| Jocko Homo |
This thread has nothing to do with:
1.) Why I hate AES/EBU.
2.) Why I think that most studio engineers are deaf idiots.
3.) Why studios are full of mixing boards that are "op-amp" farms, and wretched horn-loaded monitors.
No, dear friends, the problem is much more odious.
Jocko |
|
|
| Jocko Homo |
Several years ago, I built some custom gear for a buddy who worked at a recording studio. He was given the task of going through a certain artist's library, and picking out the "essential parts" for the 3- (or was it 5-) CD box set. He wanted something better sounding than what they currently were using for this supposedly important project, and I was chosen to build some gear.
My buddy had to get this artist to listen to countless variations and remastered versions of his works. The project could not continue until the artist singed off on everything that was being chosen for the set.
Problem is.........he was not the least bit interested in listening to any of it. He apparently had done all the drug-induced partying he cared to due in his youth, and had more than enough money to do what interested him now. Which was seemingly nothing.
One day, my buddy managed to go for a ride with this guy in his old pickup truck......a '48 or some such vintage......with a tube radio in it. They listened to the radio while they talked. (Probably to some old redneck oldies station, what else can you play on a radio that old anyway?)
"Hear that? You hear that? That is what music is supposed to sound like to me. That is what I grew up with. All the radios sounded that way. The ones in your house, your car, your truck, the corner store. They all sounded that way. That is what I want my stuff to sound like. You can keep all this new stuff. I don't like it."
I'm not sure the box set ever happened. The check had cleared the bank months earlier, so I did my share.
Jocko |
|
|
| Jocko Homo |
One of my famous audio designer buddies received a call one day from one of the band members of..............
Twisted Sister.
Seems that a group of them heard his stuff, probably in artsy-farsty audio salon in NYC, and were impressed by it. Enough so to call him up.
"Yeah, we heard your stuff and we really like it. We would like to get some of it into our studio and make some really good sounding music for a change. Problem is......if it sounds too good, then no one will buy it. It has to sound rotten, or no one will buy it
Yep, that's our job: to make rotten sounding music. And mess up teenagers' heads.
That, and **** off their parents.
Yep, just a job to us. Too bad we can't use your stuff to make something good. But we still want to buy some. To take home to listen to. We really like it."
My friend was horrified. He calmed down some after the person he assumed was a crazy lunatic started talking about all the classical music he was very familiar with. Seems that he really did have good taste in music. He just chose not to make it.
Jocko |
|
|
| dhaen |
My goodness, we seem to have touched a nerve....;)
Keep smiling Jocko... but don't stop :) |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
So uhm, is this going somewhere, or are we just trying to help you get the next 48 posts out of the way until you make the big 1K?
Are we talking about the degenerate state of western civilization as it affects the publics taste in popular music?
Is this about why we were all so often disappointed with the CD release of those old LP's we loved and coveted? What’s wrong with 16 bits? |
|
|
| Duo |
| Lol. I prefer 24bits. But still, a good vynl has way more warmth and musicality than a CD any day. Sure, a CD is clean, but it's missing out so much information. |
|
|
| Bricolo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Da5id4Vz
So uhm, is this going somewhere, or are we just trying to help you get the next 48 posts out of the way until you make the big 1K?
Are we talking about the degenerate state of western civilization as it affects the publics taste in popular music?
Is this about why we were all so often disappointed with the CD release of those old LP's we loved and coveted? What’s wrong with 16 bits? |
My opinion is that quantisation kills some details
You can use 16Bit, 24Bit or even more, there will always be a little quantity of information, say 0.6, that will be fixed to 1 |
|
|
| till |
| please examples for **** and noncrap |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Duo
Lol. I prefer 24bits. But still, a good vynl has way more warmth and musicality than a CD any day. Sure, a CD is clean, but it's missing out so much information. |
Guess it depends how one defines "information."
Technically, noise and distortion are not information. Yet noise and distortion can give a sense of more information even though technically there is less information.
se |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bricolo
My opinion is that quantisation kills some details
You can use 16Bit, 24Bit or even more, there will always be a little quantity of information, say 0.6, that will be fixed to 1 |
Well, at 16 bits, it doesn't really kill any more details than analogue kills. And in a properly dithered 16 bit system, you can encode information below -96dB.
se |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
| quote: | | please examples for **** and noncrap |
Deutche Gramaphone=Noncrap |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
Oh, Steve dithering, ouch. You might as well have said pre-emphasis to me. Sorry but its an old sore spot.
But being able to record at or below -96 dB doesn’t really make it a good idea, does it? Without a good set of masking tones in front of them, we can find ourselves straining to listen to stuff with dynamic ranges represented by only a couple of the LSB. Grainy to say the least. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Da5id4Vz
Oh, Steve dithering, ouch. You might as well have said pre-emphasis to me. Sorry but its an old sore spot.
But being able to record at or below -96 dB doesn’t really make it a good idea, does it? Without a good set of masking tones in front of them, we can find ourselves straining to listen to stuff with dynamic ranges represented by only a couple of the LSB. Grainy to say the least. |
Without a good set of masking tones in front of them? In front of them what?
And why would it be any granier than listening to low level information buried in the noise of an analog system?
se |
|
|
| grataku |
I don't know how vinyl fans can claim the that more signal is extracted from the vinyl when what ends up in the power amp is the result of a low noise electromechanical transducer, coupled to a glorified tone control and a 40 to 60 dB gainstage.
Vinyl is all about the fascination with equipment and tweaking. Many people end up comparing a 5k analog system with a $1000 CD player full of opams, jittery clocks, digital connections with mismatched impedance etc etc etc. On the surface, CD looks deceivingly simple, you pop in the disk and go. Manifacturers have bent over backwards to convince the masses that indeed it is so. 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.
Da5id4Vz
I don't know if I agree with the statement:
Deutche Gramaphone=Noncrap I always found quite the opposite actually. The fact is that through the years they've had the monopoly on the world's greatest performers so the choice has been between getting the good music or the well recorded music. Fortunately that has been changing considerably in the past 10 years. |
|
|
| Confusitron |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jocko Homo
One day, my buddy managed to go for a ride with this guy in his old pickup truck......a '48 or some such vintage......with a tube radio in it. They listened to the radio while they talked. (Probably to some old redneck oldies station, what else can you play on a radio that old anyway?)
"Hear that? You hear that? That is what music is supposed to sound like to me. That is what I grew up with. All the radios sounded that way. The ones in your house, your car, your truck, the corner store. They all sounded that way. That is what I want my stuff to sound like. You can keep all this new stuff. I don't like it." |
So he was basically asking for tube-warmth? I can't say I know anything about speakers and recording but that's what it sounds like he was asking for. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by grataku
Vinyl is all about the fascination with equipment and tweaking. |
Not at all. Certainly there are some who are into vinyl as much for the ritualistic aspects as anything else, but for the most part, it's about the enjoyment of music.
Why should objectively perfect reproduction be considered the only valid means to enjoy reproduced music? I find this notion rather odd particularly seeing as virtually everything which leads up to the reproduction side is based on subjectivity, from the making of the instrument, to the performance, to the recording and mastering.
So why should the end user be left out of the equation? Why can't they add their own subjective "spice" to the mix to achieve an end result which gives them more pleasure? If more objectively perfect reproduction of dozens of others' subjective preferences is what gives one the most pleasure, fine. But why should there be any sort of impugning of those whose subjective preferences may be different?
As long as someone is enjoying the result, why should anyone be anything other than happy for them?
se |
|
|
| AKSA |
Audio is like wine.
People talk red but drink white; they talk low distortion, but want tube warmth, that 'organic' sound.
It's a question of miseducation and adoration of the measurement magi.........
I hold the AES responsible for this debacle.
Cheers,
Hugh |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by AKSA
Audio is like wine.
People talk red but drink white; they talk low distortion, but want tube warmth, that 'organic' sound. |
Hehehe. Right. I like the second entry under "Accuracy" in Gordon Holt's "The Audio Glossary":
<i>The ultimate objective of an ideal sound system, which everyone claims to want but nobody likes when he has it.</i>
| quote: | | It's a question of miseducation and adoration of the measurement magi......... |
Yes. Specs are more tangible and easier to deal with and sort out and compare. So there's a certain comfort and security in the numbers.
| quote: | | I hold the AES responsible for this debacle. |
Hmmmm. Can't say I'd agree with that.
I think it's more just human nature. The more we can quantify something, the more comfortable we tend to feel about it. We seem much less comfortable with intangibles. For example, we're uncomfortable with an intangible universe, so we invent gods in our likeness and the likenesses of those things we are familiar with in order to comfort us.
In a similar vein, I think in audiophilia, we tend to go after that which we can justify via some tangible quantification. And it's not limited to the more common "specs" such as THD and such. Audiophilia is primarily driven by numbers, whether it's the number of nines in the purity of the conductors to the dielectric constant of the material that insulates them.
It's fundamentally no different than the spec wars of the 70s. Just a different set of specs.
se |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Hi Jocko, I sympathise with you too.
Just a little story to 'splain to you....
I have heard a couple of Top-40 mixdowns committing to two-track master from 16 track tape.
The 16 into 2 track mixdown sounded excellent, the DAT 2 track sounded alarmingly diminished, and the CDR copy sounded even more diminished.
The DAT copy was acceptable though, and still much better than most recordings.
As my engineer friend put the DAT copy into a padded post bag, he commented "We send it off to Sony mastering studios in Sydney now, and then they will ****** it up, and that is what you'll hear on the radio".
Sure enough the Top-40 release version sounds compressed and a bit harsh, but hey that's what sells.
So the final arbiter in what we hear of Top-40 releases is the "Finalising" studio, and that is where the final sound is created (rooted), despite the best efforts of the recording/mixdown engineer.
Isn't there a line in a The Jam song about "what the public wants, the public gets".
Other comments I have heard "You guys sound live just like on the record" - IOW you guys sound live just as bad as on the record.
Eric. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
To my ears, although good phono is pleasant enough, very good CDP eats it every time.
Digital playback can be extremely good if done correctly, and 16bits is good enough.
Eric. |
|
|
| grataku |
MrFeedback thanks for bringing us back to the source of the problem. Until they will sell a copy of the original DAT I guess audiophile will always be condemned to running around in their little cage or to listen to unknown artists printed on some obscure audiophile label that sound real good. Listen to predigested and regurgitated music no matter how much stuff they pile on their racks, how many monoblock PS enclosures they have.
Who invented the 'loudness' button? Boomy bass,rice paper-thin midrange, and harsh treble that sounds soo good in the car stereo? Meanwhile, technology is evolved choices that where made back in the 50's to doctor the sound to make it better on the existing equipment no longer have a reason to be but the people are somehow 'hooked'.
Maybe there is sometype of distortion in tube equipment that give the illusion of regaining something that was lost during reprocessing of music. Two 180 deg wrong turns put you back in the right direction I guess. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by grataku
Maybe there is sometype of distortion in tube equipment that give the illusion of regaining something that was lost during reprocessing of music. |
So? Recorded music is nothing but illusion from the start.
| quote: | | Two 180 deg wrong turns put you back in the right direction I guess. |
The only "right" direction is that which gives us the greatest enjoyment of music. While some take different paths than others, none are inherently more "right" than any other.
Why do you seem so threatened by those who would choose a path different from yours that you feel the need to impugn them?
se |
|
|
| Brett |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
So? Recorded music is nothing but illusion from the start.
The only "right" direction is that which gives us the greatest enjoyment of music. While some take different paths than others, none are inherently more "right" than any other. |
Hear, hear. |
|
|
| peranders |
I have around 700 CD's and I can count those which have excellent sound. Of some peculiar reason very few of them are from USA! Denmark, England, Sweden and Germany have very high quality on recording quality.
Ok, hit me :bawling: !
To the gathered experteze: Why do we want 24 bit sound when almost none recording uses 16 bits? |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by peranders
Ok, hit me :bawling: ! |
Ok boys, saddle up!
Insane Santa Posse's comin' to getcha!
Yeeeeeeeeeeeehaaawwwwwwwwwwww!
<img src="http://www.q-audio.com/images/cowboy1.gif"><img src="http://www.q-audio.com/images/cowboy1.gif"><img src="http://www.q-audio.com/images/cowboy1.gif"><img src="http://www.q-audio.com/images/cowboy1.gif"><img src="http://www.q-audio.com/images/cowboy1.gif">
| quote: | | To the gathered experteze: Why do we want 24 bit sound when almost none recording uses 16 bits? |
What do you mean? You mean less than 16 bits?
se |
|
|
| tbla |
| check out the new poul halberg band "love affair" - good sound from denmark........;) |
|
|
| grataku |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
Why do you seem so threatened by those who would choose a path different from yours that you feel the need to impugn them?
|
I wish I knew what tha "F" are you talking about, actually not really.
When there is no argument to be won or lost I guess you just have to make up your own and then proclaim yourself as the winner.
What do you do for a living, what is next for you? The Nobel price? The US presidency? The title of smartest man in the universe? What is it that you need to prove, exactly? |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
A few words about my earlier comments:
First, I enjoy the polite and familiar nature of the conversation here and greatly appreciate even-tempered responses I received to my comments yesterday. This is, I think, one of the things that set this forum apart from most others. Thank you, and I hope that I didn’t deviate too much from this genre.
I'm certainly not anti-CD. But the fact remains that when the CD format 1st went mainstream, many of the of LP's we all loved so much had really crappy re-releases as CD re-masters. These were likely the ones where there was more attention to getting title to market than there was thinking about the transfer process. These things that had been mastered on 1/2 tape machines running at 30 IPS could be phenomenal.
I’ve always wondered where the source of the failure was.
Apathy? Perhaps.
Ignorance that CD is an ostensibly different media with its own aesthetic and unique technical boundaries? Again perhaps. I think there was often an over reliance on process and equipment that may have resulted in the use of B team engineers to produce these CD's. The masters were likely blown directly onto PCM 1630 systems, P and Q tones ruffed in to simulate the LP timings and then sent out to be "pressed". To this day if I think if I were to ask 5 recording engineers the correlation between 0 Vu on an analogue recording and 100% on a digital media, I would likely get 5 different answers.
And then there is the one that seems almost relevant today to anyone who is conspiratorially minded. Did the record labels intentionally allow the CD masters to be sub standard in order to minimize or attempt to control the effects of piracy? I don’t think this is too likely, but sometimes when listening to the limited quality of a product, one has to wonder.
These are my own humble opinions.
(More post(s) on the way to mumble about dithering) |
|
|
| phase_accurate |
I think we have to take every stage of the chain - from musician to listener - into account when we talk about quality.
While many scanting salesperson would insist that the loudspeaker would still be the weakest piece of the chain (and others argue about analog vs digital) me personally, I am convinced that the three weakest parts are:
-composers
-musicians
-producers
and it is mainly the fault of the last element, the "listener" !!!
I generally like (and have played by myself) many styles of music, but my listening to pop music is decreasing.
IMHO the best rock/pop music was composed, played and recorded from the sixties until the mid eighties.
How can anyone expect that crappy music can be recorded well ??
Today's mainstream pop is so boring and artificial that it is mainly usable for background sound (and for car radio, because it doesn't disturb too much).
If it is performed "life", one can only bear it due to the massive use of added optical stimulation (i.e. gigantic light-shows , and the "musicians" doing aerobic performances on-stage).
If the consumers would stop to use music as background noise (as if our environment wasn't noisy enough nowadays) and start to LISTEN to it again, then this would be the end of boring music (and maybe the end of illegal copying as well).
Regards
Charles
/being in a heretical mood |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
Why did I swoon about DG when I have so very few DG recordings?
Back around the time I bought my 1st CD player in the mid 80's (an unrelated event) I had this cool opportunity to hang around in Riga and Yurmala Latvia with a film crew documenting a Soviet US cultural, ideological, and social exchange.
There were a couple of huge evening programs that featured from the US, Eugene Fodor, Grover Washington Jr., Dr. Billy Tailor, and a crew of other stellar jazz artists. The Latvians presented the Riga Symphony Orchestra and a crew of other equally talented performers.
The Latvians were thrilled beyond description to have these masters of the Jazz genre performing for them. I met a hand full of passionate and, highly skilled recording engineers. At some performances these guys seemed to come the woodwork with their Nagras. Me, I got to help the film crew audio recordists get feeds from the Latvian mix engineers. (I also carried boxes, logged tapes, and charged the batteries.) The performances were great and emotionally charged. The quality of the audio mix we were given was as good as it gets.
Well to truncate the rest of my ramblings, through some bits and pieces of mixed language exchange, I think that these Latvians had indicated to us that they had received their training at DG.
OK, twenty years ago... I don’t own many DG recordings... I was just very impressed with these guys who I think might have been trained there. If its not the case that they turn out a quality product, I am disappointed. Another case of lost potential, or perhaps our Russian, German, English Latvian exchanges were so bad that these guys were really trying to tell me to watch out for DG because it wasn’t that good.
A classical recording that I am particularly fond of is, "JS Bach Cello Suites" performed by Nathaniel Rosen, produced and distributed by John Marks Records. My only critique on the recordings would be that the stereo image is slightly better when listened to through cans than speakers. I believe that this is a good example of a CD product where care, craft and art were well applied throughout the production resulting in an excellent product. |
|
|
| phase_accurate |
| quote: | | To this day if I think if I were to ask 5 recording engineers the correlation between 0 Vu on an analogue recording and 100% on a digital media, I would likely get 5 different answers. |
I own a CD (which some even regard as a reference) of which the mastering engineer must belong to the group that thinks both must mean the same thing (this accounts at least for my copy of it).
Regards
Charles |
|
|
| dhaen |
Jocko,
Sorry for my rather facetious post near this thread start. I had missed your comment on the "twisted pair" thread, having abandoned it . It was clear to me there were irreconcilable differences, and with the tone of one participant unpleasant, it was not fun any more. :dead:
Cheers, |
|
|
| purplepeople |
Ricky Martin - Living La Vida Loca. It is the CD I listen to the least and only for Track #2.
For 14 tracks, there are 9 producers, 23 recording engineers, 20 assistant engineers and 6 mixing engineers.
When I play it in my friends' cars, it sounds OK, not great, but OK, but when I play it at home, the use of limiters and compressors becomes obvious. Very inconsistent from track to track. Even my discman tells me the CD is ****. I cannot say about the recordings and the mixes, but the production is awful.
I think it was intended to be played only on those horrible little boom box systems - the type found in the bedrooms of teenage groupies.
I guess that means it was well-made for the purpose. The consumer has to stop wanting crappy sounding stuff. There are some nice songs on this CD, but they are hidden by the commercialism.
:)ensen |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
So,
It’s been ten years since I’ve spent any real time evaluating digital recording or processing equipment.
My memory of every production and mastering system that I had played with up to this time as that when I would turn it on, it would add a synthetic noise floor and a certain amount of distortion to the signal. Not too impressive for stuff with names like Neave, AMS, Lexicon and Sony. That’s what I heard.
But then thinking about what others and I had said yesterday, and since I’ve got a @#$% cold today, I got to wondering about more of the details about what this dithering stuff is about anyways.
I just dusted off "The Art of Digital Audio", Second Edition, John Watkinson, Focal Press. (Autographed Too!) Pages 120-130 have a great explanation of dithering, how it works and what I didn’t experience.
John presents three dithering techniques based on the work of Vanderkooy and Lipschitz.
Rectangular PDF, Triangular PDF and Gaussian PDF dithering. He also qualifies these descriptions with the explanation that results will vary with over sampling and noise shaping.
I can only assume, and hope, that the state of the art has grown since my experiences leading to yesterday’s comments.
But now if apply everything we know about making great digital recordings to at least 24bit 96 kHz sampling, we should be standing before a sea change in audible quality. Bandwidth and storage are both at least 1000 times cheaper than when the CD format was 1st defined. It is time to move on.
So what does this have to do with JH's original ponderings? Engineers, producers and artists must each have an understanding of the unique qualities of the media witch they use to produce and distribute their products. They must also endeavor to overcome the financial pressures to just get it done cheap and earn a living.
Optimize the processes of the creating the art with respect to the relevant media, and whether we appreciate the aesthetic content or not, we will likely all agree that we have a technically valid recording. |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
| quote: | I had missed your comment on the "twisted pair" thread, having abandoned it . It was clear to me there were irreconcilable differences, and with the tone of one participant unpleasant, it was not fun any more.
|
-Dhaen
Looks like I should go look this up too and stop irking the wife with my long winded responses.
-Ciao! |
|
|
| peranders |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
What do you mean? You mean less than 16 bits? |
I mean, how often demands the recordning more than 16 bits? Not very often (because of bad recording gear and not very skilled recording people.
I have at least 2 good AMERICAN recordings:
Jennifer Warnes: Famous blue raincoat :nod:
Linda Ronstadt: 'round midnight :nod: |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by peranders
I mean, how often demands the recordning more than 16 bits? Not very often (because of bad recording gear and not very skilled recording people. |
Ah. Agreed. Not to mention so many recordings which are compressed to hell and back and have next to no dynamic range at all which isn't exactly my particular cup o' tea.
| quote: | I have at least 2 good AMERICAN recordings:
Jennifer Warnes: Famous blue raincoat :nod:
Linda Ronstadt: 'round midnight :nod: |
That might be just enough to keep the Bush administration from liberating Sweden next. Can't be too sure though. Wouldn't be a bad idea to go buy a couple more just to be on the safe side. :)
se |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
Don't give a damn on the how...US or Europe based, main thing is most recording DON't know how to capture an event.
Some good ones:
1/Opus 3
2/Reference Recordings
3/Dave Wilson
From the past:
1/ Blue Note
2/Almost all Decca
3/Mercury
4/Some RCA
5/A lot of other petite labels.
And many other smaller labels if you care about the content.
Let me rephrase that, there are more small labels out there with excellent recording qualities and musical content worth at least a million bucks...combined.
Sure enough, I forgot alot of smaller labels.
Don't care really....as long as they used a U47...just kiddin'
Oink,;) |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Don't care really....as long as they used a U47...just kiddin' |
With a tube or FET preamp? ;)
se |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Modern recordings are captured to hard-drive at 96k/24 bit.
It is during subsequent processing (DAC send to outbourd effects, and then ADC returns) and internal digital effects processing and consequent rounding errors that conspire to stuffing up the final sound.
Add to this engineers with cloth ears, and overdoing compression and limiting, and wrong fine eq and you end up with the mess that a lot of studios put out.
Involved in this bad sound too is jitter induced non musical artifacts, and it is here that multitrack tape shines in it's absence of these kinds of distortions.
To add insult to industry, the final release copy is 'Finalised' in a 'reference' studio, and the replay and re-recording equipment and the ears of the operator are final judge as to what gets released.
Having heard the recording studio version and the Top-40 release version of the same songs, I would say that some of these final engineers need shooting.
I have many recordings where I am intimately familiar with the live sound, and that of the spoken and sung voices of the vocalists and individual instruments (especially ones that I have repaired), and on the whole the recordings are actually very good, and it is digital processing artifacts that cause hardness and edginess - different DAW are noted for sounding different according to the effects algorithms used.
I have done some recent experimenting with improving mic signals going into an outboard CODEC, and the sound that captures to hard-drive without any effects processing can be very good indeed.
A young sound engineer friend who is studying sound and film production is currently secretly trialing this technique, and is getting outstanding results - so much so that fellow students and his lecturers are asking questions about how he is getting such clean and sonically nice recordings, and he is getting top marks in his practical assignments !. :D
IOW, for non effected recordings, it is possible to get excellent results using 44k/16bit - it is the recording analog side that is generally lacking wrt the capabilities of digital.
Eric. |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
| quote: | | My memory of every production and mastering system that I had played with up to this time as that when I would turn it on, it would add a synthetic noise floor and a certain amount of distortion to the signal. Not too impressive for stuff with names like Neave, AMS, Lexicon and Sony. That’s what I heard. |
Yikes,
I was referring to what dithering sounded like on the DAW I was using back then...
I dont actualy know John Watkinson, he just signed my book at some conference I attended. Good speakker too. |
|
|
| Circlotron |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
Digital Does Not Mean Bad |
And analogue doesn't mean good either. There are good and bad examples of both, as well as the people who drive them to produce the results. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
A good recording seeks to optimize the process of creating the art with respect to the relevant recording medium.
The engineer, producer and artist will exploit the recoding mediums unique qualities while embracing the color and texture of its technical limitations. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Nah, a good recording is when the band are performing well, and the gear is good enough to capture it, and this includes microphone placements.
If the initial capture is no good, then no amount of effects will fix it.
If the capture is good, then it is best to do the least effects possible - some compression and peak limiting is ok, but can be (and is) easily overdone.
I have recordings of bands that I know, that are natural sounding and they are great, unlike the likes of the hugely overdone Ricky Martin pap.
Effects can be for hiding warts, but it don't always work.
Eric. |
|
|
| nobody special |
I think that you have to clearly seperate multi-tracked pop/rock music from traditional music.
In classical music, the performance is what it is. The goal is to get that performance to tape (hard disc?) as accurately as possible.
In jazz, it's much the same thing.
Pop and rock, on the other hand, has always been about presenting an artificial sound. It has only gotten worse (better?) since multitracks came to be.
Compression/limiting, reverb, etc. are all a part of the sonic palette, and are as much a part of the finished product as the music itself.
Popular music and audio quality (from an audiophile point of view) are mutually exclusive. How can we even present a straight-faced argument on natural sound when the recording techniques used are not at all natural?
How many of us, when listening to a drum kit, for example, will listen from the drummers perspective? Would you go and stick your ear up to the drum, inches from where it is being hit? That's how it's being recorded! Same for a guitar amp... how many people listen to an amp cranked to the max with their ear 1" from the speaker cone? At least with classical music there is the possibility of hearing a recorded piece of music that has the potential to sound like what you would hear live.
I can guarantee that none of you would like to hear a pop or rock recording where compression and close-miking techniques are not used in the process. The vocals would be distant sounding. The mix would lack punch. Everything would sound flat and lifeless.
On the other hand, I have to agree that the mastering studio is responsible for murdering a lot of decent recordings. I think that the use of overall compression on a mix is a mistake, and is only an attempt to compensate for a bad mix. Mastering, in general, should not be necessary if the producer is doing his job. The only thing they should need to do is the edit the final track arrangement, and put the correct amount of space between tracks, etc.
Just my $.02 |
|
|
| tbla |
i agree on most, but even classical and jazz recordings are "artificial" in many ways too.....very few are recorded the way you think - with one stereomic...!!!!! and mastering is certanly needed - but perhaps in a more "gentle" way....please check out mr.katz about mastering, he knows some trixxx.......:hypno2:
http://www.digido.com/ |
|
|
| nobody special |
| quote: | Originally posted by tbla
i agree on most, but even classical and jazz recordings are "artificial" in many ways too.....very few are recorded the way you think - with one stereomic...!!!!! and mastering is certanly needed - but perhaps in a more "gentle" way....please check out mr.katz about mastering, he knows some trixxx.......:hypno2:
http://www.digido.com/ |
Interesting... I haven't read a lot about classical production. I know that some like to close-mike as well as use the stereo approach. I like some of the purist techniques, like the "simulated head" type stereo microphones, which I've read has very accurate imaging.
Mastering engineers obviously are needed to an extent, but my point was that if the original engineer/producer got it right, there is very little left to tweak.
Someone should start a thread on good and bad recordings for rock. That would definitely be helpful (although the Tori Amos thread proves that not everyone hears things the same way).
Steve |
|
|
| enkidu |
| quote: | | but even classical and jazz recordings are "artificial" in many ways too |
Well, I suppose recording itself is artificial if you get down to it.....
| quote: | | I like some of the purist techniques, like the "simulated head" type stereo microphones, which I've read has very accurate imaging. |
"Dummy head" microphones give great imaging if you listen with headphones, but don't translate well to speakers. They have generally fallen out of favor these days for that reason.
IMHO most of the best classical music recordings aren't done with "purist" recording techniques either.
Take any Wolf Erichson recording of Gustav Leonhardt for example.
Michael |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
| For those who havent yet had the pleasure of meeting the little head, this is the latest generation of what has been one of the most common, the Neumann KM 100 Binaural Microphone. Bruel and Kjaer also made a similar and excellent product: |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
| Schoeps Makes the KFM 6 binaural microphone that is an attempt at making an image that better translates outside the headphone environment. They also have a variation for surround recordings. I think that the KFM 6 is what Jerry Bruck w/ a Nagra-D used to record the cello recordings I mentioned in an earlier post: |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
My last thought single point recording techniques:
My personal favorite technique for stereo recording is often an M-S pair (nothing to do with micro soft, Mid-Side pair).
Made with a pair of Neumann U-87 or Schoeps collets. This technique works great for making recordings at a single point source and unlike a tightly placed X-Y pair allows for some control over presence vs. ambiance in the post production process.
I once purchased and was very happy with a Neumann RSM-191. It was a neat microphone in that it had a great sound and flexibility. Its unique-est property was that the center capsule had a hyper-cardioid setting allowing it to function as a sort of stereo shotgun mike that can still be stuffed into a Rycote zeplin.
While all of these microphones have the ability to let even myself make a respectable recording, none of them can be regarded as a panacea-ic solution. Salesmen like to slap a set of headphones on your head and send you out in the world with a DAT machine as an example of how good they are (I did mention that I had bought one, thanks Greg). The first impression is always so shocking because of the absence of unnatural phase cancellations between the capsules.
Many times they can be deployed as the total solution. Other times a more complex solution is required to provide an image that better aproximates what the artist(s) and producers are trying to achieve. |
|
|
| enkidu |
Yeah I think Jerry Bruck came up with a surround version that uses additional figure 8 capsules on each side.... looks cool at least :)
I'm a big fan of M-S too as a "general" stereo pattern. But on its own or as a main pair for a big group (orchestra, choir, etc) and you start to get phase problems.
My 2¢
Michael |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
Nono here...
No one ever heard about Arthur Blumlein?
Digital recs better than analogue? Yeah...that would be the day.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| SY |
I've had pretty limited experience here, Frank, but what little I had included comparing recordings to mike feed with perhaps a dozen recording systems. The best analog system I heard (an old tube Ampex, half track, 15 ips, that had been thoroughly refurbished) was trivially easy for me to distinguish from the mike feed, even blind. I can't say that about most of the actual 16 bit or better digital systems (as opposed to "16 bit systems"). I can understand well a preference for analog recording; macquilage for the defects of transducers and electronics.
I saw an interview and article with Peter Sprey in Positive Feedback. Here's a guy doing some interesting things with mikes and recording, things that make an enormous (I'd say. "most enormous"), totally uncontroversial difference, and the moron interviewing him spends the whole time talking about wire. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
Colourations from electronic devices may be obvious, but what is most bothering IMHO is their impact on our enjoyment of music.
Can we devise a digital recording system that is both less coloured and more musically enjoyable?
Up to this very day, I doubt it.
Personnaly, I'd rather live with a bit of colouration than with the minced meat digital recordings seem to sound like.
I stand with Steve Eddy here, in that musical enjoyement should prevail.
Nine out of ten, I get more out of analogue than digital.
Am I suffering from digititis or am I just spoiled by my analogue gear?
Recording engineers should learn from the past masterpieces for, to my ears at least, most fabs were made in the late fifties and when played back on top gear are just fantastic.
Either way I just hear things I don't like when analogue has been converted to digital...its' got rubbed off its soul and has ceased to be music.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
I stand with Steve Eddy here, in that musical enjoyement should prevail.
Nine out of ten, I get more out of analogue than digital.
Am I suffering from digititis or am I just spoiled by my analogue gear? |
Well, if musical enjoyment is to prevail, you wouldn't be asking such questions, yes? Become a bona fide Hedonist Subjectivist and free yourself from the shackles of peer pressure and insecurity. :)
If you're having a bit of trouble making the full commitment, might I suggest a re-reading of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged? That should get you in the mood. :)
se |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
| quote: | | No one ever heard about Arthur Blumlein? |
I always thought that M-S was the generic implementation of Blumlein...
A good read here about Alan Blumlein and some patent issues:
http://www.ambiophonics.org/blumlein.htm
This link:
http://homerecording.about.com/libr...ly/aa101799.htm
Has a nice brief description by Wendy Carlos. In this description it describes two plate condensers (think U-87) each set to figure 8 and set up as x-y. It also points out however that one mic can be set to cardioid.
Interesting reading. Thanks fdgrove, I think I'll do some more googling on this guy. |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
| quote: | | The best analog system I heard (an old tube Ampex, half track, 15 ips, that had been thoroughly refurbished) was trivially easy for me to distinguish from the mike feed, even blind. |
Ive heard stories of such machines set up for 1/2 track 1/2" tape running at 30 IPS...
There were also 1" 4 track machines.
Dolby SR or not, these machines are monstrous. They live in the same realm with the same happy madmen who search out and optimize old Fairchild compressors. Ready to shell out $25K for a 40-year-old compressor? Makes George Massenburg and EveAnna Manlys gear (every bit as good as the Fairchilds) seem bargain priced.
Then on the flipside, there is performance. Ive got a CD with a mono transcription of an old Miles Davis performance on it. Its Miles at his best and I doubt I'll ever get tired of it. Too bad the PA at the live venue had a 120 Hz hum all the way through it. A real travesty, and yet Id bet that this one performance has outsold everything that Bella Fleck has done to date. (I'm not Bella bashing, like him, just needed and interesting reference point). |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
| quote: | | If you're having a bit of trouble making the full commitment, might I suggest a re-reading of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged? |
Dont need too.
Objectively yours,
-Da5id4vz |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
One last thought, I promise, on binaural recording. I think Sennheiser makes a microphone that is worn like a walkman headphone that produces good results.
I'm pretty sure I seen DIYaudio reference to forum readers doing this with pairs of the Linkwitz electret condenser modification.
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/sys_test.htm#Mic
Likely lots of good fun for just a few bucks.
Guess I like microphones. |
|
|
| phase_accurate |
Another stereo microphone arrangement is the OSS disk by Juerg Jecklin.
Some info about it can be found here : http://www.josephson.com/tn5.html
Regards
Charles |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
Thanks, Charles.
Tonmeister (recording engineer) Juerg Jecklin has (had?) his own lable and also put to market an excellent electrostatic headphone.
His recordings are also typified by apparantly simple miking techniques.
Another famous little label is Andre Charlin from the fifties, sixties. I think someone actually put a virtual museum with his recording on the net but I'll need to look it up again.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| phase_accurate |
Hi Frank
A friend of mine is actually using such a thingie. I haven't had the opportunity to hear many of his recordings. The artists are mainly some colleagues of his and the music is mainly choral works and jazz.
I once heard a recording of an amateur choir that was made in a church using the OSS and a DAT and that one sounded very good (apart from some false notes).
Mr. Jecklin's headphones were called Jecklin Float. There was a cheaper dynamic type and an expensive electrostatic one available.
BTW: Mr. Jecklin was always a strong proponenent of multichannel recording techniques.
I once posted a link to the site of an Austrian school for recording engineers where you can download his student handouts for free.
Regards
Charles |
|
|
| nobody special |
| quote: |
"Dummy head" microphones give great imaging if you listen with headphones, but don't translate well to speakers. They have generally fallen out of favor these days for that reason. |
Interesting... I wish I had more hands-on experience with this. The majority of my experience is with my band(s), and any personal recording I've done by myself.
I do remember reading somewhat recently that Telarc was using the dummy head on one of their newer recordings. I will have to figure out which one it is, and see if I can hear what you're saying.
about the mid-side pair...
is this the setup where you use a stereo pair and an out of phase center microphone to control the soundstage?
Where do you guys find you info on these techniques? Good stuff! |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | BTW: Mr. Jecklin was always a strong proponenent of multichannel recording techniques. |
I wouldn't know but I always had thought the idea for the OSS technique was to reduce crosstalk at higher frequencies and to capture the entire event from a single pair of crossed mikes.
Probably my wishful thinking, yet the few records I have do not sound as if they were multitrack recordings.
Probably the papers Charles referred to?
Charlin Museum
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Where do you guys find you info on these techniques? Good stuff! |
Most of what I know about it predates the internet days by at least ten years, still if you do some googling you'll unearth more than you'd ever care to read.:cannotbe:
A PLACE TO START.
Ciao,;) |
|
|
| phase_accurate |
Yes Frank the one you linked is the site I meant above. Unfortunately info is only in German.
Regards
Charles |
|
|
| enkidu |
| quote: | | I always thought that M-S was the generic implementation of Blumlein... |
M-S, when used with the traditional arrangement of a cardiod mid capsule and figure-8 side, essentially gives you an X-Y pattern (called a 'virtual pair') The advantage is that by ajusting the balance between the mid and side channels, you are able to change the angle of the two 'virtual pair' capsules to your taste without having to move the microphones or capsules. Pretty cool :cool:
| quote: | | Where do you guys find you info on these techniques? |
There is a translation of some Dickreiter writings called Tonmeister Technology. I think its out of print but you should be able to dig up a copy somewhere.
Also, Jerry Bruck (the USA distributor of Shoepps microphones) has a book on classical recording techniques.... I forget the name but its a good book.
FWIW I think this stuff is very relevent to the topic of "why most recordings sound like ****". Solid recording techniques are becoming a lost art. Not to say that a rock band should be recorded directly to two-track with an OSS pair and no processing. But a recording is a recording and the principles of good sound are the same.
Michael |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
In order to better describe M-S techniques, I whacked this together from a handful of images harvested from the web.
While some use a matrix to capture a fixed stereo image during recording, it is often preferable to record the discreet signals and to recover the stereo image after the performance.
Whether done through a matrix or on mix platform the recovery process is essentially the same.
The output of the side signal microphone (figure 8 pattern), is doubled and sent to two channels. One of the channels is phase inverted. The channels are panned left and right.
The mid signal (cardiod pattern) is sent to a third channel. By adjusting the pan and level of this channel with respect to the two side channels an accurate stereo image of the original event can be recreated while allowing for additional control of the apparent sizes and proximities within the image.
Kind of the way FM and MTS matrix signals work too (L+R, L-R).
Some of the magic and appeal for this technique comes from the tight proximity of the two microphone capsules. The closeness minimizes phase colorations caused by the time difference of the same wave reaching both capsules. It can be argued that M-S with Schoeps capsules (much smaller), will further enhance this effect.
Anyone notice that the outer ears are removable on the "little head"? It used to be that you could get castings of your own or a famous persons ears made to use with the head. It also allows for left and right outer ears to be interchanged if the head is used in an inverted position.
I learned a lot of this stuff from pestering Dave Moulton after he made the mistake of letting me into his acoustics class. He's written a good book on the subject: http://www.moultonlabs.com/ |
|
|
| nobody special |
| quote: | | Not to say that a rock band should be recorded directly to two-track with an OSS pair and no processing. But a recording is a recording and the principles of good sound are the same. |
I agree completely.
But, it would be interesting to produce a rock band using more traditional techniques. I have a feeling that much could be done to produce a spectacular recording if you were to start with a critical analysis of the room, mic placement, etc.- start with a stereo pair (x-y, m-s, whatever works) and optimize that setup through placement. Use reflective or damping panels, etc. It would definitely take a lot of work and patience, but the results could be stunning! I'm sure this is done to an extent on every recording, but I wonder what the results would be if the emphasis was to use strictly acoustic means of shaping a recording... only using the minimum of mics needed. It is something I have always wanted to try. Maybe some day!
Steve |
|
|
| tbla |
| you can't record a rock band like this......it would sound like loud music in a rehearsal room.....and its impossible to edit anything....:rolleyes: |
|
|
| nobody special |
| quote: | Originally posted by tbla
you can't record a rock band like this......it would sound like loud music in a rehearsal room.....and its impossible to edit anything....:rolleyes: |
If everyone lived by what someone said can't be done and never tested the limits, there would never be anything new and great.
:rolleyes:
I wasn't talking about recording a whole band at once anyway. Multitracking could (should) be used, but why not combine more traditional ways of recording individual instruments with the multitracking process?
It's really easy to just say it wouldn't work, but until you really try it, don't put my ideas in your close-minded box of impossibilities.
Who, may I ask, are you anyway to shoot down anything so quickly? What is your exprerience in recording?It's this mentality that has brought us the stale overproduced garbage that they call mainstream music for the last 5-10 years!
:nod: |
|
|
| phase_accurate |
| quote: | | It's this mentality that has brought us the stale overproduced garbage that they call mainstream music for the last 5-10 years! |
As I mentioned before: It is not only the recording techniques themselves that are responsible for the crappy sound, the problems start at the true source of the music: composers, musicians ..... IMHO.
It has never been a disadvantage though to think about improvements on the technical side.
Regards
Charles |
|
|
| nobody special |
| quote: | | As I mentioned before: It is not only the recording techniques themselves that are responsible for the crappy sound, the problems start at the true source of the music: composers, musicians ..... IMHO. |
I couldn't agree more...
unfortunately for us, until the public demands good music, there will continue to be a shortage of good musicians and composers. |
|
|
| ljordan |
fdegrove:
Some of my favorite labels:
Fone http://www.fone.it/inizio.asp?lang=en
a standout, I had one only 87-F-04-CD1 Four Seasons.
***btw I can not find a U S source.***
I think this guy takes it to the limit of CD sound.
Dorian
AliaVox Lots of Jordi Savall
Astree
Harmonia Mundi
Lewis |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
Oh, yes. Fone is very good.
I used to buy them directly from the Belgian importer.
Astree is great for antique instrumental music, very well recorded.
You may like Proprius too.
Harmonia Mundi France was great: La foglia d'Espagna is still one of my favourite demo records.
The recordings made by the same sound engineer (I forget his name) are always well captured.
I am sure there are a host of other labels out there that deserve mention such as some smaller British labels, Hyperion and the famous Lyra.
Cheers, ;) |
|
|
| lohk |
| Alberto Paulin :nod: |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
Alberto Paulin, indeed.
Ich bedanke mich,;) |
|
|
| Jocko Homo |
If the "artists" that perform the stuff that we listen to don't care, or know, if it sounds like ****, then how can we expect something better???
Jocko |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
I went to my GF's staff do recently, and afterwoods we all went to a nightclub where a young band was playing.
I must say that the live sound was ****, and drove me out the room quicksmart.
The youngsters liked it and stayed.
This is the stuff that youngsters are listening to, and then going home and listening to it on crappy shelf systems, and the cycle repeats.
Also most musos that I know do not have good replay systems.
Eric. |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
So,
That guitar feedback at the beginning of "Revolution", nothing but wrong when it was recorded...
But then perhaps I'm one of the few here old enough to remember when it was released. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
The intro on 'Holiday In Cambodia' (Dead Kennedys) is a major near bleeder on most systems.
On a really good system it sounds great, boring even.
Eric. |
|
|
| mikee12345 |
i agree with steves interesting posts -
how we are all are on our own audio path -whether that is digital low distortion numbers-
or 'live'
or analog classic tube sound..
or whatever
Being 19years old,i hear **** on the radio,i grew up with it-
modern pop -mmm compression.
sometimes i listen to classical music,and am refreshed-
i like the dynamic range-even listening to concert FM on radio
i stil get out the DnB,hard dance and synth mp3s,(encoded at 190kpbs + ofcourse;) )
and then i listen to real acoustic music-
and i enjoy it i think as i age( i mean mature) i will appreciate more vocal,acoustic,real music
a very interesting thread.
SO many factors and variables and concepts in the whole audio experience.
my site |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Modern radio and recordings use multi-band compression, also caslled 'max loudness'.
This is the problem with what you are hearing.
Eric. |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
| quote: | Modern radio and recordings use multi-band compression, also caslled 'max loudness'.
This is the problem with what you are hearing.
|
The Orban Optimod was for many years the tool of choice of many RF engineers for final grooming of the audio path for both FM and MTS television. As the name implies, it is also the modulator providing an IF output to the exciter or transmitter.
One of the many appeals of this product is that the settings can be physically locked preventing personnel who are not responsible for proper modulation of the RF carrier form tweaking them.
The engineer of course reports to the stations GM and has a dotted line connection to the program director. Depending on the station, and by this I mean most if not all commercial stations, the engineer will experience a great pressure to maintain a relative loudness "on the dial" with respect to their comparative broadcasters. Here lies nature of one evil audio beast.
Good recording engineers understand this and will often make pop recordings that account for this with astonishing results. Nine inch nails sounds great on FM, even better on CD and best live. But one factor that that has overwhelmingly influenced the sound of Trent Reznors work is the factor of relative loudness "on the dial".
Chances are Mr. Reznor wasn’t aware of all this when he was finding his voice. As an artist he was looking for a profitable place in the pop culture industry needing to deliver product in three (four counting music video) distinctively different media. The successful and talented artist will often follow a path of influence based on motivations from artists work and personal passions for what sounds right to them. A good producer and recording engineer will be quintessentially important in this process.
Take a look at the dynamic range of some of the old Queen recordings. This stuff was recorded so tight to peak that there was almost no dynamic range. And yet they are great sounding rock and roll that is almost impervious to the effects of both good and bad broadcast signal processing. The guys who engineered and mastered these recordings understood how to craft their product to respond to the total path of distribution under multiple media.
Band specific dynamics processing was something of the holly grail for me during my broadcasting days. I wanted it for tailoring weak voices in talent and for final processing before sending the program audio to satellite uplink (Optimod didn’t readily adapt to satellite exciters).
Latter I looked high and low (I guess that a sort of band specific pun) for band specific dynamics in either a DAW feature or on an outboard box for postproduction audio applications. As I ran screaming from my career in professional audio these platforms were really just becoming available.
I'm not to sure how often this feature is used in recording today although I’m sure that it has been a prevalent influence in broadcasting since the mid to late 70's.
Perhaps Dee Schneider is a dummy. Wish I made as much money as he did. I went to college with some people who talked about having Twisted Sister play at their senior prom. It was before they hit MTV but they were reported to be every bit as freaky. Here is an act that made some decent money and had a little fun in the process. Their greatest failure may have been in not creating a genre for themselves that could evolve to a higher art or to continually meet the tastes of the pop culture consuming public. This is not an uncommon occurrence in the music industry, most often attributed to legendary hubris, ego, and personal abuse from controlled substances.
An analogy that I’ve often used is that money, combined with media is like rancid meat, they both attract maggots. The allure of sex, wealth, power and fame does not attract pure art. It has however acted as an incredible motivator for young and hungry souls to become artists. I once asked a musician friend from Cleveland what the origin of "the Akron Sound" was. He reported it to be a unique combination of middle class sensibilities where kids had access to instruments and training while growing up in an age of knowing that rock and roll (or funk) could lead them to a path of fame and fortune. Some of them found art along the way. Others found careers doing other things.
Of course art for arts sake is just another form of self-indulgence. Art that shares something common in the human experience is what others can find relative.
Perhaps what the issue with this years young new performers is that they are expecting too much from an audience that expects little more than a flashy video.
My humble opinions.
-Dave
(Long conference calls are great for support DIYaudio addictions) |
|
|
| nobody special |
| quote: | | I once asked a musician friend from Cleveland what the origin of "the Akron Sound" was. |
Well, since I grew up in a suburb of Akron (Stow) and have most of my experience with bands in the Akron/Cleveland/Youngstown area, I am kind of confused as to what the "Akron Sound" is... Could you describe what you mean? From what I've heard around here, it's probably the bar band sound. You know, Lynard Skynard wannabee bands ("Let's hear some free bird!") ;)
Good post, btw. |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
Ive come to think of the Akron Sound, as the bands that came out of the area in the late 70's early 80' like Devo, the Pretenders or Rick Nielson and of course Don Was. Not sure that that’s what constitutes a genre, but nonetheless I’ve always been impressed that so many came form the area around the same time. Its also very likely that Ive exaggerated my geography a little to include some of these artists.
I grew up in Buffalo. I can only think of Rick James, Grover Washington and the Goo Goo Dolls as being famous pop artists from the area. Certainly too diverse and chronologicly spread out to define a "Buffalo Sound" genre.
A couple of different musicians from the Akron area tell me stories of doing sessions for Bootsy Collins and George Clinton, but I think they a really more Cleveland and Cincinnati.
Regardless of the geography, there was still a motivation of hunger (financial, emotional or artistic) within an ethic of hard work that created a lot of second and third generation Rock and Roll.
-Dave
Of course I make no great clames to expertese with most of the material I post here. I just enjoy trying to share interesting ideas with interesting poeple. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
Aren't "The Pretenders" a British band?
Or maybe there's more than one?
I'm reffering to Chrissie Hynde's group.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
Hey my confrence call is over.
I need to go do some REEL work. I agree she sounds British, as do a lot of American rock and roll folks, But I did just google this:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0771192.html
singer
Born: 9/7/1951
Birthplace: Akron, Ohio
Chrissie Hynde has served as songwriter, guitarist, and lead singer of the Pretenders, the band she helped to found in 1978 |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
My mistake then....sorry.;) |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
[/QUOTE]| quote: | | Of course I make no great clames to expertese with most of the material I post here. I just enjoy trying to share interesting ideas with interesting poeple. |
Hey it keeps me honest! Thanls. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Dave,
| quote: | | Hynde resides with her husband, artist Lucha Brieva, in London, which the Akron, Ohio native has called home for more than twenty years. |
A quote from the website you referred to...
That 'splains my confusion + the fact that their first album sported the British flag on the pocket.
BTW, they're back releasing music.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| nobody special |
| quote: | | Of course I make no great clames to expertese with most of the material I post here. I just enjoy trying to share interesting ideas with interesting poeple. |
Hey, no accusation intended... sorry if I came across with that tone. I was just amazed that anyone outside Akron was talking about it, and that there was something as interesting as the "Akron" sound! Since you posted, I researched a little, and came up with a couple websites dedicated to the early punk/new wave stuff from around here during the late '70s early '80s. Rubber city rebels, Devo, etc.
It was kind of funny... my wife (then girlfriend) had an apartment in Cuyahoga Falls that was owned by the uncle? (can't remember, but some relation-I think it was his uncle) of Mark Mothersbaugh from Devo. Not that it really matters... one of those my brother's friend's sister's uncle's cousin kinda things. :dead:
I have run across all kinds of amazing talent around here. A friend of mine from chicago came here to study music at Cleveland Institute / Case western, and he seemed to think we had a pretty good scene around Cleveland. There are A LOT of people around here that are still living in 1982.
Has anyone noticed (where you're at) that the local music scene is all but dead now? There is just NOTHING going on right now. I don't know if it's that the American Idol no-talent types are so big, or what, but there is no demand for rock bands of any sort right now! In the 80's at least people wanted to hear good music being played live (not lip synced with the latest dance moves- what a bunch of SH!T!)
Don't even get me started... It's totally depressing.
Steve |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
I always figure that if there is something going on around me, that I'll be the last to know about it.
DC had, or perhaps still has, a big live music scene built around something called Go Go. I only once really heard it. A band called Kilimanjaro was playing at a street festival in DC. It was kind of like listening to Big Twist and the Mello Fellows meets the P-Funk All Stars. At least 8 guys playing all kinds of brass, a whole bunch of other guys too all playing fast, loud, and tight.
I think the live music scene lost the last of its allure for me after the Big White fire. Its just too sad thinking about how all those people lost their lives due to the sum of the actions of a couple of idiots.
I guess I decided to change my signature line as a realization came to me about a lot of the acrimony that’s been floating around. One of the things I really never warmed up to about broadcasting and audio were the verbal ****ing wars and dangling egos.
Its probably best to go work someplace were you are sure that everyone you work with is smarter than you. It does wonders for humility, and makes everyday an adventure. I'm always learning something new. On rare occasion I get to share something with someone that they hadn’t experienced before, those days aren’t too bad either. I find I don’t have much use for trying to impress people these days; it’s really enough just to get along and help out wherever I can. |
|
|
| Fusor |
I have often thought that 'rap music' [non sequitur, I know] came from the boom of poorly designed bass speakers.
A design failure of the cheap equipment used as a punchy rhythm instrument.
Wasn't 'Owner of a Lonely Heart' by Yes recorded specifically for low fidelity AM car radios? |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
| quote: | | Wasn't 'Owner of a Lonely Heart' by Yes recorded specifically for low fidelity AM car radios? |
Most studios used to have a set of small speakers sitting on top of the console made by a company called Auratone. They were almost universally recognized as the low fidelity reference. Once a project was mixed on the mains, it would be cross-referenced on the Auratones to check for low-fi compatibility.
The advent of the Meyer HD-1 and Genelec 1031-A used as near fields while the consumer is often now using better equipment at home and in the car has resulted the Auratone mostly falling out of favor. Its been a while since Ive seen a set, and I'm not sure that the manufacture is even around any more. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | | Its been a while since Ive seen a set, and I'm not sure that the manufacture is even around any more. |
Nah, all modern cheap surround systems use little cubes pretty much the same as the Auratones.
They haven't died - just gone to peoples houses.
Eric. |
|
|
| Da5id4Vz |
| quote: | | They haven't died - just gone to peoples houses. |
A good hard laugh to start the day,
Thank you so much. This is what friends are for.
The ironic thing here is that a few years back (3?) I almost bought a used set, not because I wanted them, but because they reportedly came from Frank Zappa'a "Joes Garage" studio.
I still figure that if or when the right set comes along, I'll likely pick them up. There's just something about them.
A bout 5 years ago I mistakenly bought a set of two-way Auratones. With the grills on they looked the same. Problem with tem was that they sounded way to good. I had to give them away and buy a set of the originals... |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
Some contoversy...
No, not all recordings sound like ****....most pop recordings?
Yes, I agree.
Some pop recordings are fine though (according to those standards) , note : it seems that quality costs money: Rolling Stones: great recordings...,Dire Straights: fine,
but sounds too digital to me.
There are good multi miked recs out there, assuming you accept that kind of compromise.
Can a pop or rockband be recorded by a simple stereo pair and still sell ?
Absolutely, yes, yes and yes.
Will it have as much impact without all these technical manips?
Yes.
Will this give us more artists and less technocrats?
I'd certainly hope so,;) |
|
|
|
