| mikee12345 |
| quote: | | Why spend all that money when we can have synths do the sounds-making job -- AND record direct in glorious digital. |
mmm glorious digital
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/qu...ic/mymusic.html - :-P
my samples-smal file size,and Ogg format-winamp 2.8 or higher.
i have mucked around with Fruity loops 3.0,it makes ts404 and other synth noises its fun :p
some how i just love (for a few minutes haha)the hard dance regular quick beat with high speed chords from 'strings'.
cant beat the real thing(music that actualy is good)..its like an asymptote,u get closer and closer ,but never quite get there..cant recreate real music with fake synths.
im gona go to cheap store and grab some various cheap old cds to broaden my perception.
have you heard some latest pop- like on 'top of the poops'
(oops thats a typo but il leave it)
-its funyn when they are live,but u stil get the same voice when u get the main singer overdubbed chorused,+ digital steppign frequency effect,some how they must think it sounds good,i hate it.
i like some 3dness to the sound.but not stupid voice/vocoder combos..
try cher-'do u beleive in life after love''- corny cheese with vocodeyy voice
ugh overdone.
:nod: |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
A lot of recordings sound rough because the microphones sound rough.
Many mic preamps sound rough too, hence the reputation of Manley and Avalon studio mic preamps.
I have done some experimenting and the results will be used in some upcoming recording projects.
The mods changed the rec/pb sound of a Rode tube mic from ok, ho hum, not all that flash to gee-whizz.
Upon playback the female vocalist commented - "Great, Cool, that makes my voice sound sexy !", and it did.
With the suitable improvements, her recorded sound changed from not fully extended, grainyish, and some zedding and hardness in the mids, to capturing and portraying the finest little nuances and sexy lispy details in her nicely sweet voice.
I (and a sound engineer friend) put my ear at the microphone position and asked her to sing the passage again, and the 'through the sytem' playback was quite amazingly and remarkably close to her original natural sound.
My friend also used a modified mic on a documentary shoot, and he remarked that the recorded sound sounded 'just right' and did not need any post production eq or effects.
So the conclusion is - the originally captured sound is mission critical to the final result.
Effects and eq will obscure the originally captured sound, but will never fully hide the nature of the original mic/preamp combination.
Outstandingly good recordings come about because the original equipment sounded good.
As regards synthesised sounds, do not forget that the sounds are sampled, and the original recording character is apparent - witness that 'damm' Yamaha cymbal sound that used to be the norm on a million recordings.
Eric. |
|
|
| peranders |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
A lot of recordings sound rough because the microphones sound rough.
Many mic preamps sound rough too,... |
I don't think this is the real reason! The real reason are the recording engineers! |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
In the live mixing world, there is a saying 'if it's crap coming off stage, then there is squat that can be done about it'.
Sure a lot of recording/production engineers overly effect what they have, but if it is not good to start with, then it ain't never gunna be good.
I have heard exceptionally good sound captured to hard drive (AUS$6000 Outboard AD/DA).
If the initial capture is good, then there is at least a chance that what comes out of the studio is good.
The next problem is the record company mastering studio, and this is where a lot of damage gets done too.
Eric. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | | there is a lot of noise. F.E. at Track 5, 3:40 to 3:50 but at other too. |
Can you email me that 10 second grab ?.
Eric. |
|
|
| till |
| I hope the email from your www is ok to use for this. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Till,
| quote: | | I hope the email from your www is ok to use for this. |
I know it to work, so you can try that one.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
I have the wav file, and later today I will dump it to cdr and have a listen on my main system.
So far I hear a clicking sound, but am unable to identify what it is on my pc speakers or headphones.
Eric. |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
Mr Feedback,
Have you tried the API, GML or Focusright Mic Pre's?
Just curious how youd rate them. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Sorry, no I haven't used any of those.
I get to hear good and bad things about all sorts of things though.
With my mic mods I am finding that the mic pre becomes less mission critical, interestingly.
Eric. |
|
|
| Brett |
| quote: | Originally posted by Da5id4Vz
Mr Feedback,
Have you tried the API, GML or Focusright Mic Pre's?
Just curious how youd rate them. |
If you can build gear, and want a scorchingly good design, use a VSE RTP3C preamp. Simply remove the RIAA (and maybe volume control) and set the gain at the front end. Amazingly linear, low noise, especially with the MAT02 in the cascode and nowhere near as complicated to build as it looks. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
Do you people have a system high enough in resolution allowing to discern between say, a Neumann mic and an AKG for example?
As far as most recording goes I'd advise to opt for KISS as well...
Cheers,;)
P.S. Just your local blind Shaolin priest talking...nothing to get worried about... |
|
|
| dkemppai |
| quote: | Originally posted by grataku
I am convinced that in terms of raw figures the CD is a superior system but the intricacies of the digital combined with the analog world are far beyond the grasp of most, certainly of mine. As a result, the CD system is not properly optimized and the end result suffers, though not very much.
|
This is a little late...
I believe this to be true also. I have some "Pro Quality" test CD's that I listen to quite often. There is so much more detail and bass that it'll make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. Then I pop in a comerically produced CD, and the sound literally hurts my ears.
After designing and building my first true home brew amp, I was dissapointed to find that it sounded terrible... ...that is until a friend gave me the test CD's... ...It was then that I understood what was missing. It was the music, not the amp.
-Dan
/With a bad amp, everything sound the same. It takes a good amp to tell the difference between true "Artists" and rest of the "Performers". |
|
|
| grataku |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Hi,
P.S. Just your local blind Shaolin priest talking...nothing to get worried about... |
You crack me up! lol
| quote: | | Do you people have a system high enough in resolution .... |
I will, as soon as I build your ultimate preamp, right? RIGHT?? ;)
Surprisingly enough I found that I have most of the parts in the house. |
|
|
| Gregm |
| quote: | | Do you people have a system high enough in resolution allowing to discern between say, a Neumann mic and an AKG for example? |
Hard to tell. Depends a lot on the quality of the cd/LP. Many Neumann recordings seem to have a mid-range "bloom" while some AKG's are somewhat dry -- but reasonably flat, as far as I can (or can't:scratch: ) tell.
BUT, as Dan (dkemppai) notes, pro-quality cd's are far more agreeable than the standard commercial offerings. This includes certain sheffield labs I've tried. True, the latter originally circulated in vinyl.
This said, I haven't managed to get redbook sound to approach my vinyl. The upper register is particularly irksome: it seems stuck @ around a 12kHz, and won't budge.
Cheers |
|
|
| audionut |
| Where do you get pro quality CD's??? |
|
|
| till |
| could anybody put pro audio or reference material as .wav on some webspace? or mail me if not too large ? |
|
|
| Gregm |
Through mastering or studio professionals, I suppose.
I heard a few through an acquaintance who is a recording engineer & has a (re)mastering lab.
Cheers |
|
|
| JOE DIRT® |
| quote: | Originally posted by audionut
Where do you get pro quality CD's??? |
A company called Mobile Fidelity produces reference CD`s for testing systems....I reccomend them Highly
Cheers!!The DIRT® |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
| In the comparisons of AKG and Nueman, were you guys speaking of the large diaphragm AKG's like the 414 or the small capsules like the 461? |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi guys,
Actually we're working hard to prove that not all recordings are total crap, right?
And of course, they're not...
Leaving the pop industry out of the picture, some classical, jazz, blues recordings are absolutely stunning.
Reference Recordings, Wilson Audio and at least a dowzen of others make tremendous effort to capture as is...that does not mean however all is bliss...much depends on how critical you are.
Mike colorations aside if the intend and purpose of the event was capture well, chances are we will be able to enjoy it in its limited reproduced format.
When I first mentioned the Neumann and AKG mike I hhad a marvelous recording by Dave Wilson in mind where he recorded in the same venue ( a church) music using on one side of the vinyl a Neumann mike and on the other an AKG...
GregMs description is spot on in that it accuratley describes the difference between the two mikes...which is more accurate I don't know...
What I can tell though is that on this occasion the music was better served by the Neumann setup...
The Sheffield Lab recordings show a tubey colouration, or so I think, that deviates too far from reality to be, well real..
They all carry the same sonic sig...
And naturallly we could go on and on...interseting stuff nonetheless.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| Wombat |
Sometimes it even seems to be luck to have a extraordinary recording.
I have a recording here from the Phoenix Percussion Project that
is one of the best digital recordings i personaly have. I thought it was
recorded with perfection of sound in mind. This recording doesn´t
claim to be made with this intension and digging further shows clipping
in analysis. A sound engineer looking for perfection wouldn´t have done this.
So it seems it was some lucky circumstances with lots knowledge and
good equipment and this bit luck that did it.
btw. isn´t it legal to offer samples of a special duration? Can the
mods give an advice in this direction, please? |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
Jocko, where are you?
Deep in my heart I wish I could point to a digitally recorded work that I actually like...
Mind you, I often like the music...just not what it sounds like.
People that know me, know me for bringing up the following analogy:
Digital recording is like when you had a prime quality steak to start with, it now has been turned into minced meat and we expect the local chef to turn it into that same steak again...
Somehow I don't see that happen and although I've heard very good DACs the music was somehow gone...
I don't want to say that all analogue recordings are superior in any way, just that most of the time they're just, well, more musical.
Cheers, ;) |
|
|
| EKG |
| It is all part and parcel of the facts of life. If you look at most commercial music people"s lifestyle, you find they are exposed to high volume sound for long periods of time. I live in the US and an OSHA safety inspection would shut down almost all clubs and concerts for excessive loudness in about fieve seconds flat. I would be willing to say that if the people responsible for approving the final product cannot hear, then of course things are going to ssound crappy. This is one of the reasons I would like to see professional reviewers take hearing tests, measuring frequecy perception and sensitivity. Then they should publish the results. If someone says there is a midrange suckout that just happens to correspond to a notch in his audio perception curve... well you get the idea. EKG |
|
|
| bishopdante |
Back in the 50s the valve radio was the dog's bollocks in terms of sonics. Broadcasts were cleaner because there was much less interference around and people weren't deaf from going to high SPL discos. We think that CD is great, but most people with good ears can tell that something isn't quite right about CD. Next to 2" tape it sounds pretty awful. There's not much problem with hiss, or S/N but it definitely is just as imperfect as the valve radio, just in a different way.
From my understanding of the issue, the problem with CD is not the bit depth but the sampling rate. Effects such as the Nyquist limit, phase issues of frequencies between the nyquist limit and 1/4 of the nyquist limit, aliasing of non harmonically related frequencies close to the nyquist limit etc etc. All these play around with the crucial top frequencies that play a huge part in spacialisation and separation between instruments. The funny thing about that crap valve radio is that while it distorts the music, it does not resynthesise it, which is what digital does and can sound pretty dreadful. Also those old valve radios were often very simple circuits so the sound was really punchy. It was just the oval cardboard speakers that sucked beyond belief. 200Hz to 4kHz of lumpy frequency response is not ideal.
HP labs have just come up with a 16bit ADC that runs at 3GHz. Now that is going to sound GOOD!
I get the feeling that we buy CDs these days because the record companies want to sell them. You can press them up en masse in China for a few cents per unit. Then you sell them for $16. That's good business!
And what about mp3, the modern equivalent of the valve radio. People are paying a dollar per track for data downloads! And 192bps mp3 sounds awful. Like really awful. Next to a 2" master tape it is a heart rending experience to hear the treble chattering and fizzing like that!
It's funny, but I think that some people have good hearing which is very well connected to the brain, and others have crap hearing which is connected to their fashion sense. For your average pop act it is more important what sunglasses you wear and the precise period of fashion of the covers you play. For most, music is a small insignificant part of the mating ritual. |
|
|
| Rixsta |
| Exelent im glad im not the only one who thinks 192bps sounds awfull, it is and 320 i can only just put up with... |
|
|
| Jay |
| Because they are intended for the majority, which are crappy sound systems :D |
|
|
| cogsncogs |
FM radio back in the 60's and the early 70's was sooo much better sound quality wise (the music too!) than it is now. Now it's almost unlistenable! At least on a home set-up. Each station trying to sound louder than the next! Compression, compression, limiting! Keep that needle in the RED! There are very stations left if any that puts out a decent signal. IMHO it's the Industry telling people what and how people like to hear their music, then filling that niche, not the other way around! Saying a song is the new "SMASH HIT/ single" from so and so, or the new best selling book before it even hits the market? Is the original formula Coca-Cola really the original Coke?
And I also think all those "Award" events is nothing but Industry politics!
Wayne :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Bojan Hajdinjak |
Why so much recordings sound like crap?
Because of quality of people who made this recordings. For the musicians, effect like tubby sound, euphonic sound, basso and strong colorized sound, … its OK.
But for making the recordings for use for serious music lower, technique in recording studios must have some equal experience like High End audio producers. Its much easyer to make sound with effects like sound without any of it. Only those who know to build ultimate audio equipment, knows to build ultimate recording equipment (no one else). How much people do you know, to be experienced in different High End technologies, to have experience with profi equipment, to be audiophiles, electronic experts…,
People to make recordings in ( some of the best ) recording studios, are to uneducated and with to low experience to do their job. It’s important to do recordings with some more qualified persons, who (sorry) often works in different jobs.
Because of this, some amateurs often made much better recordings with very rational techniques…. |
|
|
| cogsncogs |
| quote: | | Because of this, some amateurs often made much better recordings with very rational techniques…. |
I could do it with my eyes shut! But nowadays it's done with THEIR EARS shut! If they can find'em. Azimuth? Whaaats that? Just make sure it's loud, everything!
Wayne :D |
|
|
| phase_accurate |
I remember a famous recording engineer saying: "Don't make it as good as posible, you have to make it only as good as your customer wants !"
Regards
Charles |
|
|
| Bojan Hajdinjak |
Be sure…
People want better recordings
That’s only apologies of studios because it’s so simple to made bad recordings |
|
|
| phase_accurate |
| quote: | | People want better recordings |
If you mean you and me by "people" then I agree.
If you mean the average musician and producers then I completely disagree.
Regards
Charles |
|
|
| Bojan Hajdinjak |
:cool: I agree with
But, we are customers...
What musicians and producers want to made? Recordings for them selves?
I think that's (and the internet) is the chance for some of new producers (they are comming :hot: :) ) |
|
|
| thoriated |
| quote: | | From my understanding of the issue, the problem with CD is not the bit depth but the sampling rate. |
IMO, it's both. Considering that Bell Laboratories determined a long time ago that 13 bits dynamic range was needed merely to reliably transmit intelligible speech with the resulting development of u-law and a-law voice codecs for telephony, it's not reasonable to expect very high sonic quality from a 16 bit linear PCM standard, particularly considering that with the generational and digital processing resolution losses and jitter in both recording and playback, you're usually back at 13 bits or even less effective dynamic range for most commercial releases.
And I doubt that many care to listen carefully to the highly distorted least significant 6-8 bits of that 13 bits, anyway. |
|
|
| Bojan Hajdinjak |
I don’t agree with. Some of the oldest audio DACs (like some of TDAs,….. there are plenty of this on the internet) sounds better then any DAC from the new production. Secret of the good sound isn’t in sampling rate not in bits. DAC is important but almost perfect technology of this exists for more than 15 years.
Secret of the ultimate sound (relaxed, fluid sounding, like the best turntable combinations) is in the synergy of all components inside of CD player. Output amplifier stage (of CDp) is maybe the most important thing in the case; we have DACs who doesn’t generate parasite harmonics into sound. |
|
|
| bigparsnip |
| quote: | Originally posted by thoriated
IMO, it's both. Considering that Bell Laboratories determined a long time ago that 13 bits dynamic range was needed merely to reliably transmit intelligible speech with the resulting development of u-law and a-law voice codecs for telephony, it's not reasonable to expect very high sonic quality from a 16 bit linear PCM standard, particularly considering that with the generational and digital processing resolution losses and jitter in both recording and playback, you're usually back at 13 bits or even less effective dynamic range for most commercial releases.
And I doubt that many care to listen carefully to the highly distorted least significant 6-8 bits of that 13 bits, anyway. |
From what I have heard (and yes, I have done tests) you can quite easily make out wahat people are saying even with as few as two bits of information per sample so long as you keep a decent sampling period fpor the signal. However, I would have to agree that this siganal is far from good qality, merely audible.
However, what supprised me most about looking at this sort of thing was that reducing the sample rate by a factor of two had a far greater impact in sound quality terms than simply reducing the bit depth by a factor of two. Although perhapse, if more things were recorder which used the full dynamic range of a 16 bit CD this may nor be quite so true, as you would be loosing more of the signal information than if you were to look a a modern rock/pop disk. |
|
|
| ble0t |
I figured I'd drop this in here for the heck of it...it's a good excerpt on mp3 encoding, but it most definitely applies to almost any lossy medium (which would technically include CDs, although to a lesser extent) and their encoding/decoding.
Link |
|
|
| cogsncogs |
Hi all
Do you think the target consumer 12 - 18 year old teenagers really care about sound quality? They just want their music loud and rockin' in their ear-buds! And their Car Stereos! The "Suits" have been 'sneaking' in highly compressed CD's in the past decade or so. Since their "target" hasn't complained, there you have what we have today.
The analogy is Coca-Cola, they began using-adding corn syrup to their formula (started back during the sugar shortage in the 70's) and since their 'target' hasn't complained they (and all others I may add) have kept it in their 'original' formula. That comes straight from a Coke spokesperson. Remember the "New Coke" vs. the "Original Coke" war/debate?
During the sugar shortage candy bars went from 10 cents to 25 cents, they (the industry) promised to lower the price back down when the shortage was over; they didn't. Instead when the consumer complained they made the bars slightly bigger (using corn syrup of course) and raised the price again. Corn syrup is cheaper and their production lines are 'geared' to use it.
This is 'The Industry' dictating/influencing what the consumer wants or expects. Most of the newly remastered CD's over the past decade has become more and more compressed to follow the trend of the day. Some are actually horrible! The recording company execs don't care about quality they care about the bottom line, Money!
Not taking into account the newly released digital music of today, I think one of the main and overlooked problems of the Digitally Remastered music of yesteryear, is the analog front end. The tape deck used and it's alignment including the 'Dolby NR' calibration. And then passing the analog signal through banks and banks of hundreds of 741's, LM1458's LM324's and if you're lucky NE5532's (not to mention all those 'lytics!) of their consoles with the engineer's and producers with their fingers on the EQ pots and sliders, trying to make yesterday sound like today!
Keeping in the same vein; one reason why some CD's of past sound different than the original LP is because when the 'Master' was sent to LP mastering studio it was re-EQ'ed to make it compatible with (sorry to us vinyl lovers!) the limitations of the LP and the LP mastering engineer's taste. I still prefer the sound of the LP in most cases. Rush's "Caress of Steel" comes quickly to mind.
As far as DAC's are concerned I have two older CDP's that 'sound' much better than my newer (and cheaper) CDP and DVD player. I blame the use of newer all in-one DAC/Output chips. Most of us here at DIY Audio forums do care about sound quality otherwise we wouldn't be here! If the consumer complains loud enough, changes will happen! :angel:
By the way I still drink original "Coke" he he. Beer used to be better too, before all those mergers and take-overs! Anyone remember "Burger" beer? :D
Cheers
Wayne :smash: |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by bishopdante
From my understanding of the issue, the problem with CD is not the bit depth but the sampling rate. Effects such as the Nyquist limit, phase issues of frequencies between the nyquist limit and 1/4 of the nyquist limit, aliasing of non harmonically related frequencies close to the nyquist limit etc etc. All these play around with the crucial top frequencies that play a huge part in spacialisation and separation between instruments. |
And those factors might touch just the beginning of what irks about CD sound. Ed Meitner thinks PCM is alien to audio generally. He suggests our hearing is most sensitive to relative changes in velocity of the vibrating medium the largest of which, graphically speaking, occur the zero crossing of the acoustical wave. The PCM format, he says, has the least resolution right at the zero crossing (what's less than zero, you might ask), leading to a loss of information or sensibility critical to the way our hearing works. See his interview on Positive Feedback:
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Is...erinterview.htm
I also recently came upon a reference to low res PCM sound in an article by Menno van der Veen where he speaks of a study comparing brain wave responses of persons to music high-frequency limited at 26 and 48KHz respectively, the latter being much preferred subjectively, the subjective preference correlating to the heightened presence of certain brain waves. Van der Veen concludes by saying:
"My experiences add some facts to this remarkable research. I found that the sound character is very good when we record in a
bandwidth of 16kHz, but going up to a bandwidth of 22kHz does not make the sound quality better—harsh components seem to
enter the recording. However, recordings within a 48kHz bandwidth sound magnificent, showing none of these harsh effects. A prudent conclusion might be that the frequency range between an estimated 16 and 22kHz seems to generate a harsh and "grindy" sound character, whereas with the information up to 48kHz, the harsh character disappears."
http://www.plitron.com/PDF/PB/Article/Atcl_3.pdf |
|
|
| dvdwmth |
| quote: | Originally posted by Da5id4Vz
Deutche Gramaphone=Noncrap |
Are you by chance referring to old DG. I was just listening to that beethoven Von Karajan-Berlin Philharmonic box set they released about 10 years ago......Sounds Awful. Shrill, grainy, unclear. When I used to listen to vinyl, a substantial number of records in my unplayable pile were DG. You know those records with the colourful modern looking covers. Alot of it was contemporary composers. Alot of those were garbage. I have heard that DG went through an era where they made total crap recordings. Apparently that is in their past though.
Whos heard the Proprius recording of choral music done in the 70s called cantus something. Quite famous audiophile recording. Amazing. Two mics and a revox. I had the vinyl version but Ive never heard the cd version. I assume its also great. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Whos heard the Proprius recording of choral music done in the 70s called cantus something. Quite famous audiophile recording. Amazing. Two mics and a revox. |
Yep...Must be Cantate Domino you're refering to.
Most DG recordings from the early Seventies are absolute crap.
They were just milking Herbert von Karajan's success to the bone.
No idea what the new recordings sound like nowadays, I've been avoiding that label for well over thirty years now.........
I don't know if the label's been mentioned before but another excellent little label is the Italian based Phone. (written in ancient Greek)
Actually, here's a few that immediately spring to mind:
Astree (historical music and instruments)
Harmonia Mundi (depends on the recording engineer but usually never bad sounding)
Hyperion (British music mostly)
Lyra (fabulous simple miking technique, Blumlein style)
Opus3 ( tedhnically excellent, buy it if you like the music)
Many, many more.
In fact, just sticking to classical music alone, there's so much good stuff around that it would take a lifetime to try and collect all of it really...
Cheers, ;) |
|
|
| dvdwmth |
Yah, thats the recording.
On Proprius' website they say that two Pearl TC4 microphones where used. These are old mics but I was wondering if anyone here could say what a modern equivelant would be. I suspect that whatever it might be it will have a scary price tag but I'm really keen to find an answer. Is there anything particularly unique about these mics. Why is this recording so damn good.
Heres the link
http://www.proprius.com/catalogue.a...=article&id=623
On the subject of recording "rock" with two mics, wasn't the cowboy junkies stuff that you hear about from audiophiles recorded with two mics in a church. Havn't listened to them myself but it sounds like that worked out ok. |
|
|
| AcuVox |
Just picked up this thread and threadlets. Replies below:
1. "Commercial" music has sounded worse since patronage shifted from musically educated and adept aristocracy to status and entertainment seeking bourgeis circa 1800. Since most recording purchasers do not have a memory of what music sounds like (real music does not involve wires and speakers), it is not surprising that the major labels create melodramatic note-perfect renditions with overly warm, dynamically compressed, spatially confused sound.
2. Most CDs have frequent clipping which accounts for the worst sound. Good sounding "classical" CDs are at least 10dB lower in average level (20dB below pop). Besides the already mentioned good labels this includes Archiv, BIS, Capriccio, Chesky, Claves, Delos, ECM, Gaudeamus, Gimell and Lyrichord. My theory is that they don't have the budget to screw up the sound.
Ray Kimber is recording using an 8 channel A/D fed 2 analog signals through a series of three attenuators. He then switches channels during mastering to "Gain ride" past digital clipping. Optical and variable-mu compressor/limiters can be employed as another compromise (never SS VCA), but DSD obviates the necessity.
3. Multi-miking produces an utterly confusing sound field and nasty comb filters. Surround mixes tend to be worse. Chesky and BIS are producing near-coincident multi-channel that sounds superb in the sweet spot of an acoustically tuned room with first rate equipment - but it sounds worse than 2 channel a foot off center and/or in standard architecture.
James Johnston's amazing surround recordings have been buried by AT&T. Like Michael Gerzon's work before him, there were no commercial releases. It is ironic that everything we know of as "stereo" derives from preliminary experiments cut short by Blumlein's military service.
4. Distortion compounds geometrically - i.e., distortion of distortion sounds much worse than distortion of signal. Bad recordings tend to exacerbate flaws in the playback equipment. Corrective action usually creates problems worse than the solved problem, like noise reduction and CDs.
5. All audio equipment is designed to a faulty frequency domain model of hearing. This probably started with Helmholtz who perceived cilia as tuning forks. They are not just low Q - they are active Q! Humans can determine pitch to greater precision in less time than DSP algorithms fed by fixed Q transducers (mics).
When you switch to a time model of hearing, frequency range extends from zero (unique events like a single drum beat) to 200KHz (von Bekeszy); so although the primary hearing mechanism is only flat from 400Hz to 5KHz, time perception extends from a lifetime down to 5us. Time distortion and frequency contamination are still on the fringe of audio design, and most repro equipment can't resolve time errors in the recording.
6. Last is the quantization distortion of 16 bits and 44KHz. The minor classical labels are going DSD, another indication that they have good ears. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
Great post, Acuvox.
| quote: | | Time distortion and frequency contamination are still on the fringe of audio design, and most repro equipment can't resolve time errors in the recording. |
Absolutely....
From what I've witnessed in the past it's far more likely that evolution is going to come from the smaller labels, not the big players in this industry.
Cheers, ;) |
|
|
| bishopdante |
Thing is, production values are always secondary to the material. I'd rather hear a badly recorded excellent tune played back off a dictophone through a 2" paper speaker with a rip in it than rotten bad music played back through a boutique hi-fi.
I'd also rather hear somebody play a song on an acoustic guitar, and sing, and make no mistakes. That's music, baby.
How many times has this point been made? Oh dear, I just re-iterated an awful cliche. |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by dvdwmth
Yah, thats the recording.
On Proprius' website they say that two Pearl TC4 microphones where used. These are old mics but I was wondering if anyone here could say what a modern equivelant would be. I suspect that whatever it might be it will have a scary price tag but I'm really keen to find an answer. Is there anything particularly unique about these mics. Why is this recording so damn good.
Heres the link
http://www.proprius.com/catalogue.a...=article&id=623
On the subject of recording "rock" with two mics, wasn't the cowboy junkies stuff that you hear about from audiophiles recorded with two mics in a church. Havn't listened to them myself but it sounds like that worked out ok. |
The original recording released on LP was great. When they first released the CD version, it was ****. The second release they made it right again, and changed the cover somewhat to distinguish between the two. I have both releases and notice the difference significantly. |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Hi,
Yep...Must be Cantate Domino you're refering to.
Most DG recordings from the early Seventies are absolute crap.
They were just milking Herbert von Karajan's success to the bone.
No idea what the new recordings sound like nowadays, I've been avoiding that label for well over thirty years now.........
I don't know if the label's been mentioned before but another excellent little label is the Italian based Phone. (written in ancient Greek)
Actually, here's a few that immediately spring to mind:
Astree (historical music and instruments)
Harmonia Mundi (depends on the recording engineer but usually never bad sounding)
Hyperion (British music mostly)
Lyra (fabulous simple miking technique, Blumlein style)
Opus3 ( tedhnically excellent, buy it if you like the music)
Many, many more.
In fact, just sticking to classical music alone, there's so much good stuff around that it would take a lifetime to try and collect all of it really...
Cheers, ;) |
Reference Recordings is not too bad.
Mercury "living presense" series is also pretty good.
Miking method definitly make a difference. I remember doing a recording at church on a simple Dual tape recorder. Two mikes pointed about 30 degrees each way with the heads about head-width apart made a recording that was better than many recordings commercially available at the time. |
|
|
| thoriated |
| quote: | | I don’t agree with. Some of the oldest audio DACs (like some of TDAs,….. there are plenty of this on the internet) sounds better then any DAC from the new production. Secret of the good sound isn’t in sampling rate not in bits. DAC is important but almost perfect technology of this exists for more than 15 years. |
In my experience, Redbook 16 bit linear PCM resolution is itself audibly far short of 'perfect'. That's not to say that all such recordings sound 'bad', but even if some are sounding ok they don't provide an audibly plausible or complete approximation to the original sonic event disappointingly often to my ear. So why settle for repeated disappointment?
I can't get too excited about the 'best' 16 bit DAC out there without the proper context for its application being discussed. I want a standard that at its *worst* will equal analog's best, *not* a standard like Redbook that at *its* best falls far short of competent analog in many areas subjectively. |
|
|
| flaevor |
I don't have a ton of experience recording, but a certain phenomena became clear to me as I accompanied a friend in the recording studio when he and his band did a demo.
Each member of the band was used to hearing a mix of the songs that depended greatly on the room acoustics and where he was standing while playing.
So then they go into the studio which was a completely different environment and none of them was hearing what they thought it should sound like.
I knew what they sounded like from a listeners point of view but nobody asked me how I would have mixed it.
The engineer in an effort to appease the different opinions and give it his own touch succeeded in destroying all the dynamics of their music and turning it into garbage.
The same friend moved on to bigger and better bands and equipment and recently told me how he wants to record in sort of a lo-fi sound. I guess out of artistic or nostalgic appeal.
After having gathered this info first hand I have started to believe that the Recording process isn't necessarily about fidelity but a creative process of it's own and yet it serves not one but many masters. Therfore it is not only likely, but almost a given that certain qualities will suffer in effort to serve the various masters (artist, engineer, label etc.).
Live and recording have since become two different worlds for me that will likely never unite. Those are my.02.
On the other hand I cannot explain why some recordings are just blatantly bad, not lo-fi just bad. I could give examples but that might be a little off topic. |
|
|
| soongsc |
| I agree that the recording process playes the major role, including the mixing process. |
|
|
| fcotton |
I can make a recording that is almost as good as the orginal source so why cant I buy a recording that sounds good ?
record producers. thats why the sound on most cds sounds like crap
I can record a drum kit that sounds real on my home studio.
but I cant buy a cd that even comes close. tube amps have a form of hd thats makes music sound warm and cozy but it is still hd as high as 1% I Think Record companys keep the cd sounding bad so we will still buy lps on Paper the cd should sound better than anything else. but it doesnot. |
|
|
| soongsc |
As flaevor mentioned. There are many situations where not all the ducks are lined up at one time in a recording. If you try to do them in multiple sessions independently the results are less than ideal.
Recording large scale live performances can also be complicated based on the type of instruments and the environment, and you only have one chance sometimes. |
|
|
| Sam Lord |
| quote: | Originally posted by soongsc
The original recording released on LP was great. When they first released the CD version, it was ****. The second release they made it right again, and changed the cover somewhat to distinguish between the two. I have both releases and notice the difference significantly. |
I thought the second CD was about as good as you could do with a CD in the year that remastering happened--never heard the first. BTW, the stereo SACD is wonderful--have you heard it? They used a Meitner ADC. No mch mix, good for them. (It would have to be concocted from the 2 channels.) I also concur with rdegrove's list of great labels. Regards |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sam Lord
I thought the second CD was about as good as you could do with a CD in the year that remastering happened--never heard the first. BTW, the stereo SACD is wonderful--have you heard it? They used a Meitner ADC. No mch mix, good for them. (It would have to be concocted from the 2 channels.) I also concur with rdegrove's list of great labels. Regards |
Unfortunately I don't have an SACD player. |
|
|
| phn |
| quote: | Originally posted by AcuVox
Just picked up this thread and threadlets. Replies below:
1. "Commercial" music has sounded worse since patronage shifted from musically educated and adept aristocracy to status and entertainment seeking bourgeis circa 1800. Since most recording purchasers do not have a memory of what music sounds like (real music does not involve wires and speakers), it is not surprising that the major labels create melodramatic note-perfect renditions with overly warm, dynamically compressed, spatially confused sound.
|
But of course people have no memory. The people that had any memory of how music sounded in the 19th century are dead since long.
Music in the 20th century, and beyond, involves speakers and cables and electricity. The 20th century also involves cars, phones, computers, airplanes and a lot of other artificial and "unnatural" things that never existed before. |
|
|
|
