Do you agree or disagree with this statement

[MylesBAstor]

So the detailed notes with JATP & Chesky recordings and JA's whole articles discussing Stereophile's CD production are all untrue?? Because in each case there seems to be described a recording chain from mics to finished product which contains minimal processing in either analog or digital domain.

Believe what you want. The original analog recordings were far less processed. (And I'm referring to digital, not analog recordings.)

Digital processing has become so inbred that they can't even tell anymore what is processed and isn't.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Why make a distinction between live music and the ambient sounds we hear every minute of our lives? I think we are all immersed in sound all the time, and can make a judgement about what sounds 'real' and what doesn't without having to go to live music events regularly. We can have a reasonable stab at extrapolating from our everyday experiences to how something we have never experienced would sound, if we were there.

Similarly, we can all make judgements about the effectiveness of CGI in films etc. without having to have actually fought in WW2, or battled with aliens.

One word: specificity.

 

[FrantzM]

If I am not mistaken this was recorded in 1971...

 

[mep]

Weren't those digitally removed?

When? They aren't removed on my LP copy.

 

[rbbert]

Believe what you want. The original analog recordings were far less processed. (And I'm referring to digital, not analog recordings.)

Digital processing has become so inbred that they can't even tell anymore what is processed and isn't.

In the case of Chesky and JA's recordings, they were digital to begin with. JATP was stereo 2-track to Nagra IV-S with Dolby A, and according to the liner notes from the SACD that's all that was done (i.e. Dolby decode and DSD encode).

Your comments don't really make sense, Myles. We're talking about very small audiophile labels; you're implying that they are publishing (both in magazines and in liner notes) details that you know to be untrue? Are Bruce B.'s transfers for HDTracks, FIM/LIM and now Wilson also digitally processed despite his assertions that they aren't?

 

[MylesBAstor]

If I am not mistaken this was recorded in 1971...

It may have been but somewhere I remember that it was digitally remastered for the LP release.

 

[MylesBAstor]

In the case of Chesky and JA's recordings, they were digital to begin with. JATP was stereo 2-track to Nagra IV-S with Dolby A, and according to the liner notes from the SACD that's all that was done (i.e. Dolby decode and DSD encode).

Your comments don't really make sense, Myles. We're talking about very small audiophile labels; you're implying that they are publishing (both in magazines and in liner notes) details that you know to be untrue? Are Bruce B.'s transfers for HDTracks, FIM/LIM and now Wilson also digitally processed despite his assertions that they aren't?

I really think the minimal processing refers to miking and compression but all bets are off after that. A little notch out at 3K for sibilance, etc., though in the studio. How much is minimal or little? Think that's become distorted compared to the worst offenders though.

 

[NorthStar]

If you don't listen to live unamplified music twice a month you have no reference point to be able to judge if a system sounds like real music.

Live music (sounds) is also birds singing, dogs barking, eagles flying overhead, crows, horses, cows, pigs, ducks, wind, leaves dancing in the rain, cars driving by, trains whistling, jet planes roaring, helicopters, doors closing, people talking and laughing, kids playing and crying, wife yelling or moaning or singing, etc., etc., etc.

 

[KBK]

Tubes are much more correct as they are never hard on the air ,and overcontrolled in the bass .
With electronic music its the other way around

Voltage peak control --trumps current drive.

After all, it is the only component the the ear hears.

 

[DonH50]

Who are you quoting?

Voltage is useless without current; a good amp (tube or SS) will provide headroom with both, and low output impedance also to better control the speakers.

The ear hears every component in the signal chain; some are arguably more important than others.

 

[JackD201]

Listening live and to recorded music are to me two separate and distinct experiences and I treat them as such. I want the best seats in the house if possible and build around the best seat in my house as best I can.

Having said that. I WISH I could listen to QUALITY artistry and musicianship everyday.

 

[cpp]

No but it still serves as a reference point to how to improve the system.

I'm still amazed, though shouldn't be, by the obligatory response of the half empty crew. If your audio system sounds so awful, you shouldn't be in the hobby. Conversely, one should appreciate how your system brings you closer to the sound of real music.

So your system sounds better than a live performance, I find that rather interesting that your home and equipment equals a live performance

 

[MylesBAstor]

So your system sounds better than a live performance, I find that rather interesting that your home and equipment equals a live performance

You gotta be kidding me! Where did I EVER say that? You need to reread what I said.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

This old road? Then I suppose it's ok to repeat myself:

When you listen to live music, it is processed, beyond recognition, by the most powerful post-production audio processor on the planet -- your brain. It receives information from the performance, from the envirnonment; it filters out the hash and focuses on the music. The mumbling audience, the rustling clothes, the cough from three rows behind you, even the reflected sound of the music gets very effectively pushed to the background as the processor focuses on what it came to hear.

When you listen to your system play a recording in your listening room, the processor works in the same way, but then it processes that environment. Even if you had recordings in your collection that captured the sound from your favorite seat in your favorite hall, you would not have this mythical reference. You'd just have bad recordings. Because for some reason I do not understand, the "processor" seems to process the environment it's in only. It doesn't address the environment the recording was made in.

Or at least that's how it seems to be. Get the best recording device and the best stereo microphone pair you can find, and record a concert from your seat, right above your ears. Take it home, plug it into your system and play it back. You will understand that we're trying to use steak to reference the flavor of apples.

Now, understanding the nuances of what real instruments sound like, that's useful. And very difficult to get in most concert situations.

Tim

 

[andromedaaudio]

After what i think a (my) high end system cannot do there are also a lot of situations when i heard it quite convicingly reproduce sounds .
For example , my own system on speech , its actually very close in my opinion , other things like when a mobile phone is ringing during a movie /documentary.
It happens when your unconsions reacts and afterwards you realize its not your phone .

I have quite a few spoken documentairies recorded by local recording studios , simple recordings but oh so convincing,maybe a lot of harm is done by recordingstudios like myles said
Best orchestra i heard was with Kharma enigma diamond (with 11 inch nomex kevlar unit ,not even that large a unit ) zanden pre/ octave jubilee /Lindemann , that could produce the swell of the orchestra better than ever , also quite convincing

 

[TBone]

If you don't listen to live unamplified music twice a month you have no reference point to be able to judge if a system sounds like real music.

That "silly" statement is not only dismissive of our ability to retain the sound of live instruments over a period of time, it insinuates that we can't retain other important sonic characteristics over time (a very short period of time at that).

tb1

 

[Bill Hart]

Does anybody do those live vs recorded demos any more? I seem to remember that was a popular demonstration technique in the 60's, something I think Edgar Villichur did in the old AR days, as did others. May not work effectively for orchestra, but probably pretty interesting for chamber music, maybe small scale jazz. My system has 'fool you' moments, and goosebump moments, and on the whole is thoroughly engaging, but I don't consider it the same as listening to a live performance. And I spend a fair amount of time hearing real instruments, although frankly, almost everything (perhaps not full orchestra or small chamber group) is amplified even live, if only because it is run through the PA system at the venue.

 

[andromedaaudio]

A dealer importer did it in hong kong , 6 moons wrote about it , it seems high end isnt that bad after all .

http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/zanden/zanden.html

Worst part was to read that powercords do make a difference .

 

[Groucho]

I saw a link to this piece a while ago, and I have to say that it makes sense to me:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-57490819-47/why-do-musicians-have-lousy-hi-fis/

From what I've seen, musicians listen differently from everyone else. They focus on how well the music is being played, the structure of the music, and the production. The quality of the sound? Not so much!

Could be that our discriminatory ability when it comes to audio quality is inversely proportional to our appreciation of music.

 

[Gregadd]