Speaker Characteristics and Why?

[Mr Peabody]

Feanor, it is the artist, their performance and talent that one should want to hear not some engineer's jacked up recording of that. I can't believe you all are telling me a recording of the original performance is better than the real thing. Most recordings aren't even made with all the musicians in the studio at one time any more. You are telling me that a recording of a guitar or sax sounds better than hearing that guitar or sax played in real life. If that's the way you all think and feel discussion over because you have all lost your way.

[Mr Peabody]

Feanor, I may have missed the spirit of your post. I use a text reading program and sometimes it does not pick up on graphics.

[Feanor]

Feanor, I may have missed the spirit of your post. I use a text reading program and sometimes it does not pick up on graphics.

Humm ... I'm not sure I understand the problem, Mr P, but I'll reiterate my point.

That a recording sound like a live performance is we, the listeners, hope for, however it is in hands of the engineer and producers to deliver it. This they might do more or less well. Thus the objective standard for accuracy of reproduction is the master, what the engineer & producer actually created, not some hypothetical live performance.

Or to put it a bit different, the "accuracy" with which a recording captures the quality of a live performance, and the accuracy with which equipment reproduces the recording are two different things. Equipment should be accurate to the recording; it can never really compensate for the shortcomings of the recording.

Personally I never get to hear masters, but if Sir Terrence, somebody who gets to hear masters on a regular basis, tells me that solid state reproduces the sound of the master more accurately than tubes, I'm inclined to believe it.

All this is apart from the fact that live performances are highly variable depending on the numerous factors, notably the concert hall and your seat in it.

[Feanor]

Feanor, it is the artist, their performance and talent that one should want to hear not some engineer's jacked up recording of that. I can't believe you all are telling me a recording of the original performance is better than the real thing. Most recordings aren't even made with all the musicians in the studio at one time any more. You are telling me that a recording of a guitar or sax sounds better than hearing that guitar or sax played in real life. If that's the way you all think and feel discussion over because you have all lost your way.

Well no -- or rather maybe. Because how good the live performance sounds depends on our seat in the house, (amongst other things). What the engineers capture depends on the placement of their microphones which might be much better than our seats, (and of course on their mix-down skills, etc.).

In any case I've often heard better sound sitting in my living room than I have at a live performance. That is, given a good recording and my half-decent system, I have often preferred the sound at home to a lousy seat in a lousy hall.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Feanor, it is the artist, their performance and talent that one should want to hear not some engineer's jacked up recording of that. I can't believe you all are telling me a recording of the original performance is better than the real thing.

I take it from this response that you have very little respect for what a audio engineer does. First, no audio engineer in know does "jacked" recording or mixing, and not every recording is bad or great. Secondly, I have have faithfully captured an artists jacked up performance, and recorded many jacked up artists with no talent. There is always two sides to a coin. By this statement, every talented artist has had their outstanding performances jacked up by every audio engineer - which is a crock pot of crap.

Thirdly, you need to read what I have stated again. Comparing a live environment with the recording of that live environment is apple and oranges. We are capturing a live performance "snapshot" using carefully placed microphones, and we can in no way capture that performance entirely, as it would require more microphones than any mixing desk could accommodate. In saying that, sometimes the mix IS better than the live performance, especially when that performance involves a PA system in a room with overly live acoustics or just plain bad acoustics.

Most recordings aren't even made with all the musicians in the studio at one time any more.

Every studio recording I have worked on had all of the musicians and singers in the studio at the same time. In large part, this is not necessary with today's technology, and a good engineer can create a mix so well done in spite of that, you would not know the difference.

You are telling me that a recording of a guitar or sax sounds better than hearing that guitar or sax played in real life. If that's the way you all think and feel discussion over because you have all lost your way.

I good high quality microphone with DXD capture can erase the difference between a live sax, and a recording of it if the reproduction chain is up to the task. Can't tell you how many times I was in the studio working on something, and had my kids run in disappointed that the artists really was not there, because to them, it sounded like they were.

The last thing I would like to school you on is the role that an audio engineer plays today. If you think for one moment the audio engineer has the last word on what goes out the door, you are quite frankly mistaken. The marketing department has the last word. I can not tell you how many times I have recorded an artist, done a excellent mix and master job on it, only to have the marketing department of the studio who that artist belong to tell me to compress and up the volume, making that excellent mix job sound like trash. Audio engineers(with the exception of a few) stop having the last word on the mix back in the late eighties. We have been over ruled by the producers, and the studio so many times it has become a topic of conversation at local AES and M.P.S.E. meetings. Many of us have come to the conclusion that most studios are not interested in quality as much as they are interested in loudness. So before you open your chops and blame the audio engineer for a poor recording, think about that fact before you speak or write down your opinions.

Sometimes the ignorance of the listener is far more of a problem that the quality of a audio engineers work. It is easy to sit in your chair judging what somebody else has done. My next question would be this...can you do better?

Feanor, thanks for your response. It cut my down considerably, as I was going to make the exact points you did.

[PeruvianSkies]

First, no audio engineer in know does "jacked" recording or mixing, and not every recording is bad or great. Secondly, I have have faithfully captured an artists jacked up performance, and recorded many jacked up artists with no talent.

What do these two sentences even mean?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What do these two sentences even mean?

If you cannot make it out, then there is no point in me telling you. No offense, but its meaning is pretty plain.

[Mr Peabody]

Better, maybe, but surely just as good.

[Mr Peabody]

If you cannot make it out, then there is no point in me telling you. No offense, but its meaning is pretty plain.

Translation: I don't even know myself. Sometimes I get so caught up in twisting what people say around, I confuse myself.

[theaudiohobby]

Well no -- or rather maybe. Because how good the live performance sounds depends on our seat in the house, (amongst other things). What the engineers capture depends on the placement of their microphones which might be much better than our seats, (and of course on their mix-down skills, etc.).

In any case I've often heard better sound sitting in my living room than I have at a live performance. That is, given a good recording and my half-decent system, I have often preferred the sound at home to a lousy seat in a lousy hall.

I agree with in entirety, the BBC Proms takes place at the Royal Albert every year, and the sound in many parts of that hall is atrocious, lack of sparkle and diffuse to the point of being incomprehensible , the mikes have the best seats in the house .

[theaudiohobby]

That a recording sound like a live performance is we, the listeners, hope for, however it is in hands of the engineer and producers to deliver it. This they might do more or less well. Thus the objective standard for accuracy of reproduction is the master, what the engineer & producer actually created, not some hypothetical live performance.

Or to put it a bit different, the "accuracy" with which a recording captures the quality of a live performance, and the accuracy with which equipment reproduces the recording are two different things. Equipment should be accurate to the recording; it can never really compensate for the shortcomings of the recording.

Correct with a single quibble, one may choose to compensate for, or tune to one tastes, shortcomings of a recording or room by using various forms of equalization.

[Feanor]

Correct with a single quibble, one may choose to compensate for, or tune to one tastes, shortcomings of a recording or room by using various forms of equalization.

To some extent, in particular the room (which you can think of as part of the equipment). But as for a bad recording, "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's tail".

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Translation: I don't even know myself. Sometimes I get so caught up in twisting what people say around, I confuse myself.

That was a nice try. My point being I have recorded artists that really had a bad performance night, and I have recorded some folks with no talent which created a bad recording as well.

I think it is a bit naive to think that artists are always at the top of their game during a recording session, and that an audio engineer can compensate for their shortcomings.

As far as twisting your words, that would be a waste of time. Your opinion while yours, was completely wrong, and there is no point in twisting what was wrong in the first place.

[E-Stat]

BTW, in the latest version of TAS, Jonathan Valin, who generally prefers tubes generally, observed that the best solid state amplification exceeds tubes in resolution and is better able to resolve complex music involving many instruments or voices. Valid doesn't go so far as to say the s/s is more accurate, but does acknowledge that it can do some things better.

Agreed. I have to smile when I hear unqualified declarations of superiority about any specific audio component or format. I use vinyl and digital. Solid state and tube. Planar and dynamic. Untreated rooms and treated rooms. There are always trade offs and preferences involved. Understanding those sheds light on one's choices.

rw

[E-Stat]

Personally I never get to hear masters, but if Sir Terrence, somebody who gets to hear masters on a regular basis, tells me that solid state reproduces the sound of the master more accurately than tubes, I'm inclined to believe it.

So which tubes (and appropriately matched speakers) were chosen as the representative for ALL tube gear used to make this determination? Using which priorities? Using indifferent cabling? I find it a bit amusing to declare a single all-encompassing answer. As for Bernie, his vast mastering background is largely with multi-miked popular music, not minimally miked acoustical music. That factor alone could steer your preference. A list of his many projects is available online.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So which tubes (and appropriately matched speakers) were chosen as the representative for ALL tube gear used to make this determination? Using which priorities? Using indifferent cabling? I find it a bit amusing to declare a single all-encompassing answer. As for Bernie, his vast mastering background is largely with multi-miked popular music, not minimally miked acoustical music. That factor alone could steer your preference. A list of his many projects is available online.

rw

Bernie experience covers a whole lot more ground that must multi miked popular music, and it is not really accurate to put him in that kind of box.

As far as what gear was made to use that determination, from what I understand his experienced is pretty vast when it comes to both tubes and vinyl. His gear cannot be called into question, as it is of much higher quality than anyone's around here.

I also heard Elliot Scheiner and Chuck Ainlay same the same things that Bernie has stated, so there must be some legitimacy to their claims as their mirror my own experience and observations. You may not agree with their observations, but one has to admit they all have far more experience on this than many folks here have.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Agreed. I have to smile when I hear unqualified declarations of superiority about any specific audio component or format. I use vinyl and digital. Solid state and tube. Planar and dynamic. Untreated rooms and treated rooms. There are always trade offs and preferences involved. Understanding those sheds light on one's choices.

rw

And one has to admit ones perspective and priorities. One who sits on their couch enjoying music would have a much different perspective than one who records, mixes and masters that music. They get a chance to try far more things than the casual listener, which means they probably have a perspective that is a bit more broad than the casual listener has.

[Mr Peabody]

And one has to admit ones perspective and priorities. One who sits on their couch enjoying music would have a much different perspective than one who records, mixes and masters that music. They get a chance to try far more things than the casual listener, which means they probably have a perspective that is a bit more broad than the casual listener has.

Only according to you. You can't make this statement as you have no idea what any one's background or experience is. Why don't you come down off your pedestal and get some oxygen. It's not only audio engineers who have access to a variety of equipment. You have such a god complex I don't even know why you stay here unless it's to accept your praise from your groupies here.

[E-Stat]

Bernie experience covers a whole lot more ground that must multi miked popular music, and it is not really accurate to put him in that kind of box.

Perhaps you are unaware of the meaning of the phrase "largely". It means the majority. Significantly more than half. You take at look at the 1000+ entries found here and attempt to convince us that the majority of his work involves minimally miked material.

As far as what gear was made to use that determination, from what I understand his experienced is pretty vast when it comes to both tubes and vinyl.

Exactly. You have no idea. You present only speculation.

You may not agree with their observations, but one has to admit they all have far more experience on this than many folks here have.

Which has zero bearing on why anyone would take your unsubstantiated speculations as gospel.

rw

[E-Stat]

One who sits on their couch enjoying music would have a much different perspective than one who records, mixes and masters that music.

You seem to have difficulty understanding the concept of "exposure". Bernie could spend decades never hearing the dozens of fine tube products out there or hearing them with properly matched speakers. Certainly not most monitors with roller coaster impedance curves. Once again. your argument is based entirely upon speculation in search of facts.

They get a chance to try far more things than the casual listener, which means they probably have a perspective that is a bit more broad than the casual listener has.

More assumptions. How many more would you like to serve up?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Perhaps you are unaware of the meaning of the phrase "largely". It means the majority. Significantly more than half. You take at look at the 1000+ entries found here and attempt to convince us that the majority of his work involves minimally miked material.

I don't believe I mentioned anything about a majority, more assuming perhaps. Are you assuming that mimimal miking could NOT have occured in those 1000+ entries? Are you also assuming that is his entire body of work? Once again your assumption processing is on over drive.

Exactly. You have no idea. You present only speculation.

Oh really now. Now only a fool would think a person that has done more than 1000+ gigs only did it using a few pieces of equipment. Since his career spans 30+ years, equipment has evolved from analog to digital, and from tubes and transistors to DAW's, and from off the shelf stuff to fully custom made. One can gather from that breathe of time that he has used quite a number of recording, mixing, mastering, and monitoring equipment. I know I have in the last 25 years.

Which has zero bearing on why anyone would take your unsubstantiated speculations as gospel.

rw

A great way to side step reality isn't it! Your posturing continues to amaze me.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Only according to you. You can't make this statement as you have no idea what any one's background or experience is.

I know what you have written here, and there is no mention of any studio mixing experience, no mastering experience, and no recording experience. The only experience you have mentioned is your sit in the chair and listen experience.

Why don't you come down off your pedestal and get some oxygen. It's not only audio engineers who have access to a variety of equipment.

I haven't seen any evidence that your experience trumps theirs. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen anyone mention that they are an audio engineer except myself. I haven't read about anyones vast experience with recording, so it would stand to reason that an audio engineer would have more access to different equipment than most here. They interact with different kinds of microphones with different sonic and capture characteristics, different kinds of amplification systems, different kinds of instruments and monitoring systems, most know acoustics pretty well, and quite a few are extremely well versed on both analog and digital technology. I haven't seen anyone claim that vast spectrum of experience and interaction - at least not on this board.

You have such a god complex I don't even know why you stay here unless it's to accept your praise from your groupies here.

Now you know these kinds of stupid foolish statements don't faze me one bit, and if you don't know this, you should now.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You seem to have difficulty understanding the concept of "exposure". Bernie could spend decades never hearing the dozens of fine tube products out there or hearing them with properly matched speakers. Certainly not most monitors with roller coaster impedance curves. Once again. your argument is based entirely upon speculation in search of facts.

How do you know the breathe of exposure, have you talk to him? I know I have.

More assumptions. How many more would you like to serve up?

rw

I think a person with 1000+ gigs and more than 30 years doing his thing would trump anything you have accomplished in audio. I think that goes for Ainley and Scheiner as well.

How many Grammy's have you won?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Originally Posted by Feanor
BTW, in the latest version of TAS, Jonathan Valin, who generally prefers tubes generally, observed that the best solid state amplification exceeds tubes in resolution and is better able to resolve complex music involving many instruments or voices. Valid doesn't go so far as to say the s/s is more accurate, but does acknowledge that it can do some things better.

And I think this sums up why most recording studios and audio engineers prefer using high quality SS amps over tubes, and apparently high quality domes and cones over ribbons and electrostatics. A recording studio has to be able to accommodate all forms of music, not just solo or small ensemble instrumental works, and solo and small ensemble voices. You will go out of business fast trying to design a studio for just those purposes.

[hifitommy]

boy, what a pissssing contest! stt, i expect that youre going to take the stance of an AES member which doesnt always jibe with audiophiles. i agree though that reproduction cant compare directly with live performance nor even a master tape.

as much as we all parrot the love of accuracy, sometimes that factor can prove to be less than satisfying. still, we strive for accuracy to the live experience.

there are some things we must agree to disagree on and neither side will ever prove the other entirely wrong.

preferences loom mightily on both sides of the fence as illustrated by mark waldrop's preference for the surround presentation whereas i prefer the audience view.

he is highly skilled and well educated and way prefers digital over analog.

to me, there seems to be something more complete about analog and the way tubes present both analog AND digital.

electrostats and other planar speakers arent often used in the studio as conventional dynamic drivers will usually play louder and are the tools most sound engineers evolved with.

when we pronounce in absolutes, we are displaying an unwillingness to consider other viewpoints. many of the ideas expressed here are worth at least consideration.