Actually, there are a lot of recordings which are not messed with. I have a lot of them. However, it doesnt bother me what is done for effect on a recording, either. Nice to hear them both as music.
But you still need a playback system which is neutral to get the best of both recorded sounds.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Maybe we need to listen to a broader range of music? Did everyone get their copy of Bruel & Kjaer Pro Audio Groups demo of recordings using their Series 4000 range of microphones? Reference Recordings ring a bell? Yo-Yo Ma recordings are messed with? No. There are plenty of good straight ahead recordings... I found several BlueRay DVD with super good audio recordings... like AIX records..... Pachelbel Canon Acoustica. AIX says on the DVD -- No dynamic processing. No EQ. No artificial reverb.... 24/96.
All sorts of music that is clean and accurate and great music well recorded.
Rationalizing --- It is not a situation where everything is so severely messed with recordings and thus accuracy in your playback isnt needed or desired. That just doesnt fly with me. I know better than that.
THx-RNMarsh
All sorts of music that is clean and accurate and great music well recorded.
Rationalizing --- It is not a situation where everything is so severely messed with recordings and thus accuracy in your playback isnt needed or desired. That just doesnt fly with me. I know better than that.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Didn't intend to suggest otherwise.
Was referring to those who feel that effected recordings are somehow impure, or blemished.
Agree concert hall recordings made with simple micing setups are about as close as we can get to uneffected. Cases more likely to be recordable that way usually either need a conductor or bandleader who can coach the performers into balance, or consist of a small number of well trained performers physically arranged so they can all hear each other very well and balance themselves, or are single performers.
Last edited:
Spot on...
Exactly. Neutral is the best place to start, even if you want to alter the sound.
We all have our own likes and dislikes. The disagreement is when someone suggests that their own personal, subjective, preference is in some way the correct version.
Thanks Demian for the constructive input (as usual).
Please note Appendix B among other practical info on mic pick-ups.
http://cdn.shure.com/publication/upload/837/microphone_techniques_for_recording_english.pdf
George
You really want me to post my process for finding good analog vinyl?Can you please share that with some of the people here - I mean SHOUT it out.
1985 was like still in the dark ages. We did have the 5534 I guess, so let's say it was the Renaissance.
I'm I don't see what audio/electronics Renaissance was happening in 1985. Ten years later for sure with the vacuum tube reignition.
The one on top.. condenser.... would have the advantage in details being better reproduced and sounding more 'real' or accurate. This applies to speaker systems as well.
Some good reading on Hearing:
https://books.google.com/books?id=O...EITzAI#v=onepage&q=hearing transients&f=false
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Plenty of very good discrete input transistors (jfets) were around in the mid-80's, too. Not that I'd know personally as I was very much in diapers at that point.
There's the classic JFET bypass of the input transistor pair on the 5534 as well. Easier to get a very low-noise flexible phono preamp today than before? Way, way easier to manage the inherent low PSRR of said preamps? Sure, but those weren't insurmountable in 1985 either.
There's the classic JFET bypass of the input transistor pair on the 5534 as well. Easier to get a very low-noise flexible phono preamp today than before? Way, way easier to manage the inherent low PSRR of said preamps? Sure, but those weren't insurmountable in 1985 either.
Nice of you to say, in the wider picture using laser trim to set the supply current the variance in GBW and slew rate was vastly improved over other commodity parts which translated into predictable performance and yield in end products. JC called me regularly while we were doing this part and Walt Jung and I had just worked on AD524 applications, some nice memories.
The AD744 is basically the same circuit tweaked to the max with provision to add an external PNP via reuse of the comp pin. Still sell 100,000's a year.
One might think so, and it may well be true that in terms of freq response a condensor is more extended, but I find in usage that a good ribbon (which are few) can give a very natural sounding reproduction. As with all this, its a combination of many factors that make up the whole.
Mark, I don't find the Royer mics to be particularly useful for neutral work, I'm more partial to the Crowley and Tripp (now Shure) or the Samak ribbons. Couple other new ones out there I haven't heard yet.
Alan
Fair enough. Still figure 8, if that's okay for the application. Good mics, alright.
Agreed that many condensers, especially large diaphragm, can be pretty ragged in HF frequency response, even though transient response is good.
However, with a good small diaphragm condenser, and I like the Schoeps CMC641 a lot for a directional mic, the high end can be pretty smooth compared to many other condensers. I know some people may gasp at this, but if you have a good condenser and the high end seems brittle or something, you just might find that changing preamp or ADC helps. Hard to believe, I know, for some who may not have tried it.
Just think Dan JC called me one night and I talked to him while holding my daughter pooping her diapers and sick with a fever.
Hopefully you remember it more fondly now than then.
With regards to my opinion on live vs recorded--you put it more succinctly than I could have: they're two different experiences, albeit interrelated, with their own respective merits.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.