I lived 8 years inside a Sony Audio Studio.. it is good, but busy you are not
concentrated to learn things...working hard you have not too much time to do detailed analisis... and this because of dead lines.
But was a good experience.... forum has teached me more...forum folks...reading forum.
You have a lot of folks that almost born and lived into an audio studio.
Visit is a very good idea...for sure.
regards,
Carlos
concentrated to learn things...working hard you have not too much time to do detailed analisis... and this because of dead lines.
But was a good experience.... forum has teached me more...forum folks...reading forum.
You have a lot of folks that almost born and lived into an audio studio.
Visit is a very good idea...for sure.
regards,
Carlos
What makes a power amp to have a better soundstage ?
Don't forget the old saying :G.I.G.O.
(Garbage In = Garbage Out)
Many members of this forum are more than aware of the various manipulations that go on in a recording studio and other venues.However, even if the recording engineer has placed instruments and voices along the space between the channels ,
and even though it is completely unnatural, many amplifiers are NOT capable of separating these things into their own separate locations when reproducing the recording.
The majority of owners of equipment capable of reproducing a good soundstage, do not use their equipment for the primary purpose of playing back such material. However,stereo amplifiers are also used frequently for listening to other material , such as audiophile discs, including SACD etc, as well as when watching movies and TV shows. Surprisingly, even the daytime TV soapies such as "Days of Our Lives" often have an excellent soundstage. I must admit, however, that the majority of Australian TV productions do not come even close to the quality of some of those big American productions. McLeod's Daughters is a notable exception. A couple of days ago, I played the LPCM Music Video "Beyonce-B'Day" . Many of the tracks had no depth to them, and did not even completely fill the front space between the speakers. Again, G.I.G.O. Several tracks however had excellent soundstages.
From a previous discussion in "Rock Grotto Audio Forum" it became apparent that many members had no idea of what constituted a real soundstage , and thought that a soundstage was where the audio image extended a little past either side of the front speakers, with perhaps a small amount of depth to the front and rear. A proper soundstage from a well engineered recording may give the illusion of depth, both way behind the speakers, and occasionally behind the listening position.
A well respected English reviewer suggested that if something was approaching the microphones from 100 feet to the rear, that is what it should sound like when reproduced.Width may extend way past the confines of the speakers. In some of the better recordings there may even be an illusion of height.
I have a Mystic Moods recording where there is an approaching thunderstorm mixed in with the music, and coming from way behind the speakers, as it gets closer the thunder appears to be coming from behind the speakers, and from near ceiling level.
Some recordings are even capable of completely filling the listening room with sound.
One such example is "Don Dorsey-Ascent"
SandyK
Don't forget the old saying :G.I.G.O.
(Garbage In = Garbage Out)
Many members of this forum are more than aware of the various manipulations that go on in a recording studio and other venues.However, even if the recording engineer has placed instruments and voices along the space between the channels ,
and even though it is completely unnatural, many amplifiers are NOT capable of separating these things into their own separate locations when reproducing the recording.
The majority of owners of equipment capable of reproducing a good soundstage, do not use their equipment for the primary purpose of playing back such material. However,stereo amplifiers are also used frequently for listening to other material , such as audiophile discs, including SACD etc, as well as when watching movies and TV shows. Surprisingly, even the daytime TV soapies such as "Days of Our Lives" often have an excellent soundstage. I must admit, however, that the majority of Australian TV productions do not come even close to the quality of some of those big American productions. McLeod's Daughters is a notable exception. A couple of days ago, I played the LPCM Music Video "Beyonce-B'Day" . Many of the tracks had no depth to them, and did not even completely fill the front space between the speakers. Again, G.I.G.O. Several tracks however had excellent soundstages.
From a previous discussion in "Rock Grotto Audio Forum" it became apparent that many members had no idea of what constituted a real soundstage , and thought that a soundstage was where the audio image extended a little past either side of the front speakers, with perhaps a small amount of depth to the front and rear. A proper soundstage from a well engineered recording may give the illusion of depth, both way behind the speakers, and occasionally behind the listening position.
A well respected English reviewer suggested that if something was approaching the microphones from 100 feet to the rear, that is what it should sound like when reproduced.Width may extend way past the confines of the speakers. In some of the better recordings there may even be an illusion of height.
I have a Mystic Moods recording where there is an approaching thunderstorm mixed in with the music, and coming from way behind the speakers, as it gets closer the thunder appears to be coming from behind the speakers, and from near ceiling level.
Some recordings are even capable of completely filling the listening room with sound.
One such example is "Don Dorsey-Ascent"
SandyK
Hello
Wen we talk about soundstage we mostly refer about very good recorded cd and vinyl. Good recording engeener understand the psycoacoustic of human ear and brain perception, so they know how to tailored soundstage, understanding how to use the combinaison of level and phase ear perception. But the best recording are wen we give feeling of natural "presence" of the musicians with no artificials fuss and cheebang.
But back to the amps, most of soundstage come from mid-high frequencies transient signals and very low level signals from music recording.
Since most amps do have much more distortions at very low level, like crossover distortion, TID, etc... Wen a music are arround 0 db and the low level soundstage signals are at -40 db, those low level signals are lost in crossover distortion and high harmonic distortions, TID, etc....
So I presume that a good amp should have, the lowest crossover and very low high harmonic distortion and almost no transient distortion, etc....
Gaetan
Wen we talk about soundstage we mostly refer about very good recorded cd and vinyl. Good recording engeener understand the psycoacoustic of human ear and brain perception, so they know how to tailored soundstage, understanding how to use the combinaison of level and phase ear perception. But the best recording are wen we give feeling of natural "presence" of the musicians with no artificials fuss and cheebang.
But back to the amps, most of soundstage come from mid-high frequencies transient signals and very low level signals from music recording.
Since most amps do have much more distortions at very low level, like crossover distortion, TID, etc... Wen a music are arround 0 db and the low level soundstage signals are at -40 db, those low level signals are lost in crossover distortion and high harmonic distortions, TID, etc....
So I presume that a good amp should have, the lowest crossover and very low high harmonic distortion and almost no transient distortion, etc....
Gaetan
What makes a power amp to have a better soundstage
Gaetan
That is the way that I see it. My Class A Amplifier for example
probably has even much lower distortion than the original design's published figure of .0006 %. This is due to very close matching and thermal coupling of the input pair (2N3811A), as well as careful selection of other devices, including reasonably well matched O/P devices. Low noise from the power amplifier as well as preamplifier and source, is also necessary to make full use of this low level information. That is only the ambience component though. You also need maximum channel separation. This is way above what the "experts" claim is necessary for good stereo.
In the preamp I use a DACT2 24 position attenuator because of it's precise channel level matching, low noise, and much wider bandwidth than a normal dual potentiometer. Channel separation
is superior too.
I also use a very low impedance, and low noise PSU for all of the preamp, and the same type for the amplifier's front end.
All these measures add up.There is no single "magic bullet"
SandyK
Gaetan
That is the way that I see it. My Class A Amplifier for example
probably has even much lower distortion than the original design's published figure of .0006 %. This is due to very close matching and thermal coupling of the input pair (2N3811A), as well as careful selection of other devices, including reasonably well matched O/P devices. Low noise from the power amplifier as well as preamplifier and source, is also necessary to make full use of this low level information. That is only the ambience component though. You also need maximum channel separation. This is way above what the "experts" claim is necessary for good stereo.
In the preamp I use a DACT2 24 position attenuator because of it's precise channel level matching, low noise, and much wider bandwidth than a normal dual potentiometer. Channel separation
is superior too.
I also use a very low impedance, and low noise PSU for all of the preamp, and the same type for the amplifier's front end.
All these measures add up.There is no single "magic bullet"
SandyK
I did it like this
Post 167
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53273&page=6
I used the sda arrangement implemented by Polk. I am using 3 amps to deliver the stereo mids, dimensional mids, and the tweeter array. It has worked out very nicely. The dimensional array(outer MW's) have an inductor between the ground of the amp, and the speakers. When the frequencies above said inductor are passed to the negative side of the opposite channel they cancel out the sound from the stereo speakers reaching the opposite ear. It widens the sound stage significantly past the outer edges of the speakers. Today I was listening to Roger Waters amused to death CD, and the dog barking in the playback sounded like it was coming from behind me. I actually got up to check if my rears were turn on
Post 167
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53273&page=6
I used the sda arrangement implemented by Polk. I am using 3 amps to deliver the stereo mids, dimensional mids, and the tweeter array. It has worked out very nicely. The dimensional array(outer MW's) have an inductor between the ground of the amp, and the speakers. When the frequencies above said inductor are passed to the negative side of the opposite channel they cancel out the sound from the stereo speakers reaching the opposite ear. It widens the sound stage significantly past the outer edges of the speakers. Today I was listening to Roger Waters amused to death CD, and the dog barking in the playback sounded like it was coming from behind me. I actually got up to check if my rears were turn on
What makes a power amp to have a better soundstage
Ben62670
I don't need to resort to such measures to achieve similar from
2 Channels. A few people have also asked me if I had the rear speakers turned on.
Gaetan
If you read Douglas Self's Audio Power Amplifier book, he gives quite a bit of detail on the benefits as regards distortion.
I have taken it even further, but I am not prepared to discuss this further at this time. Hopefully, there will be a thread from a friend soon, where he will give details and photos of his modified Silicon Chip 100W/Ch. ULD Amplifier, and explain what we have done to improve the sound stage significantly.
SandyK
Ben62670
I don't need to resort to such measures to achieve similar from
2 Channels. A few people have also asked me if I had the rear speakers turned on.
Gaetan
If you read Douglas Self's Audio Power Amplifier book, he gives quite a bit of detail on the benefits as regards distortion.
I have taken it even further, but I am not prepared to discuss this further at this time. Hopefully, there will be a thread from a friend soon, where he will give details and photos of his modified Silicon Chip 100W/Ch. ULD Amplifier, and explain what we have done to improve the sound stage significantly.
SandyK
gaetan8888 said:
Warning: rant ahead...
Yes, they understand more than you might imagine. But sorry, you really don't understand music. Engineers don't care one iota about "soundstage", phycoacoustics or any kind of listener perception. Concepts like this don't exist in the music industry or the recording studio. In fact audiophiles are generally considered electronics nerds who aren't even slightly important in the big picture. And we/they aren't.
What they (and musicians and producers) care about in the studio is the music (the verses, choruses, lyrics, solos, vocal dubs, the intro, the bridge, the outro, the flow, the key, the pitch, the meter, the build, the cum-shot, etc, etc.), as well as the budget, the clock, and the operating of whatever equipment was provided. Your listening experience is quite secondary to their playing experience. Musicians who pay for studio time understand that statement. Audiophiles will not.
The studio managers are trusted to provide great sounding equipment. The engineers use whatever they get handed to them, unless they bring their own favourites.
The typical audiophile concept of what a recording engineer does is a fantasy. It would take far too much time and writing for me to adequately explain what happens in the music industry, and I doubt many would believe or understand anyway. You're advised to accept what I have said as the truth though. I'm not making this up. (Go visit a studio.)
Also, this notion of "fake acoustics" is a bit irrational. The quality of the final product has much more to do with the equipment budget (ie: the studio hired to do the recording in) than the talent of the people involved. They usually get what they pay for, as in many other businesses.
Having said that, there certainly are some "bass player's cousin" type engineers in the DIY recording industry -- which by the way probably has the majority share of all recording projects done today.
And please realise, I'm not just talking about a subset of crappy pop music recordings. I'm talking about virtually all recording, in virtually all music genres, for at least 3 decades.
..Todd
What makes a power amp to have a better sounstage
Todd
That is exactly the reason why I rarely buy general consumption CDs. They are absolute crap ! So you apparently think that people like Enoch Light, Alan Parsons,and Brad Miller etc. are from the same mould ? You are also apparently dismissing many fine releases by Telarc,Nimbus (Ambisonics) etc. The Norah Jones CD "Come Away With Me" appears to have been downmixed from the SACD.
I prefer, wherever possible to buy the deluxe versions, where 48KHZ LPCM versions of music videos are often thrown in as "The Making Of". Some of these , like "Norah Jones-Not Too Late"also include the original live sessions as well as the eventual Music Video, so you are able to compare both.I know which I prefer!
You obviously haven't heard CDs from Don Dorsey, where he synthesises some really 3D sounding material, or Papa Doo Run Run, where they demonstrate how the Beach Boys should have sounded. How about some of the Neil Diamond releases, such as "Hot August Night" and some tracks from a few of his other albums?
Also,how about some "Q sound recordings ? Have a listen to the Olivia Newton John track "Moth To a Flame" They have engineered the "Moth" to do a large anticlockwise circle of the listening area. What about the Opus "Depth of Image " series too ?
Perhaps you should also try downloading some of the LPCM Video promos of some releases. You will then see that we are really being short changed with the eventual CD in quite a few cases.
SandyK
Todd
That is exactly the reason why I rarely buy general consumption CDs. They are absolute crap ! So you apparently think that people like Enoch Light, Alan Parsons,and Brad Miller etc. are from the same mould ? You are also apparently dismissing many fine releases by Telarc,Nimbus (Ambisonics) etc. The Norah Jones CD "Come Away With Me" appears to have been downmixed from the SACD.
I prefer, wherever possible to buy the deluxe versions, where 48KHZ LPCM versions of music videos are often thrown in as "The Making Of". Some of these , like "Norah Jones-Not Too Late"also include the original live sessions as well as the eventual Music Video, so you are able to compare both.I know which I prefer!
You obviously haven't heard CDs from Don Dorsey, where he synthesises some really 3D sounding material, or Papa Doo Run Run, where they demonstrate how the Beach Boys should have sounded. How about some of the Neil Diamond releases, such as "Hot August Night" and some tracks from a few of his other albums?
Also,how about some "Q sound recordings ? Have a listen to the Olivia Newton John track "Moth To a Flame" They have engineered the "Moth" to do a large anticlockwise circle of the listening area. What about the Opus "Depth of Image " series too ?
Perhaps you should also try downloading some of the LPCM Video promos of some releases. You will then see that we are really being short changed with the eventual CD in quite a few cases.
SandyK
Many informs...very good thread, i am learning a lot
This is nice..we have always things to learn
Fine discussion, good points are coming from both sides.... the real industry terrible facts (second class industry maybe...i do not know exactly) and the higher level of Acoustic Engineering.
There are creations..... nice recordings.... reasonable quality too, and some superb creations.
I am watching Pink Floyd.... about his famous recordings....how he sincronized clocks and all stuff.... there are serious recordings too.... that one, even analogue and having some noise and saturation sounds good and is used till our days as reference for equipment testings.
There are market hard facts, and also some audiophile non senses things too.... they have to make fast, cheap and "adjusted" to play in every equipment... this may be the biggest group in this CD market..but there are others too, more serious and with more knowledge.
Some recordings Andy mentioned are superior to average....not a coincidence.... this was made to produce excellent things.
Good conversations...please, continue that as you are cooperating with us.
regards,
Carlos
This is nice..we have always things to learn
Fine discussion, good points are coming from both sides.... the real industry terrible facts (second class industry maybe...i do not know exactly) and the higher level of Acoustic Engineering.
There are creations..... nice recordings.... reasonable quality too, and some superb creations.
I am watching Pink Floyd.... about his famous recordings....how he sincronized clocks and all stuff.... there are serious recordings too.... that one, even analogue and having some noise and saturation sounds good and is used till our days as reference for equipment testings.
There are market hard facts, and also some audiophile non senses things too.... they have to make fast, cheap and "adjusted" to play in every equipment... this may be the biggest group in this CD market..but there are others too, more serious and with more knowledge.
Some recordings Andy mentioned are superior to average....not a coincidence.... this was made to produce excellent things.
Good conversations...please, continue that as you are cooperating with us.
regards,
Carlos
Not sure if I should enter here; could cause flameout......
The AKSA was not a copy, or even inspired by, Rod Elliot's very good Project 03. It was originally inspired by Arthur Bailey's Harry Lin derived circuit of the mid-sixties.
The recording process has been touched on here, particularly by Alex. It is pivotal, and usually strips away a good deal of the harmonics of the original performance. Why? Because mikes are directional, just like speakers, and this does influence sound quality enormously. Close miking is one way to minimise this, but it has other problems - it is all a compromise.
Sandy, I see you are an adherent of Self/Simpson. Ideologies are inclined to start fights, but you indict the AKSA by saying it colours the sound and generally adds distortion. Believe it or not, by saying this, you completely sideline the amp in a sweeping gesture without even having measured it!!
At 1KHz sine 50W into 8R resistive, total distortion measures at 0.042%. At 20KHz, same power, the distortion rises to just 0.045%. There is nothing above H4 in the artefacts. This distortion figure is very good, since what little there is is all H2, H3 and H4. The Lifeforce delivers ten times superior figures, but does not sound ten times as good, merely better. I do feel that the spectrum is the significant thing, not the total distortion.
I recall something NP once said about distortion. If we have 2% distortion at the 5 degrees around crossover, and very little elsewhere, the amp still weighs in at 0.03% taken across the whole cycle. This shows how crass the THD system really is, because it takes no account of the profound influence of the sound arising out of the crossover event, which necessarily takes place at very low amplitude where all the spatial cues are found.
I do match hfe on the input devices to better than 2%, and on the 100W AKSA I also match like output devices pretty tightly. Power supply caps are Nichicon Gold Tunes, and power rectifiers are ultrafast soft recovery types. I use fast drivers and outputs, and a 100MHz VAS. Parts selection is important, but only a part of it. Everything matters, as one would expect.
Doug Self writes a damn good primer on amp design, no question. But he fails to address some of the very important issues of amp topologies, for example he demurs on compensation and phase lead, and he promotes the high output impedance of the VAS as a good thing, without elaborating on how it reacts as it drives the highly variable loading of the output stage. No one has been better read in this field - commendable - but nothing can replace the Edison approach of pinning the tail on the donkey until you get something interesting.
Cheers,
Hugh
The AKSA was not a copy, or even inspired by, Rod Elliot's very good Project 03. It was originally inspired by Arthur Bailey's Harry Lin derived circuit of the mid-sixties.
The recording process has been touched on here, particularly by Alex. It is pivotal, and usually strips away a good deal of the harmonics of the original performance. Why? Because mikes are directional, just like speakers, and this does influence sound quality enormously. Close miking is one way to minimise this, but it has other problems - it is all a compromise.
Sandy, I see you are an adherent of Self/Simpson. Ideologies are inclined to start fights, but you indict the AKSA by saying it colours the sound and generally adds distortion. Believe it or not, by saying this, you completely sideline the amp in a sweeping gesture without even having measured it!!
At 1KHz sine 50W into 8R resistive, total distortion measures at 0.042%. At 20KHz, same power, the distortion rises to just 0.045%. There is nothing above H4 in the artefacts. This distortion figure is very good, since what little there is is all H2, H3 and H4. The Lifeforce delivers ten times superior figures, but does not sound ten times as good, merely better. I do feel that the spectrum is the significant thing, not the total distortion.
I recall something NP once said about distortion. If we have 2% distortion at the 5 degrees around crossover, and very little elsewhere, the amp still weighs in at 0.03% taken across the whole cycle. This shows how crass the THD system really is, because it takes no account of the profound influence of the sound arising out of the crossover event, which necessarily takes place at very low amplitude where all the spatial cues are found.
I do match hfe on the input devices to better than 2%, and on the 100W AKSA I also match like output devices pretty tightly. Power supply caps are Nichicon Gold Tunes, and power rectifiers are ultrafast soft recovery types. I use fast drivers and outputs, and a 100MHz VAS. Parts selection is important, but only a part of it. Everything matters, as one would expect.
Doug Self writes a damn good primer on amp design, no question. But he fails to address some of the very important issues of amp topologies, for example he demurs on compensation and phase lead, and he promotes the high output impedance of the VAS as a good thing, without elaborating on how it reacts as it drives the highly variable loading of the output stage. No one has been better read in this field - commendable - but nothing can replace the Edison approach of pinning the tail on the donkey until you get something interesting.
Cheers,
Hugh
Hello mr Dean
Happy to see that you get in our thread, I alway's apreciate your opinions..
What do you think about my previous message ?
" Since most amps do have much more distortions at very low level, like crossover distortion, TID, etc... Wen a music are arround 0 db and the low level soundstage signals are at -40 db, those low level signals are lost in crossover distortion and high harmonic distortions, TID, etc...."
Thank
Gaetan
Happy to see that you get in our thread, I alway's apreciate your opinions..
What do you think about my previous message ?
" Since most amps do have much more distortions at very low level, like crossover distortion, TID, etc... Wen a music are arround 0 db and the low level soundstage signals are at -40 db, those low level signals are lost in crossover distortion and high harmonic distortions, TID, etc...."
Thank
Gaetan
Hi Gaetan,
In my experience you are absolutely correct! And the real problem is that the crossover event and its associated switching artefacts is very fast; just at a time when output devices are rather sluggish since they are almost turned off.
This makes correction very difficult; not even fast gnfb can easily accomplish this. Sometimes I think that the THD measurement system was designed by marketers, a bit like power figures on automobiles. How much power does a 200HP gasoline engine produce at 2000rpm where we do most of our driving? Typically about 70HP, yet this is played down for obvious reasons....
Cheers,
Hugh
In my experience you are absolutely correct! And the real problem is that the crossover event and its associated switching artefacts is very fast; just at a time when output devices are rather sluggish since they are almost turned off.
This makes correction very difficult; not even fast gnfb can easily accomplish this. Sometimes I think that the THD measurement system was designed by marketers, a bit like power figures on automobiles. How much power does a 200HP gasoline engine produce at 2000rpm where we do most of our driving? Typically about 70HP, yet this is played down for obvious reasons....
Cheers,
Hugh
What makes a power amp to have a better soundstage
Hugh
I don't necessarily agree with everything that Doug Self says.For example, I don't like the 10R/1,000uF in the -VE supply rail.
As far as Leo Simpson goes, his designs are very conservative, with far too low a HF input filter.
I believe that Altronics and Jaycar probably have far too much say in what results. The man himself, in a telephone conversation used the words "belt and braces" in respect to EMI ingress. However, they provide good building blocks,as well as making components and kits readily available.
I do not agree with harmonic structure manipulation to achieve a more pleasant sound. However, the results are probably far more listenable than most commercial equipment. I have had the opportunity to do a comparison with a very well constructed
AKSA 55, and although it was a cut above the norm, the 3 member listening panel agreed that the home brew 100W amplifier tested had a far better overal performance,and in particular , a much bigger and better 3D soundstage.
I understand that the friend of mine who built the other amplifier, had a lengthy telephone conversation with you recently.
I hope to be able to audition your latest amplifier in the not too distant future. I expect that it will be vastly superior to previous efforts, mainly due to newer circuit techniques and components .
Kind Regards
SandyK (Alex)
Hugh
I don't necessarily agree with everything that Doug Self says.For example, I don't like the 10R/1,000uF in the -VE supply rail.
As far as Leo Simpson goes, his designs are very conservative, with far too low a HF input filter.
I believe that Altronics and Jaycar probably have far too much say in what results. The man himself, in a telephone conversation used the words "belt and braces" in respect to EMI ingress. However, they provide good building blocks,as well as making components and kits readily available.
I do not agree with harmonic structure manipulation to achieve a more pleasant sound. However, the results are probably far more listenable than most commercial equipment. I have had the opportunity to do a comparison with a very well constructed
AKSA 55, and although it was a cut above the norm, the 3 member listening panel agreed that the home brew 100W amplifier tested had a far better overal performance,and in particular , a much bigger and better 3D soundstage.
I understand that the friend of mine who built the other amplifier, had a lengthy telephone conversation with you recently.
I hope to be able to audition your latest amplifier in the not too distant future. I expect that it will be vastly superior to previous efforts, mainly due to newer circuit techniques and components .
Kind Regards
SandyK (Alex)
AKSA said:
Hello
Crossover distortion are quite fast and hard to test by itself. But one relatively easy test sould be to feed a very low level signal
(-60 db) into an amps and mesure the distortion and look the harmonic structure. Have you done that on your Aksa 55 amps ?
I did it, on good ordinary amps, using my HP333 and there was distortion for sure, and I did a test using a -90 db test cd from Verany on a good cd player, and even on a scope, the sine wave was look like little stair case.
I have a good article relate to Arthur Bailey work, Wireless World, March 1970 , Ultra-low Distortion Class-A Amplifier
A design using feedback to control the gain and the levels of voltage and current in the output stage, By L. Nelson-Jones, M.I.E.R.E
Gaetan
Re: What makes a power amp to have a better sounstage
It sounds like you really misunderstand what I've been trying to get across. My fault, it's tough to explain. I can't argue with your opinion of generally available CD's. They were probably produced with business motivations in mind before art or science. It's a tough triangle to balance. Musicians have their own priorities. It's their music (art) and they rarely have jobs, education or much money, so we must take what we get. I guarantee that they always wish they had a bigger budget for recording.
I apparently think...? Be careful with statements like that. I'm trying to explain how the recording industry works from an inside perspective -- for YOUR benefit. Feel free to disregard it as nonsense, but don't try to transliterate my thoughts.
The big expensive studios have in-house 'technical engineers' that do their best to provide excellent sounding tools and options in the studio. That's their job. They don't engineer the recordings. They are akin to the IT dept. in a corporate office.
Smaller home studios don't have people like that. They buy gear based on reputation and much of the time (being musicians, not technicians) they don't understand how to operate it in a technically sound manner. They crank the EQ, compress the daylights out of the tracks, etc. They usually want audiophile quality, but have no idea what exactly that sounds like, or how to achieve it, so they focus on what they do know... their music/their instruments. They twist the knobs on the mixing console and effects equipment until it sounds "best". It's all they can afford to do.
The artists you mentioned have the budget for the bigger studios; talented, experienced engineers; and more time to spend improving/tweaking the audio. But *generally speaking* they are not fussing over audio, they pay big bucks, so they *expect it* from the studio, and are there to burn through the recording process (which again, is a musical process, not a technical process) and hopefully get it finished before the money runs out.
You must understand, the function of a recording engineer is to *operate the equipment provided* in the current musical context. For example, to start/stop the recording devices; to place the microphones; to produce the effects that the producer requests; to adjust the compressors appropriately given the signal levels; etc. etc. There is rarely budget (time) to experiment with audio nirvana. You would generally be lucky to have the time available to try two different microphone positions before the producer is complaining about wasting time/money. It's $50-$500 per hour, and hundreds/thousands of hours to record a full CD. It adds up unbelievably fast.
Alan Parsons engineered DSOTM using the exact methods I mentioned earlier. Pink Floyd had great equipment and a pretty big budget to relax and do whatever they wanted. Best case scenario. Parsons, as an engineer, did what he was told by the producer and the artist. Nothing more, nothing less. He obviously knew the best way to get results the first time, or had the time to try a few methods to see what worked best. Any engineer would kill to be in that position.
This complaint seems to be more to do with release media and the mastering process. This has absolutely nothing to do with the recording process, the recording engineer, and in many cases the artist themselves. It's a business decision the record company makes.
I don't need to see the examples you described. I've seen that first-hand many, many times.
I hope that clarifies and elucidates.
..Todd
It sounds like you really misunderstand what I've been trying to get across. My fault, it's tough to explain. I can't argue with your opinion of generally available CD's. They were probably produced with business motivations in mind before art or science. It's a tough triangle to balance. Musicians have their own priorities. It's their music (art) and they rarely have jobs, education or much money, so we must take what we get. I guarantee that they always wish they had a bigger budget for recording.
I apparently think...? Be careful with statements like that. I'm trying to explain how the recording industry works from an inside perspective -- for YOUR benefit. Feel free to disregard it as nonsense, but don't try to transliterate my thoughts.
The big expensive studios have in-house 'technical engineers' that do their best to provide excellent sounding tools and options in the studio. That's their job. They don't engineer the recordings. They are akin to the IT dept. in a corporate office.
Smaller home studios don't have people like that. They buy gear based on reputation and much of the time (being musicians, not technicians) they don't understand how to operate it in a technically sound manner. They crank the EQ, compress the daylights out of the tracks, etc. They usually want audiophile quality, but have no idea what exactly that sounds like, or how to achieve it, so they focus on what they do know... their music/their instruments. They twist the knobs on the mixing console and effects equipment until it sounds "best". It's all they can afford to do.
The artists you mentioned have the budget for the bigger studios; talented, experienced engineers; and more time to spend improving/tweaking the audio. But *generally speaking* they are not fussing over audio, they pay big bucks, so they *expect it* from the studio, and are there to burn through the recording process (which again, is a musical process, not a technical process) and hopefully get it finished before the money runs out.
You must understand, the function of a recording engineer is to *operate the equipment provided* in the current musical context. For example, to start/stop the recording devices; to place the microphones; to produce the effects that the producer requests; to adjust the compressors appropriately given the signal levels; etc. etc. There is rarely budget (time) to experiment with audio nirvana. You would generally be lucky to have the time available to try two different microphone positions before the producer is complaining about wasting time/money. It's $50-$500 per hour, and hundreds/thousands of hours to record a full CD. It adds up unbelievably fast.
Alan Parsons engineered DSOTM using the exact methods I mentioned earlier. Pink Floyd had great equipment and a pretty big budget to relax and do whatever they wanted. Best case scenario. Parsons, as an engineer, did what he was told by the producer and the artist. Nothing more, nothing less. He obviously knew the best way to get results the first time, or had the time to try a few methods to see what worked best. Any engineer would kill to be in that position.
This complaint seems to be more to do with release media and the mastering process. This has absolutely nothing to do with the recording process, the recording engineer, and in many cases the artist themselves. It's a business decision the record company makes.
I don't need to see the examples you described. I've seen that first-hand many, many times.
I hope that clarifies and elucidates.
..Todd
What make a power amp to have a better soundstage
Todd
All your explanations do for me, is explain why the higher quality formats of SACD and DVD-A , are virtually dead as far as popular music releases are concerned, and the reason why these formats may cease to exist, except for a few niche releases. The Record companies simply do not have enough high quality product available to make those formats viable. G.I.G.O. ( Garbage In = Garbage Out.)
SandyK
Todd
All your explanations do for me, is explain why the higher quality formats of SACD and DVD-A , are virtually dead as far as popular music releases are concerned, and the reason why these formats may cease to exist, except for a few niche releases. The Record companies simply do not have enough high quality product available to make those formats viable. G.I.G.O. ( Garbage In = Garbage Out.)
SandyK
Re: What make a power amp to have a better soundstage
Yup. That's one of many conclusions you might draw.
I would even go as far as saying the record companies, as well as the musicians (again, generally speaking), care primarily about sales figures. So if they can sell a million copies by spending a little, and a million copies by spending a lot, they'll pick spending a little virtually every time. Musicians are artists who run businesses. In the triangle of art/business/science, they pretty much focus on the first two to the detriment of the latter.
Hi-fi and audiophiles don't really matter much to them. Which brings us back to my original statement that they (generally speaking) don't care one iota about 'soundstage'. That's something for you, me, Nelson and Hugh to fuss over in our little world.
The music (the verses, choruses, lyrics, solos, etc.), which is how the consuming people choose their favourite music, are identical no matter which media they publish it on. If the general public really wanted or cared about very high quality recordings, these formats would have succeeded. The consumers have spoken. You and I lose out.
Genre also plays a role in the consumer's quality expectations. Jazz and classical music needs to sound much better than teen-pop and country can get away with sounding.
The big spenders (say Diana Krall as a local example) have proven to the record executives (the investors) they will sell x million CD's or songs, so their recording budget (the investment) is much higher and shortcuts aren't necessary. We benefit from their popularity.
..Todd (Don't shoot the messenger.)
sandyK said:
Yup. That's one of many conclusions you might draw.
I would even go as far as saying the record companies, as well as the musicians (again, generally speaking), care primarily about sales figures. So if they can sell a million copies by spending a little, and a million copies by spending a lot, they'll pick spending a little virtually every time. Musicians are artists who run businesses. In the triangle of art/business/science, they pretty much focus on the first two to the detriment of the latter.
Hi-fi and audiophiles don't really matter much to them. Which brings us back to my original statement that they (generally speaking) don't care one iota about 'soundstage'. That's something for you, me, Nelson and Hugh to fuss over in our little world.
The music (the verses, choruses, lyrics, solos, etc.), which is how the consuming people choose their favourite music, are identical no matter which media they publish it on. If the general public really wanted or cared about very high quality recordings, these formats would have succeeded. The consumers have spoken. You and I lose out.
Genre also plays a role in the consumer's quality expectations. Jazz and classical music needs to sound much better than teen-pop and country can get away with sounding.
The big spenders (say Diana Krall as a local example) have proven to the record executives (the investors) they will sell x million CD's or songs, so their recording budget (the investment) is much higher and shortcuts aren't necessary. We benefit from their popularity.
..Todd (Don't shoot the messenger.)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.