Most, if not all, of us will agree to that point, but behind that the consent vanishes .......
I have voiced no opinion on the artistic value of who he mixes.
I have voiced an opinion on the technical quality of his mixes.
Agreed, at least in reference to Hi-Fi reproduction systems including the listening environment. All a reproduction system can do is do what is instructed by the data on the source medium as accurately as possible. And what is instructed by the data is to pressurize some air as a function of time, nothing more.
Markw4, hi-fi has nothing to do with what music you listen too. Here I disagree with DF96 a little, hi-fi is about the faithful reproduction of what was captured in some point in time and stored on a medium which is later reproduced in your own environment on some equipment. The source of the recording need not necessarily be acoustic in nature, it can be completely computer generated it does not matter.
You do not necessarily have a reference of being there when it happened or sitting in a particular seat, but if you "hi-fi" equipment conforms to a minimum specification you can believe that what you hear is what Micheal Jackson, Ludwig von Beethoven, Alice Cooper, Olivia Newton John, Cream, Abba, Dustbin Beaver or whomever wanted to convey to their audience.
That experience may be good or bad and may vary from recording to recording, but at least your judgement of whether it was good or bad was not brought about by a magic box (non hi-fi that adheres to no specification) that creates its own or a modified version of the recording.
You do not necessarily have a reference of being there when it happened or sitting in a particular seat, but if you "hi-fi" equipment conforms to a minimum specification you can believe that what you hear is what Micheal Jackson, Ludwig von Beethoven, Alice Cooper, Olivia Newton John, Cream, Abba, Dustbin Beaver or whomever wanted to convey to their audience.
That experience may be good or bad and may vary from recording to recording, but at least your judgement of whether it was good or bad was not brought about by a magic box (non hi-fi that adheres to no specification) that creates its own or a modified version of the recording.
Last edited:
Agreed, to the extent he has started using plugins in addition to outboard gear. My opinion is that too much digital processing often sounds bad, and I don't like excesses of it in some of his more recent mixes. Again, my opinion only.
However, the technical quality of his mixes seems to suit his clients just fine. Therefore, I am inclined to think technical quality in this particular context is probably more a matter of subjective preference, rather than a matter of disinterested scientific objectivity. My opinion, once again.
We are in agreement, if we are talking about Hi-Fi reproduction systems. In that case what was captured could include a synth going direct into a console, or whatever else the artist deemed fit. Once a record has been made, the the job of the reproduction system to move/pressurize the air accurately.
Some people, not me, seem to feel that making what they consider to be Lo-Fi records is wrongful, even if some other people like it, and even if those other people strongly prefer it to pure, pristine, natural, lovely, artistic, etc., acoustical music. That would seem to extend the definition of Hi-Fi to beyond the performance of the reproduction system. And, that I think is a slightly different topic.
Last edited:
I am a product of the late '60s, early '70s, and as such still love Quintessence, The Doors, early Pink Floyd and Soft Machine. But, and it's a big but, I have come to love classical, choral, world, trip hop, industrial, '80s and '90s experimental "noise", and so on. Some of my changing tastes was to do with improved reproduction; I used to hate trumpet until I had a system that could replay it without pain. And piano without a clangy peak is rather nice too. Equally double bass without boom or mud. Arvo Part's choral work without sibilance is a joy.
So I DO have an interest in hifi, as improved reproduction has allowed my musical tastes to broaden immensely (although I still don't much like country, opera and most pop), and the ability of a system to replay without undue emphasis of any part of the spectrum, and with clarity is hugely important to me. Of course I like what I like, but I (hopefully) am not locked into a narrow and ultimately limiting definition of what high fidelity is.
The scientific method is a wonderful tool to clarify, but not necessarily to define. And far too often seems to be used as a way of NOT looking further. I will be the first to admit that my formal education is limited (5 O levels including metalwork. Just call me Rodney. 😀), but that doesn't stop me thinking. Or hearing.
It seems to me that to be hifi, a REPLAY system needs to be able to recreate a choir in a church and also Yello or Kraftwork. A difficult trick, maybe impossible. So I refer to my system as a stereo, and avoid calling it hifi if possible.
Awkwardbydesign, You most probably own a hi-fi system because you say the right things about what it sounds like and it expanded your listening experience simply because your system sounds right.
I came from the same era as you do and some of the stuff is nostalgic and not very good like the Archies, etc. The rock was heavy and distorted, but this is what ZZ top wanted it to sound like. I started liking a lot of Jazz from te 50s and enjoy it immensely, something that I thought I would never listen too. In the 80s and 90s, came Electric light orchestra and I became an immediate fan, later was Tracy Chapman and the list expands.
So yes, I would agree the closer your system becomes to Hi-Fi, the more enjoyable all kinds of music becomes, all you need to do is listen. My personal definition is "Listen to Reality"
I came from the same era as you do and some of the stuff is nostalgic and not very good like the Archies, etc. The rock was heavy and distorted, but this is what ZZ top wanted it to sound like. I started liking a lot of Jazz from te 50s and enjoy it immensely, something that I thought I would never listen too. In the 80s and 90s, came Electric light orchestra and I became an immediate fan, later was Tracy Chapman and the list expands.
So yes, I would agree the closer your system becomes to Hi-Fi, the more enjoyable all kinds of music becomes, all you need to do is listen. My personal definition is "Listen to Reality"
Unless it's early Bevis Frond. Which sounds much better as lo-fi! Still love it though.
The challenge is faced by using test comparisons between the real thing and the reproduced thing to determine what equipment characteristics are needed. It is assumed that these characteristics, if met, will provide hi-fi under the more common conditions of the listener never having heard the real thing.Jakob2 said:
If people wish to invent new meanings for English words then I suppose I cannot stop them. All I can do is note the conventional meanings of 'high' and 'fidelity' (which surely are not in dispute?) and then apply them together with their normal meaning in the particular context of sound reproduction. I can attach no other meaning without appearing to be perverse.
No contradiction, because the phrase is 'high fidelity' and not 'perfect fidelity'. All engineering involves compromise. High fidelity should be more like the real thing than low fidelity, and it will unavoidably be less like the real thing than perfect fidelity or the real thing itself. On the other hand, peoples' preferences may lead them to say that certain forms of mid or low fidelity (or even some forms of high fidelity) may be more pleasurable for them than the real thing. That is fine, provided it is clear what they are saying.
I have not yet heard an alternative definition of hi-fi which is useful and accords with normal English usage. Private definitions are not useful. Absolute definitions are not useful, because we cannot achieve perfection with our technology. Anything not involving sound reproduction violates English.
Has he gone digital now?
read a few interviews and other articles about him and he used vast numbers of vintage valve compressors.
He still has and uses the vintage gear, but he sometimes uses plugins too. Also, the guys he has to clean up vocal tracks before he mixes obviously must use autotune and similar effects. No other way to get the vocals perfect, and perfect pitch seems to have become the standard for most pop and rock.
If the artist, in the studio wanted to give a 'head in the piano' sound that is fine (Nils Frahm springs to mind and I do like his stuff) but that is an artificial construct without reference so we are back to whatever the mastering engineer heard as being 'the closest approach'.
I have a wide range of music. I enjoy all of it. My reference is still pure acoustic for the fidelity of my system and that is where I will spend money to improve things.
Just realised that an important point is being touched on here. Daily on here discussions on speaker power response are had with the consensus being that a gentle roll of from 10kHz is best. Now well recorded classical music already has a pink noise type slope, but studio close miked stuff wont. This suggests that just maybe a single HF roll off on speakers will NOT fit all and that a tilt control ala Quad preamps is not only useful, but vital. At least if you are a music lover and listen to a wide range of different styles. Interested in others thoughts on this.
For some reason I've been humming this whilst catching up on this threaad
🙂 . I was also humming 'London's calling' by the clash walking over waterloo bridge in the rain yesterday.
I just don't buy that, and its not just because a lot of music was pants in my late teens. Now a lot of mainstream musical taste in UK is still driven by Radio. Up to mid 30s you listen to Radio1 and then you are too old for it and swap to the safety of Radio 2. That keeps white van man happy. But the music landscape has changed so much since 2000 that even this simplistic model doesn't hold. My teenage daughters know a lot of 80s and 90s songs from the remixes 'featuring'. DJs are now the stars and they remix old classics, opening them to new generations. The simplicity of the 60s and 70s where you heard it on the radio and on saturday went to the record store to buy a single to play to death are gone.
My daughter hadn't heard the original of 'mad world' I played it for the recently (vinyl of course). They didn't like it as they had grown up on the Donnie Darko version.
I also have worked with people who thought 'lady marmalade' was written for Moulin rouge 🙂.
It is a great time to be a music lover. But I do hope the loudness wars end soon. What a waste of technology.
Pop quiz: does anyone own a CD that actually uses the pre-emphasis flag anywhere?
It's unusual for all the points in someone's post to interest me, but you've managed it!
I absolutely love Nils Frahm's "Solo", but that is the only recording of his that I DO like! The way the giant piano sounds in my room is mesmerising. But I don't know if it's accurate or not.
As for acoustic being the reference, sure, but for analysis sometimes bass heavy electronic music is a good tool.
In my room, which frankly is now overdamped, with Troels Gravesen's Janzen NEXT speakers and a type 26 DHT pre, an HF roll off can be too much of a good thing! I've been playing with supertweeters to regain some top end, so my fi isn't so hi at the moment. Maybe some better cables would fix everything? 😀
- Status
- Not open for further replies.