travelling through time and space.
Cheers,
And fantasizing about it.
I enjoy that endlessly when you can hear the acoustics of the recording venue, thinking about how tall it would be, is it made of wood? Bricks? Is it hot?
On some records you can almost feel it, it's that real.
The salience between the notes isn't really silence, it's filled with acoustic clues. It's fun, it's travelling through time and space.
Cheers,
Why so? If the engineer did his job, you get the musical experience. If he created a compressed to hell recording, you don't. If your system turns an overly compressed recording into a work of musical art, it is an effects box.
Yes, take a classic '50s crooner, with lush orchestral backing - you can "smell" the vaccuum tubes warming up the sound, it just oozes rich, smooth, comfortableness - like a massive Cadillac, with marshmallow springs ...Yeah. But different times had different styles of acoustics, at least in recording studios, maybe night clubs. Tho I do admit, it would be hard to tell the decade from the acoustics alone.
In the latter case, no, it's not - the compression should not sound like distortion; frequently it does of course, but that's a failure of the playback system. Properly reproduced, that sound comes across as being extremely intense, "hot" is a good adjective - but not defective; it's like being in a high powered but refined vehicle which is going down the road while the transmission is 2 gears lower than it should be - you're aware of the engine going like crazy, with no real benefit, but it's not actually creating a real problem - you're just aware it's unnecessary.
I wouldn't know anything about that, but I do know that JC is a highly accomplished and respected person in his field.
Perhaps compression is the wrong word for turning up the volume and appying peak limiting, though it is a form of compression and quite distortive.
I think most compression is done with a soft knee, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression; so it's not obvious peak limiting in most cases. It can be quite "cleverly" done, as in Adele 21 album: if you look at the waveform at any point it always looks quite reasonable, yet the impact of the sound, subjectively, is very overbearing.
If one can work out where the soft knee was put in, as a last stage after the final mix, then the compression can be effectively reversed - the "damage" can undone to a large degree ...
If one can work out where the soft knee was put in, as a last stage after the final mix, then the compression can be effectively reversed - the "damage" can undone to a large degree ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.