Music Lover vs Audiophile

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Just a quick comment on the OP's jab at "unamplified" music as a reference. This is actually quite defensible as it gives an outside reference point that is far freer of manipulation than something that's been though an equalizer, effects processor and had the volume manipulated in comparison to the other instruments on the recording.

Using "unamplified" music as a reference really only benefits a single genre of music heavily(classical), one partially(jazz which is becoming more electronic yearly). The great majority of music has some sort of manipulation in it because the studio recording(which has some manipulation in it). Today's live mixer goals are to recreate a live version of the studio sound captured on the album. The "A" chain of a live sound system(speakers, amps, and DSP processing including venue/system equalization) has improved dramatically over the years. Artist today take a very active role in the quality of their live sound, so if the manipulation is there, it is there because the artist wanted it.

Who knows what the artist really wanted you to hear with a synthesizer, electric violin or sampled vocals and so on.

You know because if the artist didn't want it, it would not be there. Part of a road mixers job is to give the artist exactly what they need sound wise to make the performance happen. The mix of a live tour is designed before the crew hits the road via rehersal after rehersal of practice with the artist and band. If it does not jell in rehersal, it does not go out on tour. That goes for audio and visual elements of the production.

Of course, this assumes the listener has some experience with live music. Sure, there are variances in sound between a Bosendorfer and Steinway or other pianos that most have not memorized, but that still doesn't deprive the usefulness of knowing how "real" a piano recording sounds when played through a particular system. With the recordings that have substantial artificial manipulation, one is essentially reduced to saying "I like it" without much ability to know if that is what you were meant to hear.

So you understand, we don't mix for individual environments, we mix for optimum sound quality first, with the understanding the recording will be played back on a wide variety of sound systems, in a wide variety of rooms. Secondly we do not mix in a vacuum. The artist always(and I mean ALWAYS) has the last word on what goes on disc, and through a live PA system in a concert setting. If the artist does not like what they hear in a live setting, then it does not go out during performance. There is a lot of communication during pre-production, production, and post production between the artists, and the mixer/recorders.

[E-Stat]

Using "unamplified" music as a reference really only benefits a single genre of music heavily(classical), one partially(jazz which is becoming more electronic yearly).

I agree that simple miked acoustical music (of any number of genres) remains the best way to evaluate the performance envelope of audio components. There truly is a live reference with which you can compare to your long term audio memory. That fact certainly doesn't in any way limit what I listen to - only which recordings I use for evaluations.

The artist always(and I mean ALWAYS) has the last word on what goes on disc

So, even successful artists like Katy Perry want highly compressed, bandwidth limited somewhat hard sounding recordings with a flat perspective? Really? There are quite a few pop artists whose work could most certainly benefit from improvements.

Similarly, most of the classical recordings I have on DG also have next to no apparent depth. They've multi-miked them to death - even if the performance itself is compelling.

I guess what you're saying is that there are quite a few artists who are utterly clueless as to what really good recorded music can do. That's a sad statement.

[RGA]

Similarly, most of the classical recordings I have on DG also have next to no apparent depth. They've multi-miked them to death - even if the performance itself is compelling.

Glad I'm not the only one - I see the DG label and I start looking for something on another label - pretty much any other label. eesh.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I agree that simple miked acoustical music (of any number of genres) remains the best way to evaluate the performance envelope of audio components. There truly is a live reference with which you can compare to your long term audio memory. That fact certainly doesn't in any way limit what I listen to - only which recordings I use for evaluations.

The number of microphones you use has no relevancy to the sound quality you get. There have been some really horrible simple miked recordings, and some really good recordings that use many microphones. It not the number of microphones, it is how they are used.

So, even successful artists like Katy Perry want highly compressed, bandwidth limited somewhat hard sounding recordings with a flat perspective? Really? There are quite a few pop artists whose work could most certainly benefit from improvements.

Do you blame this on the original recording, or the duplicated release product? Do you blame this on the original tape, or the playback format? What if the culprit was the end users system, and not the recorded product?

Similarly, most of the classical recordings I have on DG also have next to no apparent depth. They've multi-miked them to death - even if the performance itself is compelling.

Can you really blame the problem on multi miking, or the playback format? Or how about the difference between the monitoring system of the masterer, and the consumer playback system. Or how about the differences between the acoustics of the studio and the playback room. There are too many variable to simply blame multi miking as the culprit.

I guess what you're saying is that there are quite a few artists who are utterly clueless as to what really good recorded music can do. That's a sad statement.

No that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is their is straight recording, and there is shaping a particular artistic sound during the mixing or mastering process. The latter is just as legit as the former, whether you like the results or not. No artist should be constrained to another person idea of artistic sonic integrity. Some music would be rather boring if artistic license was not allowed.

I am not a one size fits all for either recording or playback.As an artist, I would not have somebody's opinion of "sad statement" effect my artistic license and creativity. Homogenization is pretty bland in my book.

[E-Stat]

The number of microphones you use has no relevancy to the sound quality you get.

Agree to an extent, but... clearly in this case the engineers used the many pieces as crutches resulting in a poor product. A well done minimally miked recording will almost always be superior with respect to natural depth retrieval than one using dozens of mikes. Yes, you can find some oddball exceptions.

I'd much rather look through a GAF viewer of a stereo picture than looking through dozens of zoomed in slides of individual aspects of the image all stacked together. One is a natural perspective, The other, not.

Do you blame this on the original recording, or the duplicated release product? Do you blame this on the original tape, or the playback format?

The product delivered to the public, format included.

What if the culprit was the end users system, and not the recorded product?

Fair question. Is one's system capable of reproducing the natural depth you find in the best recordings? If the answer is yes it can with some recordings and others not, then clearly the problem is NOT the system.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Agree to an extent, but... clearly in this case the engineers used the many pieces as crutches resulting in a poor product. A well done minimally miked recording will almost always be superior with respect to natural depth retrieval than one using dozens of mikes. Yes, you can find some oddball exceptions.

You could not be more wrong on this. The number of microphones has absolutely NOTHING to do with how good the recorded sound will be. It has nothing to do with getting depth, or razor sharp imaging. Your lack of recording experience brings you to the wrong conclusions on this every time this is discussed.

I'd much rather look through a GAF viewer of a stereo picture than looking through dozens of zoomed in slides of individual aspects of the image all stacked together. One is a natural perspective, The other, not.

Unfortunately our ears do not work like our eyes do, so this comparison fails on close scrutiny. Anyone who has heard Claudio Abaddo's Bluray release of Mahlers symphonies 1-7, and compares it to dozen's of individual zoomed in slides has ear issues. This recording used no less than 15 microphones, and the presentation is as natural as you can get, with excellent depth, timbre clarity, and soundstaging

I made a recording which included 1300 choir members, a 110 piece orchestra, soloists, a Hammond B3 organ, and Yamaha CP-70 electric piano and a acoustical piano, synthesizers, and a drummer with a HUGE drum kit. It required close to 85 microphones to capture this performance, and its presentation is totally natural, well scaled, VERY dynamic, top notch clarity, excellent soundstaging and depth. There is no way in hell the performance could have been captured clearly using minimal microphone techniques - the scale is just too massive.

It is all about the skill of the mixer and the quality of the recording equipment, not about how many microphones that are used.

Fair question. Is one's system capable of reproducing the natural depth you find in the best recordings? If the answer is yes it can with some recordings and others not, then clearly the problem is NOT the system.

I am going to throw this at you. How do you separate natural depth of the recording from the artificial depth imparted by delayed room reflections combined with dipole speakers?

I find it quite interesting that you clamor for depth, coherence, micro dynamics, and various other desireable playback characteristics, but completely ignore spatial errors, and HRT effects of mono signals produced by two speakers. Surely tackling these two issues is just as important as the others you claim to love so much.

[E-Stat]

The number of microphones has absolutely NOTHING to do with how good the recorded sound will be.

My experience is to the contrary.

Unfortunately our ears do not work like our eyes do, so this comparison fails on close scrutiny.

Sorry, I most certainly disagree. We see and hear in two dimensions, yet our brain recreates the third dimension from our genetic hard wiring and experience in a similar manner. Just the other night, I watched a PBS program about how our senses work and how they are fooled. Quite fascinating.

Anyone who has heard Claudio Abaddo's Bluray release of Mahlers symphonies 1-7, and compares it to dozen's of individual zoomed in slides has ear issues.

I'm glad to hear he did not choose a close miking technique. Fill works fine as I have directly experienced with Jack Renner's techniques recording the ASO. Others, however, use close up techniques which destroy natural depth.

It is all about the skill of the mixer and the quality of the recording equipment, not about how many microphones that are used.

And, mike placement.

How do you separate natural depth of the recording from the artificial depth imparted by delayed room reflections combined with dipole speakers?

By listening to headphones. You might try that sometimes.

I find it quite interesting that you clamor for depth, coherence, micro dynamics, and various other desireable playback characteristics, but completely ignore spatial errors, and HRT effects of mono signals produced by two speakers. Surely tackling these two issues is just as important as the others you claim to love so much.

What I find to fool the senses as "being there" is apparently different from yours. I find coherency and system resolution more important than spatial effects because the former are present regardless of the venue. Like hearing wifey play her baby grand or sing. The acoustics of our small living room aren't that impressive. My notion of "live" isn't tied to the size of the space:



I will confess, however, that I thoroughly enjoyed the soundtrack watching The Adventures of Tintin last night on the HT/MC. I'm one of those folks who actually watches and listens to the end credits as some of the best music is sometimes found there! The end credit music score was quite tasty and MC certainly improved the experience - if not sounding a touch hokey. The brass sounded as if it was coming primarily from the sides of the room. Overall, very nice.

The largest factor by far, however, has to do with my library of software. As I've mentioned before, I buy music that I enjoy listening to on a regular basis. Is that different from the way you relax and enjoy your music? Unfortunately, MC versions cover about 2% of that since I listen to lots of stuff that was recorded pre-MC era. Call me an old f**t at age 55. I go for greatest bang-for-the-buck. Yes, I have a few gee-whiz "audiophile quality" recordings of various types, but quite frankly, I don't listen to them that much - unless I'm doing an evaluation between components to determine how well they are performing. Then, I return to feeding my addiction for music.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My experience is to the contrary.

You have no recording experience Ralph, so just what experience are you talking about.

Sorry, I most certainly disagree. We see and hear in two dimensions, yet our brain recreates the third dimension from our genetic hard wiring and experience in a similar manner. Just the other night, I watched a PBS program about how our senses work and how they are fooled. Quite fascinating.

Can you translate that into how we hear STEREO systems in rooms? Your brain can't fill in what is not there in the first place. It can't fill in the rear when you only have speakers in the front.

I'm glad to hear he did not choose a close miking technique. Fill works fine as I have directly experienced with Jack Renner's techniques recording the ASO. Others, however, use close up techniques which destroy natural depth.

They miked each section individually, so the mikes were quite close - oh and listen....depth there, balance there, imaging there, dynamics there, and the performance sublime.

And, mike placement.

The would go under skill of the mixer....

By listening to headphones. You might try that sometimes.

Dodged the real answer didn't you. I listen through earphones all of the time, so don't ASSume I don't. Trying to avoid the room does not change the problems within it.

What I find to fool the senses as "being there" is apparently different from yours. I find coherency and system resolution more important than spatial effects because the former are present regardless of the venue. Like hearing wifey play her baby grand or sing. The acoustics of our small living room aren't that impressive. My notion of "live" isn't tied to the size of the space:

I guess they are different, because you can't get there with just two channels. You can have coherency and system resolution and still get the proper spatial picture incorrect. A 100K two channel system still presents ambiance behind the orchestra, instead of around you. It will still leave the clapping of the audience behind the orchestra instead of all around you like in a real concert hall. A two channel system leaves you at the mercy of the room to create spatial space - a room that was not apart of the recording in the first place.

The largest factor by far, however, has to do with my library of software. As I've mentioned before, I buy music that I enjoy listening to on a regular basis. Is that different from the way you relax and enjoy your music? Unfortunately, MC versions cover about 2% of that since I listen to lots of stuff that was recorded pre-MC era. Call me an old f**t at age 55. I go for greatest bang-for-the-buck. Yes, I have a few gee-whiz "audiophile quality" recordings of various types, but quite frankly, I don't listen to them that much - unless I'm doing an evaluation between components to determine how well they are performing. Then, I return to feeding my addiction for music.

Can't argue with this. We have come full circle, and it had nothing to do with listening on a lesser system.

[Feanor]

I agree that simple miked acoustical music (of any number of genres) remains the best way to evaluate the performance envelope of audio components. There truly is a live reference with which you can compare to your long term audio memory. That fact certainly doesn't in any way limit what I listen to - only which recordings I use for evaluations.
...
Similarly, most of the classical recordings I have on DG also have next to no apparent depth. They've multi-miked them to death - even if the performance itself is compelling. ...

Whether or not the number of microphones was the issue, I agree that most Deutsche Grammophon recordings of decades ago were poor with respect to depth and ambience.

DG's "Original Image Bit Processing" remasters are a bit of an improvement. I gather that they took their original, multi-multi-multi-track tapes and selectively added time delays, etc., to render a better sense of depth.

[Byron4]

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible;383340]Using "unamplified" music as a reference really only benefits a single genre of music heavily(classical), one partially(jazz which is becoming more electronic yearly).

I totally agree. I enjoy big band jazz such as Gerald Wilson, Buddy Rich, Maynard Ferguson, Gerald Henderson among others. I could care less whether it has amplification or not. Although with electric guitars and electric bass I am sure it does. I also enjoy classical music Beethoven, Mozart, Handel, Tchaikovsky among others. Again the fact it is not amplified is not a factor. In this case I am sure it is not. The performance by these performers is very important to my enjoyment. The products I buy services the music not the other way around so I bring my favorite records and Cd's to evaluate the components I may buy. Fortunately, my current local high end shop Shelley's has a wide selection of records and Cd's to demonstrate their equipment and a very knowledgeable staff to guide me. As far as sub $1000 speakers I find even my Magnepan MMG's can be extremely satisfying to me. In my very small office it goes down to almost 50hz which just gets me enough bass and has a midrange that suits me. While this might not be the preferred way of evaluating equipment the results have been very similar to what other music lover/audiophiles own and I rarely have had buyer's remorse with the exception of not buying a pair of Dahlquist DQ10's in the 1970's.

Also I tracked down the article I referred to in my original post. It was by Robert Harley titled "An Affordable Audiophile System" in the table of contents. So the author also considered it an audiophile system. It was an outstanding article because he pointed out the strengths as well as the flaws of each component and the speakers may have been my only change to that system which he even stated others may prefer different speakers or later adding a subwoofer. I would have preferred either the Vandersteen 2ce's or the Magnepan 1.6's at the time. I also learned about his system approach for building a system and will admit it was educational.

I realize some of you may disagree with my approach or way of thinking but just keep in mind these are only my opinions. Also the diversity of likes and dislikes of equipment and the approach to evaluate products are one of the things that makes this activity fun.