Ok, so I've been thinking about this for a while.
The complaint (as such) is that extremely low distortion (can we call it "blameless") gear is said to produce souless sound. But no one can actually find a true cause for this subjective impression.
(an example: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...t-versus-ic-op-amp-quality-2.html#post2617642)
Many prefer equipment with substantial amounts of harmonic distortion, even when used in a signal chain of "high accuracy" and "low distortion".
What's wrong with the picture?
I'm thinking that the problem lies in the recording and the recording media and encoding rather than in the playback chain.
That's not to include substandard (for lack of a better way to express it) signal chains as a causal factor in this discussion.
Part of my experience is that when I stick almost any pair of mics, with almost any mic preamps and listen directly, the sound is dramatically more "correct" and "live" than even when that same event is recorded and played back!
You can test the above theory by trying it yourself, one of the best ways is to shove the mics outside on your window sills, preferably not the same window sill (but any is better than none) and monitor through your system - close the windows for isolation from feedback. (Try it, don't assume you know if you have not)
Well, that's the premise. 😀
_-_-bear
The complaint (as such) is that extremely low distortion (can we call it "blameless") gear is said to produce souless sound. But no one can actually find a true cause for this subjective impression.
(an example: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...t-versus-ic-op-amp-quality-2.html#post2617642)
Many prefer equipment with substantial amounts of harmonic distortion, even when used in a signal chain of "high accuracy" and "low distortion".
What's wrong with the picture?
I'm thinking that the problem lies in the recording and the recording media and encoding rather than in the playback chain.
That's not to include substandard (for lack of a better way to express it) signal chains as a causal factor in this discussion.
Part of my experience is that when I stick almost any pair of mics, with almost any mic preamps and listen directly, the sound is dramatically more "correct" and "live" than even when that same event is recorded and played back!
You can test the above theory by trying it yourself, one of the best ways is to shove the mics outside on your window sills, preferably not the same window sill (but any is better than none) and monitor through your system - close the windows for isolation from feedback. (Try it, don't assume you know if you have not)
Well, that's the premise. 😀
_-_-bear
Last edited:
I used to do a similar thing - record what I was mixing to DAT then play it back on the exact same system. It always lacked "life" tho it wasn't bad sounding. Never could figure out what was going on, other than the idea that the tape was just not "getting" it all.
Nope, not experienced that at all. When I switch an A/D->D/A in and out of the live mike feed, it sounds identical to me IF the levels are accurately matched.
Wonder if there is something more here, relating to the specific recording process - certainly such is the case with analog tape recording I have done. (Never come close to capturing the sound of the original live event - quickly forgotten though once that frame of reference is gone.) I have also heard RDAT recording live and noted something similar, but this was a long, long time ago and I may have been hearing the imperfection of that recorder's analog path and codecs.
Level matching is pretty critical..
As a disclaimer I have not done any live recording in decades.. 😀
We could ask ourselves if that is not a psychological effect of the difference of perception between:
- a live sound, immediate, surprising, ever evolving, free = organic,
- a recorded sound, in a "box", processed, determined, fossilized, repeatable = mechanic.
A difference that makes radio more interesting to listen to than a CD, for instance.
Pano- analog is different. I loved my old Ampex 351s, but the output and input did NOT sound identical. The M-Audio 192 I use these days is much better in that respect. I'd never go back- I'm nostalgic, but I ain't crazy.
Mike feed is monitored on headphones. Live acoustical event, but the comparison is mike feed versus output of DAC.
I agree with SY. I used to be in a band (in a former life), and try as we may, we just couldn't get the sound right no matter what. We were using a TEAC 3330, which was considered to be a very good reel to reel in those days, and some very expesive mics (don't remember what they were), and the sound just wasn't right. In later years, a band mate that stuck with it after I had moved on to other endeavors, got a digital recorder (agian, don't remember what kind, getting old sux!) and the results were much better.
Mike
Mike
Yes, I'm sure that has a lot to do with it. It can be hard to overcome that prejudice.
Sure, But I was recording to DAT, not analog. It did n't sound bad, just a little lacking. Granted, your soundcard may well be much better than the old DAT deck.
Ah, tape. I barely remember it! One interesting thing is that (if memory serves me correctly) tape is energy or power sensitive. If you measure the frequency response of a tape deck using a sine wave and a meter, you get a different answer compared to broadband noise and a filter. In a perfect world that shouldn't happen. Tape is as imperfect as vinyl. Maybe their flaws cancel out! 😱
When I get a turntable tuned up and I'm happy with the sound, I can record it to CD. The result has every bit of magic intact, so IMO it's the source that matters. I have good sources and bad sources, both analog and digital. If I had to guess, I'd say early sources are generally more satisfying than later sources. I think they listened more before releasing the stuff. Too much technical polish isn't always a good thing.
When I get a turntable tuned up and I'm happy with the sound, I can record it to CD. The result has every bit of magic intact, so IMO it's the source that matters. I have good sources and bad sources, both analog and digital. If I had to guess, I'd say early sources are generally more satisfying than later sources. I think they listened more before releasing the stuff. Too much technical polish isn't always a good thing.
using a tube mixer, good dynamic and ribbbon mics, when I'd compare the line out of my Sony PCM unit with playback, there would be quite a disappointment. Same goes today for recording a LP to cd-standard wav using a M-Audio card,
Records have mechanical drag noises, ticks can enhance spatial aspect, analog tape does funky stuff. Guess we're lucky to have what we have.
Records have mechanical drag noises, ticks can enhance spatial aspect, analog tape does funky stuff. Guess we're lucky to have what we have.
SY, your A/D ---> D/A test does not qualify precisely to the proposition in the OP.
No recording device. 😀
I'm talking about something more basic than anyone's choice of recording medium.
This is Schrodinger's Cat material here.
_-_-bear
No recording device. 😀
I'm talking about something more basic than anyone's choice of recording medium.
This is Schrodinger's Cat material here.
_-_-bear
Look, I would be happy if there is/was some sort of medium that proved to be virtually indistinguishable from the original source played live... just have yet to experience it, and the way my ears are starting to go, it may never happen unless it happens soon. 🙁
_-_-bear
_-_-bear
If by "original source played live," you mean the acoustic event, may as well wish for Santa Claus. That involves perfect transducers and a 3D mapping that does not and cannot exist. If you mean "indistinguishable from the direct feed from the microphones," that's pretty easy these days.
Yes, SY I do mean "indistinguishable from the direct feed from the microphones".
And I don't think it is so very easy since the interposition of a recording medium is required.
In addition I want to be comparing a direct feed to the analog reproduction chain to the recorded event, NOT a feed with the imposition of a digital conversion process to a recorded event.
What I am suggesting is that there is something lost (thus far) in the process of recording and then playing back said recording, thus the desire/need for the types of sonic "aspects" that things like 300B amps supply (for example), and why "perfect" devices (like these new ultra-super low distortion opamps) are found by many to not sound good or right and to be "souless"! Perhaps they are perfect, and the recorded material is "souless" so the soulessness is actually being reproduced quite accurately?
_-_-bear
Perhaps the American aboriginals were on to something when they seemingly spoke of the photograph "robbing your soul" - maybe this was a misinterpretation, they meant to say that the image had no soul compared to the real person.
And I don't think it is so very easy since the interposition of a recording medium is required.
In addition I want to be comparing a direct feed to the analog reproduction chain to the recorded event, NOT a feed with the imposition of a digital conversion process to a recorded event.
What I am suggesting is that there is something lost (thus far) in the process of recording and then playing back said recording, thus the desire/need for the types of sonic "aspects" that things like 300B amps supply (for example), and why "perfect" devices (like these new ultra-super low distortion opamps) are found by many to not sound good or right and to be "souless"! Perhaps they are perfect, and the recorded material is "souless" so the soulessness is actually being reproduced quite accurately?
_-_-bear
Perhaps the American aboriginals were on to something when they seemingly spoke of the photograph "robbing your soul" - maybe this was a misinterpretation, they meant to say that the image had no soul compared to the real person.
Last edited:
I'm not following you. I monitor the output of the mike preamp. I switch in an A/D process which digitizes the signal. The signal now exists as a number which might physically be a set of charges in a silicon array, a set of pits in aluminum, a set of magnetic domains in an iron oxide coating, whatever, it's the same set of numbers. That set of numbers is fed into a D/A, the output of which I monitor. If I set that output so that its level matches the output level of the mike preamp, then listen to each, they sound identical (assuming I haven't done something stupid setting input levels). I'm not the only one who has observed the same thing.
So what's the problem? Unless you just mean "analog recording," in which case I agree, there are definite audible losses.
So what's the problem? Unless you just mean "analog recording," in which case I agree, there are definite audible losses.
Better written:
In addition I want to be comparing a direct feed sent to the analog reproduction chain with the recorded event, NOT a feed with the imposition of a digital conversion process with a recorded event.
In addition I want to be comparing a direct feed sent to the analog reproduction chain with the recorded event, NOT a feed with the imposition of a digital conversion process with a recorded event.
SY, I understand ur claim on the A/D --> D/A.
But you are not interposing an actual recording media.
No, I am not limiting the discussion to analog media at all.
Digital is fine.
But to continue with your point, what is the sample rate and bit depth?
Surely not "Redbook"?
_-_-bear
But you are not interposing an actual recording media.
No, I am not limiting the discussion to analog media at all.
Digital is fine.
But to continue with your point, what is the sample rate and bit depth?
Surely not "Redbook"?
_-_-bear
- Status
- Not open for further replies.