Really? There is well discernible ambience on most also modern recordings, at least classical and jazz. Some systems may not reproduce it.
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Really? There is well discernible ambience on most also modern recordings, at least classical and jazz. Some systems may not reproduce it.
I mentioned many times I feel like this discussion can only be about a simple live recording, otherwise it isn't intended to be a representation of live music, it is something else... a work of audio art that is an ENHANCED version of live music made specifically for stereo reproduction. The recording artists and engineers may have no intention of making that recording sound like live music.
We can never know the intention except in a few rare cases where the intention is discussed and described. I tend to rely on either simple or complex classical music recording from years ago. I presume the intent was to more or less represent the sound of those instruments in real space. Operating with that, if I hear certain frequencies being enhanced or some aspect of the reproduction drawing attention to itself by hearing sonic attributes like black backgrounds and pinpoint imaging, regardless of the intent of some recording engineers, I know something is wrong with the system.
This is also apparent with individual components and cables, power cords, footers etc. I realize some people like these effects. They have nothing to do with natural sound.
Last edited:
Yes , reviewers do their best to describe how a piece of equipment sounds, in order to help us evaluate if it pleases our preferences and is worth listening. Some people are happy just telling that it sounds like their particular perception of some specific type of real music or loved music. Two different things to communicate, both of interest.
Personanly I see limited interest on most opinions of non-audiophiles about my system - they just say how enjoyable music sounds there, perhaps they are being polite. Some comments on depth and layering if I play recordings that can show it.
That kind of distortion that Alon seeks to eliminate is a red herring, IMO. Pro drivers are mostly made from paper and are specifically designed to have low distortion even at levels way above home listening. At home listening they barely move and so distortion is very low.
Far better what happens when they bend than when Alon’s perfect driver does.
Black background doesn’t mean absence of ambient information!! It never has...at least until this thread in my experience....Sheesh
On the other hand, I find value in how comments from non audiophiles have changed since I got the new system.
This type of old recordings have sometimes a dynamic range lower than reality. And wisely manipulated to be reproduced in domestic systems.
Please read about the great Decca's we all enjoy greatly:
from The Decca Sound: Secrets Of The Engineers
Compressors Off
The sound of rock and pop music is very much shaped by various kinds of compression and distortion. Classical recordings, on the other hand, tend to have a greater dynamic range and aim to capture the instruments as they are by affecting them as little as possible. It is still necessary to process the sound to a certain degree so that it can be reproduced on domestic playback systems, but automatic levelling tools such as compressors, which fundamentally alter the sound in a variety of ways, have not generally been used at the recording stage.
“Compression was something used in the pop world to get maximum dB on the tape for AM radio,” says Mike. “Decca didn’t use compression for classical recording but there was gain riding. The idea was that a loud movement would peak at zero, but the soft movements also had to come close to match. We’re not talking about ferocious gain riding, just little tweaks.
“The overall gain was basically set, but the other parts were adjusted depending on what the producer wanted. There’s an instance in the last movement of the Szell/Curzon Brahms Piano Concerto No.1 where you can hear the gain being pulled up because it was too low. But it was done very subtly and a good operator would never reveal in the sound that you got off the record that he had been doing that. But they had to do it.
“When Kenneth Wilkinson worked with conductor Charles Gerhardt for Reader’s Digest, Gerhardt was saying ‘Coming up, we’ll need a little more of this, coming up, a little less of that,’ and Wilkinson would have been moving the potentiometers a little bit here and there. So the producer was listening to the music and anticipating what was going to happen.
End of quote.
Black background doesn’t mean absence of ambient information!! It never has...at least until this thread in my experience....Sheesh
I began this discussion in my last thread, Sublime sound. With my pneumatic isolation platforms and lots of acoustic devices on my front wall, backgrounds were indeed blacker. My Transparent audio cables and power cords contributed as well. It was only as I started removing them that Ambien information returned.
Misuse of the components or change of preference along time.
I do not use TA power cables on Lamm and the TechDas AF1P has more information with the acoustical suspension operating than when I block it.
The dynamic range is far higher than any non old recording. Not even close. You have very little to no experience with originals from your posts.
Also your quote has nothing to do with your statement it has dynamic range lower than reality. It actually says there "Classical recordings, on the other hand, tend to have a greater dynamic range and aim to capture the instruments as they are by affecting them as little as possible"
You are very consistent at misrepresenting
Last edited:
Guys. This fellow could not look up an LP version in discogs. How is he even remotely going to know what an original is or comment on it like he chooses to in a scholastic fashion?
Here is the discogs proof
www.whatsbestforum.com
Here is the discogs proof
a little Beethoven......enjoying the 63' Karajan's tonight in 96/24 and loving it.
i've owned these files for a while; the 1963 Karajan 9 Symphony's in 96/24 are a fine transfer from the analog tapes and sound wonderful on the MSB Select II tonight. these recordings seem to hit the spot for me with energetic and natural renderings, lot's of scale and dynamic range.....majestic...
www.whatsbestforum.com
You are manipulating the quoted words and sense. Please read the full article. Classic music needs high dynamic range, it is known. In order to record it without automatic compression, producers have manipulated levels during the recording, increasing soft passages. Such manipulation decreases the instantaneous dynamic range, it is instrumentation.
No one is addressing the whole recording or its quality or global dynamic range. Just telling that producers manipulate the reality - in this case the linearity of the process.
Yes, we know you are very consistent trying to misrepresent others posts if we touch your loved recordings.
You are manipulating the quoted words and sense. Please read the full article. Classic music needs high dynamic range, it is known. In order to record it without automatic compression, producers have manipulated levels during the recording, increasing soft passages. Such manipulation decreases the instantaneous dynamic range, it is instrumentation.
No one is addressing the whole recording or its quality or global dynamic range. Just telling that producers manipulate the reality - in this case the linearity of the process.
Yes, we know you are very consistent trying to misrepresent others posts if we touch your loved recordings.
I love those recordings because I compared many analog productions, classic records, Italian and Polish tube modern tube pressings, Direct to Discs, electric recording co etc to them. All the new ones were flat as a pancake. I picked up records recommended by Fremer, Salvatore, respected forum members (not you), and others to do my tests. We compared Decca engineers. Ok, I admit I was lucky to have access to them via the General. In no other audiophile trip, could I meet a single audiophile who had 1% of the access (Larry had 10%, I would say). Yet here you are, not knowing how to spot a record version on discogs, quoting a random text from an article, stating a conclusion nothing to do with that text. Shocking, but then I have come to expect this of you
Last edited:
I think we can know a lot, many times it's obvious the recording is other than a simple live recording intended to reproduce the live concert experience simply by listening to it. In many cases there's a lot of info about the recording available as well.
In any case, I can see using live sound as a reference for those recordings attempting to capture that experience, but many to most recordings are not this. No problem if you want to exclusively focus on this aspect of playback, but for other recordings the live experience is not 100% related to playback of a studio album or many "enhanced" live recordings either.
Not to those who grasp the distinction through listening.
I don't use the term "hifi" very much because it is rather vague. As used in this thread as a contrast to "natural sound" I take "HiFi" as reproduced sound without reference to, or unguided by, the sound of live acoustic music.
The widest dynamic range LPs I have are my no set of Die Walkurie on Decca from 1965 (originals) conducted by Georg Solti. It is their black label Royal Sound and they make a big deal about the dynamic range and techniques to reduce distortion on peaks.
The most dynamic recoding period I have is Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet made with a single stereo microphone and only 2db of compression. The microphone is situated 6 meters from the stage and it is the most “in concert” recording I own.
Similar threads
