"HiFi" is a generally accepted contraction for "high fidelity", which actually has the opposite meaning
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
I don’t know what you my mean by live recordings. Is it any instrument or group of instruments that are recorded at the same time in either a studio or on a stage either with an audience or without an audience?
I am describing how I go about identifying artifacts and qualities that sound artificial in my playback system or individual components under evaluation. It is with that kind specific recording I described.
I also listen to more modern recordings and different genres but not so much for system evaluation at least in areas I value. The exaggerated frequency extremes I hear from some cables or power cords are more difficult to identify with some modern recordings of different genres. I string quartet or symphony or choral recording makes it more obvious to my ears. But this is only my process of system/component evaluation in my system or elsewhere.
Thank you Brad.
Those are not the recordings I was describing. I’ve tried not to describe my goal as reproducing the live experience from live music on live recordings. I simply want the music to sound natural through my system. To gauge that I generally prefer to use simple or complex older classical recordings well made on vinyl. Sorry my earlier post was not clear.
Last edited:
As usual you go in your brilliant CV , do not debate the facts of others posts and focus on intentions. And again, extrapolation from experiences in unique systems is not my interest.
The quote was not random, it was selected for a particular purpose in a discussion with Peter.
The fact that you say all the new records you listened were flat as pancakes says a lot about your opinions. And sorry, I am not interested in LP recordings that need special systems to show their quality or special pressings. It is not part of the hobby for me. Bye!
They are pretty impressive! 'Heil dir Sonne' to me is one of the most sublime moments in recorded opera.
These are great recordings - some people consider them as the best of the best. I only own digital versions of them. But they are not "Natural Sound" at all ...
Taken form the Wikipedia article on John Culshaw, the producer of this Decca series:
"In these productions Culshaw put into practice his belief that a properly-made sound recording should create what he called "a theatre of the mind".[37] He disliked live recordings such as those attempted at Bayreuth; to him they were technically flawed and, crucially, were merely sound recordings of a theatrical performance. He sought to make recordings that compensated for the lack of the visual element by subtle production techniques, impossible in live recordings, that conjured up the action in the listener's head "
Anyone wanting to know more about Culshaw approach to stereo recording can download for free the paper " Making and hearing virtual worlds: John Culshaw and the art of record production "by David Patmore and Eric F. Clarke at https://www.researchgate.net/public...John_Culshaw_and_the_Art_of_Record_Production
It is a long essay, that needs complete reading , but I quote two provocative sentences from it :
"In essence, the techniques of recording, Culshaw argued, often enabled a more faithful realization of the composer’s wishes to be achieved in the recording studio than in the routine that frequently characterised the live performance."
‘The question beginning to emerge in 1960 was whether the gramophone record, which has long been said to be as good or as nearly as good as the concert hall, should even try to be anything like the Concert Hall. Was the gramophone record in fact something that could exist in its own right, without attempting to imitate at all the kind of sound or performance you would necessarily have in the Concert Hall.’
I’d think there’d be a strong argument to apply complex conceits in a recording for Wagner given his clear drives to craft something way beyond the mundane.These are great recordings - some people consider them as the best of the best. I only own digital versions of them. But they are not "Natural Sound" at all ...
Taken form the Wikipedia article on John Culshaw, the producer of this Decca series:
"In these productions Culshaw put into practice his belief that a properly-made sound recording should create what he called "a theatre of the mind".[37] He disliked live recordings such as those attempted at Bayreuth; to him they were technically flawed and, crucially, were merely sound recordings of a theatrical performance. He sought to make recordings that compensated for the lack of the visual element by subtle production techniques, impossible in live recordings, that conjured up the action in the listener's head "
Anyone wanting to know more about Culshaw approach to stereo recording can download for free the paper " Making and hearing virtual worlds: John Culshaw and the art of record production "by David Patmore and Eric F. Clarke at https://www.researchgate.net/public...John_Culshaw_and_the_Art_of_Record_Production
It is a long essay, that needs complete reading , but I quote two provocative sentences from it :
"In essence, the techniques of recording, Culshaw argued, often enabled a more faithful realization of the composer’s wishes to be achieved in the recording studio than in the routine that frequently characterised the live performance."
‘The question beginning to emerge in 1960 was whether the gramophone record, which has long been said to be as good or as nearly as good as the concert hall, should even try to be anything like the Concert Hall. Was the gramophone record in fact something that could exist in its own right, without attempting to imitate at all the kind of sound or performance you would necessarily have in the Concert Hall.’
His Beyreuth Festival House was designed to be a complex baroque contraption where musical experience was separated from the reality of the orchestra required to create it. It does reflect (also clearly his also) ideas of the time. There has long been a battle between the simple and the complex. It’s like any dualism and acts something like a pendulum. I’m swinging towards the simple and that is hopefully an endpoint for me... don’t think I could do another round of complex
These are great recordings - some people consider them as the best of the best. I only own digital versions of them. But they are not "Natural Sound" at all ...
Taken form the Wikipedia article on John Culshaw, the producer of this Decca series:
"In these productions Culshaw put into practice his belief that a properly-made sound recording should create what he called "a theatre of the mind".[37] He disliked live recordings such as those attempted at Bayreuth; to him they were technically flawed and, crucially, were merely sound recordings of a theatrical performance. He sought to make recordings that compensated for the lack of the visual element by subtle production techniques, impossible in live recordings, that conjured up the action in the listener's head "
Anyone wanting to know more about Culshaw approach to stereo recording can download for free the paper " Making and hearing virtual worlds: John Culshaw and the art of record production "by David Patmore and Eric F. Clarke at https://www.researchgate.net/public...John_Culshaw_and_the_Art_of_Record_Production
It is a long essay, that needs complete reading , but I quote two provocative sentences from it :
"In essence, the techniques of recording, Culshaw argued, often enabled a more faithful realization of the composer’s wishes to be achieved in the recording studio than in the routine that frequently characterised the live performance."
‘The question beginning to emerge in 1960 was whether the gramophone record, which has long been said to be as good or as nearly as good as the concert hall, should even try to be anything like the Concert Hall. Was the gramophone record in fact something that could exist in its own right, without attempting to imitate at all the kind of sound or performance you would necessarily have in the Concert Hall.’
Fransisco, I have no idea what any of this has to do with the sound of my system. In the end I simply want a violin to sound like a violin and not like something more. Others have different goals. And those goals can be discussed elsewhere.
Sorry no, the point is you did not listen to any nor did you quote properly. You purposefully Misled. That is what you do. Shockingly egregious behavior that I s regularly from you
I did mean a simple recording of a concert, I think it's great if a couple of mics in the audience can capture a performance and your system can make you feel like you are there again. I have some recordings of Red Rocks that give me flashbacks, lol.
I just think it's important to consider the recording. It sounds like a lot of the music you listen to involve recordings of acoustic instruments, so you have an in-real-life live reference for how they sound based on experience, from what I understand... Do you ever listen to electronica or any music that has no live reference, and if so, how do you judge it?
I'm not talking about flashbacks to concerts I never attended. I simply described the recordings I use to gauge whether or not my system sounds natural. I use well recorded older LPs of acoustic instruments and voices, small and large scale. They help me with the system. And the system helps me understand the music.
I rarely listen to electronica or music that has no live reference. If I do, I have no way of judging it, and for what? I have no interest in judging the computer that generates some signal. I am assessing the quality of a system, or components, and whether or not it sounds natural. Some people enjoy such electronica, but I don't know on what basis anyone could judge it or why he would want to.
I suppose listening to such music through a system or components that enhance effects and sound completely artificial could be fun, even mind-blowing, and I suppose a bit like a flashback, lol.
I was talking about listening to recordings of concerts I HAVE attended, with a good system you might feel like you were there again... a bit like a flashback.
Just wondering on electronica because it can have some unusual demands on a system... the layering and soundstaging can be exceptionally complex, bass requirements are often extreme, as are dynamics... But, you lose any sort of live reference. I suppose if you never listen to electronica you wouldn't consider how a system performs with it, no big deal, I was just curious.
This is part of the reason why records before this era was the golden period. This record wasn't. The two paras you posted say how they were changing recordings for the worse. The golden era is max till early 60s. Solti is 1968. The recording is not considered the best of the best as you claim, and this is also reflected in the price.
I do like the Solti version, it is very good but it is no example of the Decca etc masterpieces. I know your intention was to say the golden era was heavily manipulated, but thanks for unintentionally posting an example to further show you don't know what recordings that era refers to, and for cut pasting a Wikipedia quote that provides part of the reason for the decline.
Also, do you have any further Google quotes to prove digital, and modern era cone speakers are better than horns, vintage and analog? Search harder. You got real close this time, till 1968.
Last edited:
Rbbert I think many will agree that historically "HiFi" is shorthand for "high fidelity". As far as the opposite of what it means, you are invited to share your views.
When responding to someone else you may want to consider what they said as much as what you want to say in response. Your response to my comment appears to ignore the context I set for it, viz. "As used in this thread...". I was describing how I saw the phrase "HiFi" - used in this thread - as describing reproduced sound (stereo system sound) that comes from a system who's construction was not guided by reference to live acoustic music.
As background, so you'll understand ...
I don't recall your participation but perhaps you read @PeterA 's original system thread "Sublime Sound". There was quite a bit discussion there similar to what's being said here. There, the word "HiFi" as Peter used it and other's picked up is in contrast to use of @ddk 's of "natural". That context is carried over here.
Sometimes we find "hi-fi" surrounded by quotes - sometimes these are known as scare quotes. That can mean the quoted word or phrase is used in a different or unusual way, sometimes derisive.
Sublime Sound thread
Natural Sound thread
there seem to be a few different versions. There is a special edition 1970 that is the 22LP set
there is an SXL highlights from 1960.
this will confirm to some of the good Decca releases in terms of SXL 2xxx and wide band but to the end of the era. In price it does not seem valued.
and there are some in between. A picture of yes LP would make it easier to know when and the matrix on the deadwax gives the engineer
a near mint ED1 of the highlights, for example, is available for 60 bucks. As opposed to a few hundred or thousand
Last edited:
That’s interesting because I want mine to sound real. What is more natural than hearing something that you can equate to a living breathing performance? If the recording is limited then of course the degre to which this is achievable is limited.
Personally, I want my stereo to sound good. Whether it sounds like a live event (whatever that sounds like) or not is irrelevant. The better it sounds then the happier I am, but as long as it isn’t distorted then I can live with it. Even listening to the cable TV music channels with my soundbar will make me smile.
I'm with you on that, even though it begs the question, "whaddya mean by "sounds good": define good".
Nevertheless, there's something to be said about reproducing a bit of the live spirit at home. Listening to S & G concert in Central Park, or Deep Purple Live in Japan through a hi-performing system, you get a frisson or three when the audience starts to cheer
Similar threads
