Live vs. Reproduced?

[microstrip]

Looking for information about a part for my Studer A80 - I could never imagine how many small parts even a simple reel plate uses before disassembling it for cleaning - I found this very interesting comment from Tony Faulkner, a well know classical recording engineer who is responsible for many recordings in my musical library.

"Not so long ago my Company booked Henry Wood Hall in London and we did some parallel analogue & digital recording of a great pianist, John Lill performing Schumann. Straight to 2tr using Neumann tube M250c's and EAR tube pre's. We made some lps from the analogue A80 tapes, and we released parallel pcm recordings on EMI on CD. During the recording sessions we had plenty of time to do listening and I was not alone in being shaken how good and tuneful the analogue tape replay sounded compared with our 176k2/24 dCS + hard-disk replay. The funny thing was that if I graded A/B/C blind (that being A=direct before recording, B=after recording to analogue, C=after recording to pcm) I had consistently a marginal preference for the B (off analogue tape) rather than the direct. It was no simple mapping of fidelity or measurable response or dynamics. Using A/B/X the pcm scored well. But if you were more interested in Schumann than A/B/X absolute spectral replication then listening to long takes the A80 was the winner for me, for the producer and the pianist which surprised all three of us. At around the same period we recorded some Brahms String Sextets the same way, also some sessions with the Royal Philharmonic in Watford Town Hall and a Mozart Clarinet Concerto with Antony Michaelson as soloist (owner of Musical Fidelity). The differences seemed important to me, but how important they would be to our next-door neighbour I would not like to consider - especially by the time the results turned up on his iPod commercially."

You can see the full text at http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5728089-post53.html

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Looking for information about a part for my Studer A80 - I could never imagine how many small parts even a simple reel plate uses before disassembling it for cleaning - I found this very interesting comment from Tony Faulkner, a well know classical recording engineer who is responsible for many recordings in my musical library.

"Not so long ago my Company booked Henry Wood Hall in London and we did some parallel analogue & digital recording of a great pianist, John Lill performing Schumann. Straight to 2tr using Neumann tube M250c's and EAR tube pre's. We made some lps from the analogue A80 tapes, and we released parallel pcm recordings on EMI on CD. During the recording sessions we had plenty of time to do listening and I was not alone in being shaken how good and tuneful the analogue tape replay sounded compared with our 176k2/24 dCS + hard-disk replay. The funny thing was that if I graded A/B/C blind (that being A=direct before recording, B=after recording to analogue, C=after recording to pcm) I had consistently a marginal preference for the B (off analogue tape) rather than the direct. It was no simple mapping of fidelity or measurable response or dynamics. Using A/B/X the pcm scored well. But if you were more interested in Schumann than A/B/X absolute spectral replication then listening to long takes the A80 was the winner for me, for the producer and the pianist which surprised all three of us. At around the same period we recorded some Brahms String Sextets the same way, also some sessions with the Royal Philharmonic in Watford Town Hall and a Mozart Clarinet Concerto with Antony Michaelson as soloist (owner of Musical Fidelity). The differences seemed important to me, but how important they would be to our next-door neighbour I would not like to consider - especially by the time the results turned up on his iPod commercially."

You can see the full text at http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5728089-post53.html

I'm not at all surprised that these folks favored the analog recordings, even if they were. Analog can be gorgeous. This is not meant to be an analog vs. digital discussion, we've had that one. I was just trying to point Mark to some very fine modern recordings that are, IMO, the equal of any of the great jazz recordings of the 50s and 60s. I personally think they're better (recordings) than the best of the old jazz stuff, but YMMV. Some of them, by the way, are analog.

Tim

 

[mep]

Tim-I intend to check some of the recordings you recommend out. I have already purchased other recordings you recommended and I have not been disappointed yet. If your latest batch of recommended recordings contain some that were recorded in analog, I assume they were available in LP?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim-I intend to check some of the recordings you recommend out. I have already purchased other recordings you recommended and I have not been disappointed yet. If your latest batch of recommended recordings contain some that were recorded in analog, I assume they were available in LP?

I haven't a clue, Mark. I know the Shelby Lynne recording, "Just a Little Lovin'" was recorded analog. She even uses some vintage tube mics from the 50s. Those mics are certainly not transparent, but they produce a gorgeous sound.

Tim

ON EDIT: A quick Google and I see the Shelby Lynne title is available on LP, $12.99 from...oh the irony...CD universe!

Tim

 

[mep]

Tim-That's too funny. Maybe I should buy the LP and the CD and use my expectation bias and tell you how much better the LP version sounds.

 

[microstrip]

(...) This is not meant to be an analog vs. digital discussion, we've had that one. I was just trying to point Mark to some very fine modern recordings that are, IMO, the equal of any of the great jazz recordings of the 50s and 60s. (...)

Tim,

You missed one point - it is not an analog vs. digital discussion, it is an opinion about analog versus the life feed. Since this thread is about live vs. reproduced I found it appropriate. Specially considering the status and curriculum of the writer.

BTW, I also ordered some of your recommendations - the samples seemed to be excellent music - and will let you know my findings after I receive them.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim-That's too funny. Maybe I should buy the LP and the CD and use my expectation bias and tell you how much better the LP version sounds.

I think you should just order the CD, play it back through your newly re-discovered SS amp, and have your expectations shaken. Shaken expectations rock.

Tim

 

[mep]

I think you should just order the CD, play it back through your newly re-discovered SS amp, and have your expectations shaken. Shaken expectations rock.

Tim

But what if the CD sounds better than the LP? Then I could be rocked twice.

 

[FrantzM]

Tim,

You missed one point - it is not an analog vs. digital discussion, it is an opinion about analog versus the life feed. Since this thread is about live vs. reproduced I found it appropriate. Specially considering the status and curriculum of the writer.

BTW, I also ordered some of your recommendations - the samples seemed to be excellent music - and will let you know my findings after I receive them.

The live feed is analog .. Some people prefer Tang to real Orange Juice

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

But what if the CD sounds better than the LP? Then I could be rocked twice.

I really wonder if your ears are open to that at this point, Mark. I mean no offense, but we get used to a sound and it becomes "natural" to us. Now, if you get the tube preamp out of the chain and listen to nothing but digital for...give it a month. then bring the vinyl back in. THAT would be interesting.

Tim

 

[DaveyF]

I really wonder if your ears are open to that at this point, Mark. I mean no offense, but we get used to a sound and it becomes "natural" to us. Now, if you get the tube preamp out of the chain and listen to nothing but digital for...give it a month. then bring the vinyl back in. THAT would be interesting.

Tim

Tim, I think that piece of advice works for all of us....including you
One of the biggest questions in our hobby is how we all perceive the sound of 'live' music. To your ears, digital sounds more like the real thing, to my ears analog sounds more like the real thing. Who's wrong, who's right? Neither of us and both of us. Which is why I started this thread with the observation that the 'live' event that I attended is IMHO the 'Absolute Sound', or reproduced goal if you will of the a'phile, and that IMHO, we are not within striking distance of being able to reproduce that event in our listening rooms!. We have heard that some of us can re-create that exact sound in their systems. At first, i was highly suspicious of that claim...then i came to realize that the posters who believed that, actually either could not hear the difference between their systems and the 'live' event, or were satisfied enough by their comparison of 'Live vs. Reproduced' Either way, if one's belief is that they have captured the sound of a 'live' symphony orchestra in their listening space, then nothing is wrong with that belief.
OTOH, I wander when was the last time that the poster who has this belief attended a symphony?

 

[mep]

I really wonder if your ears are open to that at this point, Mark. I mean no offense, but we get used to a sound and it becomes "natural" to us. Now, if you get the tube preamp out of the chain and listen to nothing but digital for...give it a month. then bring the vinyl back in. THAT would be interesting.

Tim

HP from TAS used to say that if you want to enjoy digital, quit listening to analog. The tube preamp is out of the chain as it's on its way to San Diego for repair. I'm using (gasp) the preamp section out of my Yamaha CA-400 integrated amp into the PL 400 Series II amp. I had a very nice listening session last night. I listened to a lot of tape and a lot of digital. Did I like the tape better than digital? Yes. Did I think the digital sounded really good if the source material was good? Yes indeed. I listend to some vinyl and it just doesn't sound *right* being played through the Yamaha. It was dead sounding, flat, and just plain boring. If I thought this was what LP playback really sounded like, I would have been done with the medium long ago. I finally got off my butt and lashed up my ARC PH-3SE phono stage to the Yamaha and all was right in the world again. Too bad the ARC doesn't have as much real world gain as its specs say it does. The PH-3SE is a really nice sounding phono stage and I always thought it was the better piece between it and the LS-17 I had it paired with before.

Tim-I would like to think that I'm always open to the truth, even if that truth is painful. Events have conspired to force me to introduce SS components into my system that ordinarily I would have never listened to except in cases of emergency. The Jadis amp emergency has been over with for several weeks now. It has made several attempts to work its way back into my system, but so far it hasn't succeeded. If that doesn't represent being open to the truth, I don't know what does.

 

[steve williams]

If that doesn't represent being open to the truth, I don't know what does.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, I think that piece of advice works for all of us....including you

I agree completely.

One of the biggest questions in our hobby is how we all perceive the sound of 'live' music. To your ears, digital sounds more like the real thing

I would be a bit more careful in my characterization; I'd say that to me, digital sounds cleaner, faster, quieter, deeper, brighter, much more open...it sounds like better hifi.

I started this thread with the observation that the 'live' event that I attended is IMHO the 'Absolute Sound', or reproduced goal if you will of the a'phile, and that IMHO, we are not within striking distance of being able to reproduce that event in our listening rooms!

I so thoroughly agree that we are "not within striking distance of being able to reproduce that event," whichever live performance event we're talking about, that I don't even see it as the goal. I see reproducing the recording, which much more often than not deliberately sounds nothing like a live event, as the goal.

We have heard that some of us can re-create that exact sound in their systems. At first, i was highly suspicious of that claim...then i came to realize that the posters who believed that, actually either could not hear the difference between their systems and the 'live' event, or were satisfied enough by their comparison of 'Live vs. Reproduced' Either way, if one's belief is that they have captured the sound of a 'live' symphony orchestra in their listening space, then nothing is wrong with that belief.

Yep. Choose your illusion and enjoy the ride.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim-I would like to think that I'm always open to the truth, even if that truth is painful. Events have conspired to force me to introduce SS components into my system that ordinarily I would have never listened to except in cases of emergency. The Jadis amp emergency has been over with for several weeks now. It has made several attempts to work its way back into my system, but so far it hasn't succeeded. If that doesn't represent being open to the truth, I don't know what does.

Absolutely. I didn't mean to imply anything else. But we do get used to hearing what we're hearing, myself included, as "natural." Sometimes a complete break from our personal reality is the best therapy. I used to spend weeks at a time out of town on project work, with nothing to listen to but a portable CD player and a Cambridge Soundworks computer speaker kit. Things always sounded a bit different than I remembered them when I got back home.

Tim

 

[mep]

I would be a bit more careful in my characterization; I'd say that to me, digital sounds cleaner, faster, quieter, deeper, brighter, much more open...it sounds like better hifi. Tim

To me, “cleaner” and “quieter” go together and I would say as a generalization, that most everyone would agree that overall, CD/digital playback is cleaner and quieter than LP playback. Now throw in 2-track analog tape played back at 15 ips and we have a new horse race.

Deeper-I don’t get this one. I never considered either digital or analog to have a hammerlock on this aspect of reproduction.

Brighter-I will try and not snicker here because in the bad old days of digital before it came of age, everyone would have agreed that digital was brighter than analog, and not in a positive way. In the positive sense of the use of the word, and I assume you are referring to high frequencies not being dulled, I don’t think that is digital is holding any aces here.

Much more open-Hmm. I think this could be related to cleaner and quieter. But just as in “deeper,” I don’t agree that digital is superior to analog here either. You would need to provide some good examples where you could compare two recordings where you could point out how the digital version sounds more open than the analog recording.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

To me, “cleaner” and “quieter” go together and I would say as a generalization, that most everyone would agree that overall, CD/digital playback is cleaner and quieter than LP playback. Now throw in 2-track analog tape played back at 15 ips and we have a new horse race.

Deeper-I don’t get this one. I never considered either digital or analog to have a hammerlock on this aspect of reproduction.

Brighter-I will try and not snicker here because in the bad old days of digital before it came of age, everyone would have agreed that digital was brighter than analog, and not in a positive way. In the positive sense of the use of the word, and I assume you are referring to high frequencies not being dulled, I don’t think that is digital is holding any aces here.

Much more open-Hmm. I think this could be related to cleaner and quieter. But just as in “deeper,” I don’t agree that digital is superior to analog here either. You would need to provide some good examples where you could compare two recordings where you could point out how the digital version sounds more open than the analog recording.

I didn't expect you to agree, Mark, I just expected to explain what I hear in digital that I like. "More like the real thing" is not where I would go, because I'm not attempting to reproduce the real thing, I'm attempting to reproduce the recording. I think we may be on the edge of a spiral, here.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

The live feed is analog .. Some people prefer Tang to real Orange Juice

Frantz,

I do not understand your comment - may be because Tang is not sold locally.

The text discusses three types of sound in the control room - not the real thing. Unless they had real orange juice in the control room I do not see the relation with your comparison.

 

[mep]

I didn't expect you to agree, Mark, I just expected to explain what I hear in digital that I like. "More like the real thing" is not where I would go, because I'm not attempting to reproduce the real thing, I'm attempting to reproduce the recording. I think we may be on the edge of a spiral, here.

Tim

And I'm just trying to get on the same page with you in regards to your explanations of what you see as digital strengths. Some I agree with, some I don't. The recording should try and capture the event (whether it's live or recorded over a period of months in numerous studios with numerous musicians) as faithfully as the technology will allow it to according to the book of mep. And the best we can do is try and reproduce the recording that was made of the event. Davy's original point is well taken with me. And that is to go and hear live musicians playing is to be humbled with what is waiting for us back home.

 

[microstrip]

I didn't expect you to agree, Mark, I just expected to explain what I hear in digital that I like. "More like the real thing" is not where I would go, because I'm not attempting to reproduce the real thing, I'm attempting to reproduce the recording. I think we may be on the edge of a spiral, here.

Tim

As you say these are two very different things. But the main intention of the musicians and the recording engineer and most listeners is to reproduce the real thing - it is why good recording engineers add "fooling" contents that increase our suggestion or ilusion of the real thing. F.Toole discusses it deeply in his book "Sound Reproduction", and considers that this is one of the main objectives of sound reproduction. Fooling us with a diffuse image of the real is part of the audiophile game.