I can't think of one offhand. I don't listen to much, I guess one might call it, pure unadulterated acoustic music. Maybe someone could suggest one, but where are you thinking of going from that point?
I grew up hearing a 1690 Jacobus Stainer violin, does that count ?.
When I can get a record/replay system to properly reproduce that I will say Wow also.
Dan.
No argument here, John. But harking back to the merry first generatio CD players from the 1983-1986 (or so) I must note that we have made some worthwhile steps towards "better". I remember a few CD players of those days which were factory doctored to sound euphonic at the cost of absolute clarity and detail. In those days, most middle class TTs would sound the pants off the CD players, but it by bit (pun intended) things have changed. Modern players of the same class (my own NAD being a good example) have narrowed the gap and I speak from personal experience.
I took a few LPs i have and directly compared then to their CD versions as issued originally. For example, I first played the song "Sky Pilot" (Animals' Greatest Hits) via the Dual CS604 TT, fitted with an Ortofon 2MBlue cartridge (clocked no more than 20 LPs so far), via my Luxman C-03 preamp (as yet not recapped) and Marantz 3250 B preamp and compared it to the CD version. In my view, the LP version is still better, but the difference between the two mediums has shrunk and is now easily above tolerance level in purely acoustic terms. Other compared music pieces as well. In general, it seems to me that the greatest lead the LP still has is where things get complicated (e.g. Deodato's "Also Sprach Zaratustra").
Perhaps the next generation of CD players will finally catch up with the LP, at least in most cases.
This is where we differ in tastes. I listen to acoustic in preference. So my drive to get my subwoofer integrated is not to get thudda thudda bass, but to help with the acoustic scence. Hard to get right in a small room.
Mastering of LP's and CD plays a big factor. All the old LP's were mastered numerous times, often by different people or different settings. A master was only worth so many pressable discs as you'd slowly destroy it making plates off of it.
For example Bob Ludwig would master the first catalog numbers of ZZ Top, but the pressings after that tended to be who-gives-a-****. Rumours was mastered by the same guy but every year into the 80's he changed the mastering. A lot of guys doing mastering weren't even alive by the time CD versions became a reality. Now if you compare a digital recording of CD and LP, maybe you'll find more similar sounding albums between the releases.
Don't forget the sound in studios has changed with different equipment so the mastering may reflect that some as well.
For example Bob Ludwig would master the first catalog numbers of ZZ Top, but the pressings after that tended to be who-gives-a-****. Rumours was mastered by the same guy but every year into the 80's he changed the mastering. A lot of guys doing mastering weren't even alive by the time CD versions became a reality. Now if you compare a digital recording of CD and LP, maybe you'll find more similar sounding albums between the releases.
Don't forget the sound in studios has changed with different equipment so the mastering may reflect that some as well.
Basically what I have come across is there is a divide in the audiophile world as to what is a pinnacle recording. It basically boils down to recordings of live performances (classic RCA Living Stereo comes to mind) or multi-tracked stuff (Pink Floyd, Steely Dan...). So I was just trying to target an answer.
AND the re-mastering will be adjusted for the landscape of the intended market. Example, Some countries bumped up the low end on Led Zeppelin.
Seems like it should be fine to enjoy the best of each type. Don't know that one is better than another.
One isn't better than the other but it takes a slightly different system response to really let each one shine.
I'm just trying formulate a targeted answer to;
a tidbit related to mastering,
the original intent of console automation was to be able to make multiple first generation mix masters onto tape to send to the various lp mastering sites for the record production. Thus removing one generation of tape in the process.
Alan
the original intent of console automation was to be able to make multiple first generation mix masters onto tape to send to the various lp mastering sites for the record production. Thus removing one generation of tape in the process.
Alan
Can we look ahead for a change?
And so it goes:
'In a very interesting development for the speaker industry, during NAMM 2017, Celestion announced their revolutionary new line of Impulse Responses (IRs), a collection of definitive digital representations of their renowned classic guitar speaker tones. With musicians and studios increasingly using digital representations of classic equipment and acoustic modelling, Celestion decided to take matters in their own hands, making the IRs available in a new dedicated website.'
So, if you want your gear to sound like a legendary classic Celestion speaker, just download the appropriate impulse response to your DSP...
Read the full announcement here:
Celestion Introduces Impulse Responses of Classic Celestion Guitar Speaker Tones
Jan
And so it goes:
'In a very interesting development for the speaker industry, during NAMM 2017, Celestion announced their revolutionary new line of Impulse Responses (IRs), a collection of definitive digital representations of their renowned classic guitar speaker tones. With musicians and studios increasingly using digital representations of classic equipment and acoustic modelling, Celestion decided to take matters in their own hands, making the IRs available in a new dedicated website.'
So, if you want your gear to sound like a legendary classic Celestion speaker, just download the appropriate impulse response to your DSP...
Read the full announcement here:
Celestion Introduces Impulse Responses of Classic Celestion Guitar Speaker Tones
Jan
No doubt, there is certain amount of marketing hyperbole involved. Celestion probably wants guitarists to remember their brand name and model line up, and this is a way of keeping it in their minds for when they get it together to buy a physical guitar amp.
Of course the IRs don't sound like the real thing, any more than Lexicon reverbs (that have modulated tails) impulse responses sound like the real thing. For guitar speakers, among other things, they don't model cone breakup modes and other nonlinearities.
Aside from not modeling all the details, they sound digital. Probably partly due less than the highest quality hi-res sampling of impulse responses, and partly because of remaining CPU processing power constraints, despite the latest hardware technology.
Beyond the constant ongoing claims for the latest greatest digital emulations, I've personally already been through the digital guitar amp thing. Tried them all at one time or other, hardware and software.
Since they don't really work quite as perfectly as often advertised, now mostly use a slightly modified Blues Jr. amp in a custom 2-piece pine (separate amp and speaker boxes) closed back (or optionally, open back) cabinet, with a Celestion Alnico Blue speaker. Sounds heavenly. Not for suitable for very loud playing, though.
The Line 6 Pod modeled guitar rigs in the early 90's. I built a tube mic preamp that was used for the first set captures.
Because the point of capturing the character of a specific guitar amp is to get as flat of a representation as possible to create an algorithm that can be embedded into a DSP chip.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplifier_modeling
- Status
- Not open for further replies.