Radio stations don't like the current over-compressed stuff but that is only because radio always applied their own rather drastic multi-band compression.
In the old of old there was a healthy niche industry producing radio-specific compressors.
Now the material arrives with nothing left to compress but the compression that there is is not optimised for radio.
Following this thread for with interest.
What if a Hi-Fi system is defined as one that plays back or is capable of playing back the exact same sound that the recording engineer hears through his monitor speakers?
The reason I think this definition works is that the recording engineer's target or final product is what he hears through his speakers. He twiddles his dials and adjusts volumes to achieve exactly that. Assume his hearing is good enough to detect minute differences, and assuming his hearing is the same as yours. Maybe he should include his hearing tests along with the album cover? Extreme?
My question would be how is it possible to improve on the sound that is played back throught the studio playback system? For one that is the final product, as intended (given the above proviso). The other is that if any system can achieve the same result, the same clarity and accuracy that the studio recording system - digital these days, with the exact same waveform at the ends of the monitor speaker wires, how can anything be more 'accurate' than this?
Of course you may want to change the studio monitors for better speakers, but as far as the playback system is concerned, it has reached its goal if it sends the same signals to the speakers as the 'original' studio sytem.
Ideally a digital record of the output to the speakers could be published separately for null comparison?
What if a Hi-Fi system is defined as one that plays back or is capable of playing back the exact same sound that the recording engineer hears through his monitor speakers?
The reason I think this definition works is that the recording engineer's target or final product is what he hears through his speakers. He twiddles his dials and adjusts volumes to achieve exactly that. Assume his hearing is good enough to detect minute differences, and assuming his hearing is the same as yours. Maybe he should include his hearing tests along with the album cover? Extreme?
My question would be how is it possible to improve on the sound that is played back throught the studio playback system? For one that is the final product, as intended (given the above proviso). The other is that if any system can achieve the same result, the same clarity and accuracy that the studio recording system - digital these days, with the exact same waveform at the ends of the monitor speaker wires, how can anything be more 'accurate' than this?
Of course you may want to change the studio monitors for better speakers, but as far as the playback system is concerned, it has reached its goal if it sends the same signals to the speakers as the 'original' studio sytem.
Ideally a digital record of the output to the speakers could be published separately for null comparison?
This is impossible as I think someone already mentioned earlier - there are way too many variables involved for that to happen. 🙂
As soon as you start specifying things like "exact same sound" you have left hi-fi behind and are aiming at per-fi (perfect fidelity) or in-fi (infinite fidelity). To get the same sound as the recording engineer you would need to use the same equipment and listen in the same space - so everyone would need a copy of the studio setup for every CD/LP they have. In any case I am not convinced that the aim should be what was heard in the mixing suite; it should be what was heard at the performance, as people don't go to studios to hear their favourite ensemble.
OT
If you like flamenco guitar, may i recommend Pedro Soler (in case that you don´t know him already)?
I didn't thank you. In UK there tended to be an overdose of John Williams and Julian Bream so only starting to branch out to find other talents!
If you look at the symphony mic placement advocated by John Eargle, he uses several mics in different locations so that any minor balance problems can be compensated for later. It makes sense from the perspective that there is only one live take to record, and it may not come out as well as hoped.
In support of his apparent concern, if you attend the same symphony on multiple nights, the performance any one night is not necessarily the best one. That's was my experience anyway.
Thus, from Eargle's perspective, it would appear some mixing would be considered valid.
In support of his apparent concern, if you attend the same symphony on multiple nights, the performance any one night is not necessarily the best one. That's was my experience anyway.
Thus, from Eargle's perspective, it would appear some mixing would be considered valid.
Some disagree*with Eargle's view in that any spot mikes damage the sound stage. I like the recordings of his I have heard tho. Certainly beats the pants off the multi-mike excesses of say DG.
I prefer recordings of a single live performance without edits. As soon as you start to cut and paste to get note perfect you start to lose the flow and the magic. You might as well sequence it through a sampler.
*(perhaps should say 'disagreed' as the late J Goron Holt was particularly vocal about liking simple mic arrangements)
I prefer recordings of a single live performance without edits. As soon as you start to cut and paste to get note perfect you start to lose the flow and the magic. You might as well sequence it through a sampler.
*(perhaps should say 'disagreed' as the late J Goron Holt was particularly vocal about liking simple mic arrangements)
I accept that some minor adjustments may be needed in mixing, as no microphone setup is perfect. I am seeking to avoid the trend for the released recording to not correspond in any real sense with any performance (e.g. by separately recording all the instruments at different times). If the performance never existed, then there is nothing to compare with (even in principle) so hi-fi has no relevance.
And the real masters do it with 2 mics:
Mahler: Symphony No. 4 in G Major
Artist Kathleen Battle, Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, Lorin Maazel
Rec. Eng: Tony Faulkner
tidal.com/album/1878754
//
Per-Fi and Hi-Fi
Interesting:
Perfect fidelity is what I would be interested in as my final goal.
Cloning the studio is one option. If you stop at the studio monitor terminals, then all you would need is the same equipment and cabling and configuration that is used in the studio to obtain the same output to the studio monitors. Theoretically possible but expensive. Or you could have the equivalent equipment as that used in the studio playback system.
For soft rock/pop music that I listen to I would like to hear exactly what the studio equipment would play back, on the studio monitors (near field, never mind the room) and then on my speakers of choice. For me that would be the ultimate music experience.
I am no sure what you mean by performance, to me the studio recording is the performance, that is what the artists and producers intended.
I am now not sure what Hi-Fi is, if it is a subset of Perfect Fidelity.
Interesting:
Perfect fidelity is what I would be interested in as my final goal.
Cloning the studio is one option. If you stop at the studio monitor terminals, then all you would need is the same equipment and cabling and configuration that is used in the studio to obtain the same output to the studio monitors. Theoretically possible but expensive. Or you could have the equivalent equipment as that used in the studio playback system.
For soft rock/pop music that I listen to I would like to hear exactly what the studio equipment would play back, on the studio monitors (near field, never mind the room) and then on my speakers of choice. For me that would be the ultimate music experience.
I am no sure what you mean by performance, to me the studio recording is the performance, that is what the artists and producers intended.
I am now not sure what Hi-Fi is, if it is a subset of Perfect Fidelity.
Last edited:
As DF96 suggested, how about cloning the studio, or at least getting similar equipment?
May i politely ask (again) for some citations:
"If you could cite a couple of conclusive studies wrt comparisons between live and reproduction, it would help a lot, as i obviously missed a lot."
Psychoacoustics for example was traditionally more interested in the examination of single parameters and was only quite recently more and more involved in the examination of multidimensional perception.
But i hope we can agree that "high fidelity" needs a reference to be compared with and that in this regard several different references are conceivable.
If you choose the "right thing i.e. the original acoustical event" or if you choose the "recorded content" is convertible and both would not require to invent new meanings.
There simply is no standard that defines the meaning (the well known DIN just compared input and output of a device and defines that any deviation should be less than certain limits to qualify for being a "high fidelity" device)
and - as said and cited before - even within the producers of content there exists no real consent about the reference point. If you look at the literature used in the degree courses to achieve Tonmeister or Toningenieur you´ll find therefore a variety of different approaches to recording.
You should consider (again) that listening to music is a multidimensional experience and that listeners are nonlinear systems. Their reaction to the same acoustical event depends on physiology and socialization/learning .
Two channel stereophonic reproduction relies strongly on the illusionary abilities of the listeners, the system itsself is restricted and is only capable to produce cues that processed by the listener can help to create a convincing illusion of the real thing.
In which way should an external observer be able to qualify a reproduction, preferred by a certain listener because it reminds him more to the "real thing", as "lower hifi" because it is different from a reproduction preferred by a majority of other listeners?
well for cloning the studio, first save up for these The Ivy Signature SE | EgglestonWorks - Quality Loudspeakers ! As used by Bob
Sorry an 'eats, shoots and leaves'* moment. I missed a comma. I should have said 'I didn't, thank you'. 🙂
*just in case you didn't know about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eats,_Shoots_&_Leaves
*just in case you didn't know about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eats,_Shoots_&_Leaves
My preferred mastering engineer is 'Careful' Kevin Metcalfe. I probably own 20-30 times as much records mastered by him than by Bob.Kevin has got quite a resumé ranging from Frank Sinatra&Bing Crosby via David Bowie to Lee'Scratch' Perry and Sex Pistols. He uses PMC BB5s and the dreaded NS10s in his studio.
Digital, CD and Vinyl audio masters Soundmasters International
- Status
- Not open for further replies.