Yes when i reach that stage i m happy .
It's good to be happy.
Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
It's good to be happy.
Those objections are valid, and my intent was simply to suggest that we offer as much as possible a critical analysis of recordings, with strengths and weaknesses. Those are always going to be subjective, but if we can agree on the quality of an original recording (and I think most people would agree on what constitutes a good recording) then I don't see why we can't agree on the same for a system recording...
When it comes to the choice of the recorded material, the YouTube vinyl rip I shared is certainly not the best material, it was more to illustrate the idea that some aspects of sound do survive a digital conversion process which is what we unavoidably have to deal with when listening to system recordings.
To bridge the gap between those who prioritize "natural" versus "accurate" sound I would suggest we start by identifying a track that most would agree sounds good. So a well recorded track of acoustical instruments, with voices as well, preferably live, preferably with a single microphone to capture ambience. And preferably jazz just kidding...but something relatively inoffensive to the ears for most of us, and that rules out McLorin Savant
I can make a few suggestions.
When it comes to the choice of the recorded material, the YouTube vinyl rip I shared is certainly not the best material, it was more to illustrate the idea that some aspects of sound do survive a digital conversion process which is what we unavoidably have to deal with when listening to system recordings.
To bridge the gap between those who prioritize "natural" versus "accurate" sound I would suggest we start by identifying a track that most would agree sounds good. So a well recorded track of acoustical instruments, with voices as well, preferably live, preferably with a single microphone to capture ambience. And preferably jazz
just kidding...but something relatively inoffensive to the ears for most of us, and that rules out McLorin Savant I can make a few suggestions.
Here is a recording which is relatively inoffensive, and I think most people would agree is of very good quality:
Patricia Barber - Nightclub.
This album is available both in digital and analog format and I suspect the sound quality should be similar. Though there are different remasterings available, I don't think it should make that much of a difference for a system recording.
"Nightclub was recorded at Chicago Recording Company in mid-2000 by recording engineer Jim Anderson. Done on the Sony 3348, a 32-track (16/48) digital tape recorder, and mixed down to 2-track, half-inch analog tape with Dolby SR, this was Barber’s first album consisting entirely of standards. Anderson utilized mostly tube microphones (Brauner and Neumann) and John Hardy M-1 preamps, whose signal was patched directly to the tape bypassing the console."
The music may not be to everyone's taste - personally, it leaves me indifferent, but that is not the point.
Patricia Barber - Nightclub.
This album is available both in digital and analog format and I suspect the sound quality should be similar. Though there are different remasterings available, I don't think it should make that much of a difference for a system recording.
"Nightclub was recorded at Chicago Recording Company in mid-2000 by recording engineer Jim Anderson. Done on the Sony 3348, a 32-track (16/48) digital tape recorder, and mixed down to 2-track, half-inch analog tape with Dolby SR, this was Barber’s first album consisting entirely of standards. Anderson utilized mostly tube microphones (Brauner and Neumann) and John Hardy M-1 preamps, whose signal was patched directly to the tape bypassing the console."
The music may not be to everyone's taste - personally, it leaves me indifferent, but that is not the point.
Last edited:
one from the German analog forum makes very good recording and pickup comparisons. he is a trained sound engineer as far as i know.Those objections are valid, and my intent was simply to suggest that we offer as much as possible a critical analysis of recordings, with strengths and weaknesses. Those are always going to be subjective, but if we can agree on the quality of an original recording (and I think most people would agree on what constitutes a good recording) then I don't see why we can't agree on the same for a system recording...
When it comes to the choice of the recorded material, the YouTube vinyl rip I shared is certainly not the best material, it was more to illustrate the idea that some aspects of sound do survive a digital conversion process which is what we unavoidably have to deal with when listening to system recordings.
To bridge the gap between those who prioritize "natural" versus "accurate" sound I would suggest we start by identifying a track that most would agree sounds good. So a well recorded track of acoustical instruments, with voices as well, preferably live, preferably with a single microphone to capture ambience. And preferably jazz
I can make a few suggestions.
Well, I am not so sure it can't be objective. Trained listeners can hear things that others don't hear and can fairly accurately describe what they hear. Judgement on the quality of those properties is clearly subjective but the description of what comes out of a system I think can still be pretty objective.
I think about something in my own field of analytical chemistry that they use in the food and fragrance industries. There is a type of analytical equipment called a Gas Chromatograph. This device allows one to separate out the molecules that are found in complex mixtures, like a fragrance or food odors. The detection is usually with a light detector or with a Mass Spectrometer. This is purely objective detection with peaks coming off the instrument making a chromatogram with peaks at different times (roughly related to their boiling point and polarity). A variation of this though replaces the standard detectors with a human that smells and catalogs those smells as compounds and approximate concentrations. Once properly trained, they can be highly accurate over a pretty wide range of compounds and concentrations (smell is concentration dependent about how it smells). This is used in industry and is considered to be objective data, even though the "detector" is a human with all the baggage that goes with being one.
For audio, one could envision the listener as a "detector" in place of an oscilloscope or FFT analyzer. Once properly trained to accurately describe what is "detected" it would then be up to others to apply subjective descriptors and feelings on that analysis. Just like someone who loves the smell of a particular perfume or hates it.
Getting all to agree on what people are hearing would be a good first step. Then people can decide what they like or dislike about that presentation but first getting them on the same page as to the actual attributes would probably help to facilitate that.
Excellent sound, thanks. Better than my previous suggestion! But some digital versions are needed as well.
I think I understand what you are saying here: that you believe most people would agree on what constitutes a good recording, that some aspects of sound do survive a digital conversion process (as require to record a system playing music with a smart phone then posting it on YouTube) and that if we can agree as to which recordings would be best suited (you suggest a well recorded track of acoustical instruments, voices, single microphone and preferably jazz), we could then use it as a common starting point to evaluate systems/equipment?Those objections are valid, and my intent was simply to suggest that we offer as much as possible a critical analysis of recordings, with strengths and weaknesses. Those are always going to be subjective, but if we can agree on the quality of an original recording (and I think most people would agree on what constitutes a good recording) then I don't see why we can't agree on the same for a system recording...
When it comes to the choice of the recorded material, the YouTube vinyl rip I shared is certainly not the best material, it was more to illustrate the idea that some aspects of sound do survive a digital conversion process which is what we unavoidably have to deal with when listening to system recordings.
To bridge the gap between those who prioritize "natural" versus "accurate" sound I would suggest we start by identifying a track that most would agree sounds good. So a well recorded track of acoustical instruments, with voices as well, preferably live, preferably with a single microphone to capture ambience. And preferably jazz
I can make a few suggestions.
I would agree generally, but I think there is a problem or two that this plan can not resolve. First to come to mind is equipment bias. I think we would agree that there are "audiophiles" that are predominately into the music, appreciating whatever equipment gets them to the best presentation thereof? Then, what music? Classical, Jazz, synthesised? Choosing one particular recording to evaluate all systems is never going to satisfy all the music-priority audiophiles, but I would speculate the majority would have at least one turntable and some pre-1980 vinyl in their collection.
If you agree that there are music-priority audiophiles on this site, then you must also recognise that there are equipment-priority "audiophiles" as well. These would be those who are predominately into their equipment, appreciating design, measured performance and prestige in owning the rare and expensive, music reproduction is only a factor when it shows off the performance of the equipment (typically a sound track of sound effects, not known music). I again speculate that this group would be heavily weighted towards the digital reproduction side.
At audio shows you can tell which type of "audiophile" an equipment manufacturer is appealing to by the music selection they are playing. If "Afternoon in Paris" with John Lewis and Sacha Distel is spinning on the turntable then they are probably appealing to those, like myself and perhaps you, that prefer a natural sound. If a high-definition music storage device is playing something that sounds like sound effects (heavy chain drug along a raised wooden stage, drops of water into a pond within a cave, drumming on wooden blocks, car hub caps, plastic pipes etc.) through massive transistor amplifiers and huge speakers, probably slated more towards the equipment-priority audiophile.
Basically, we are all different with different likes and dislikes. What would work for you and me would not for others here, and that is fine as long as we all recognise and appreciate that we are different. What I can not abide with, something which is causing me to ponder on whether or not I should even continue with this site, is the attacks and arguments between members who want to argue whether their particular slant on this whole thing is the correct slant and anyone who differs must be wrong.
It was recorded onto a Sony digital tape recorder. Despite their making a vinyl of it, it is still digital and sounds it to me.
The Dynavector has a bit more mid bass umph, sounds fuller, however (and perhaps because of the greater weight of the Dynavector) the VDH Frog sounds more articulate. I can make out the words better, clearer definition.
Yes it does not stand up to the recordings linked to just above by @DasguteOhr. But for a live recording, it is pretty good
I have to check what digital versions of these LPs sound like.
Interesting idea based on your work.
Teasing apart a recording into parts would be challenging as we hear a whole and the parts are interrelated and co-dependent. We've made up most of the audiophile vocabulary so understanding exactly what we would be 'detecting' as some defind characteristic needs some working out -- if the analysis is even possible. I go back to the fundamentals of tonality, dynamics and timing which are defined for us by a score, but beyond that into notions such as resolution or depth laying out guidelines for detection and exactly what is detected gets dicey. By analogy, what are the molecules and compounds we're looking for?
I will emphasize your qualification of accurate description.
The LPs are the digital versions, the live music was recorded to digital and that digital track processed and mastered to vinyl.
I had both cartridges at home, the frog is the most balanced vdh that ever existed. nothing seems exaggerated, it doesn't get too crowded with details and resolution. xx2 mk2 has a fuller fundamental tone and bass, it gives the voices more body. as a result, the sound shifts minimally from neutral to dark. but that's not a problem, so many devices today tend to be brighter. a perfect symbiosis
At that time we compared recordings of the Tandberg 20A with those of the Sony MiniDisc Ja50ES 20Bit Super Bit Mapping. There were hardly any differences, with the Tandberg it was a bit more dynamic. Too bad Sony probably let the system die due to not having enough users.
Last edited:
Back to microphones - but please carry on these interesting discussions.
I asked for advice on another forum (French) which has some contributors with a lot of experience of microphones/recordings, because I was not terribly happy with my recordings - frequency response, and noise floor.
One person has the same recorder (Tascam) and same microphones (Superlux S502) as me, and has made measurements. He found that the "advertised" frequency response is far from what you actually obtain, and applied the following equalisation curve to his recordings in order to get a similar sound to what he heard in-room:
Those are pretty significant filters. It is not night and day, there are more significant differences between different speakers, but it can make a recording sound a little less bright and with more low end.
In comparison, I uploaded into Audacity an equalization curve corresponding exactly to the calibration file of my Umik measurement microphone, and it looks like this:
So as you move from an in-build microphone to a budget external microphone you probably improve the resolution obtained, there is no guarantee that the frequency response is really that much improved.
The filters that Ron applied enabled him also to get a sound closer to what he heard in his room.
In mid-frequencies, the response is flat, so that is fine to detect colorations of speakers in that range, but in the bass and highs the picture you get from a recording is not very accurate!
I asked for advice on another forum (French) which has some contributors with a lot of experience of microphones/recordings, because I was not terribly happy with my recordings - frequency response, and noise floor.
One person has the same recorder (Tascam) and same microphones (Superlux S502) as me, and has made measurements. He found that the "advertised" frequency response is far from what you actually obtain, and applied the following equalisation curve to his recordings in order to get a similar sound to what he heard in-room:
Those are pretty significant filters. It is not night and day, there are more significant differences between different speakers, but it can make a recording sound a little less bright and with more low end.
In comparison, I uploaded into Audacity an equalization curve corresponding exactly to the calibration file of my Umik measurement microphone, and it looks like this:
So as you move from an in-build microphone to a budget external microphone you probably improve the resolution obtained, there is no guarantee that the frequency response is really that much improved.
The filters that Ron applied enabled him also to get a sound closer to what he heard in his room.
In mid-frequencies, the response is flat, so that is fine to detect colorations of speakers in that range, but in the bass and highs the picture you get from a recording is not very accurate!
Last edited:
Thanks for the promotion. Fortunately It is a very long list, surpassing by orders of magnitude the very small list of members that only tell us negative things about our gear and the general current status of this hobby.
I guess you never read from Jacob.
It is what matters mostly. If Ron tells us that using some specific headphones the sound is close to the balance he gets from his system we can understand a bit more of his preference and this can make his system thread more interesting.
No speakers (if they were, they would be on my short list!).
The output of the phonostage is plugged into to an RME Fireface, which is an ADC and converts to a file.
The quality is remarkable.
Similar threads
- Sticky
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |