Right, the only thing "higher" is the live experience of sitting in the recording room (not control room) while the performers played and sang.
Look, this hobby / profession is called High Fidelity, not "Subjectively changing things to suit my personal taste." I'm not saying people shouldn't use tone controls. But let's not lose sight of the real definition.
Your CD of KOB proudly made in the USA is not the same as my humbly Philippine made one.
Right, the only thing "higher" is the live experience of sitting in the recording room (not control room) while the performers played and sang.
Look, this hobby / profession is called High Fidelity, not "Subjectively changing things to suit my personal taste." I'm not saying people shouldn't use tone controls. But let's not lose sight of the real definition.
If CDs made in two replicating plants are not bit-identical, then one or both of those plants has a defective CD pressing machine!
And indeed there are differences between CDs. Several years ago I wrote about Holly Cole's Don't Smoke in Bed and how the CDs were made in two different plants and sounded quite different. Spoke to the mastering engineer Bernie Grundman and he swore that both plants received the same digital master at that time.
And I've been in double blind listening tests where everyone id'd the difference between the two CDs of the same Harmonia Mundi release (the name escapes me at the time). So I think it happens just like it did in the days of vinyl where the sound varied from pressing to pressing.
For the sake of argument.
1.I have a recording studio in my bsement.
2. I birng in Cassaudra Wilson and a jazz trio.
3. Upstairs I have assembled the most musically accurate system I can find.
4. I get a live microhone feed to my system.
5. I g odown stars and listen live. I go back up staris. They play it again and I listen again.
6. So live music is my reference. Now I know my system is both musical and accurate.
Now everything I play through that system will sound like the recording. Believe me I have recordings that are not good. Usually because I could not hear them before I made my purchase. Or becaue I like the artist so much, I don't care. For example-Phyllis Hyman was a gifted artist. Never made a decent recording in her entire career.
Ethan, although I think the professional electronic engineers who design equipment try to reach the highest standards, the moment someone selects a particular mike and the music is controlled by the mix/record engineer, at that moment, it is in my opinion subjectively changing things to suit personal (or bosses) taste. I am splitting hairs here but we hear somebody elses idea of what a reference should sound like IMO. That is why I am not against changing the music yourself, however, it is easier to do with an equalizer or old fashined tone controls (things that are designed to do that) then endlessly swapping around purposely colored mega thousand dollar components and snake oil thingies.
If I were the customer I'd investigate because this makes no sense. CDs are digital and by definition must be exact copies. It's as if Microsoft Office CDs made in a foreign plant didn't have the same thesaurus contents as CDs pressed in the US. In this case it's trivial to get to the bottom of by simply running the FC (File Compare) utility. If the files are the same, then the DBT was done wrong. And if they're not the same then someone screwed up the manufacturing. Now, it's possible that one batch was so badly made that the CD player's error recovery kicked in often, and that could cause different sound. But again that's a defect, not a "natural occurrence" that we should accept.
Ethan, although I think the professional electronic engineers who design equipment try to reach the highest standards, the moment someone selects a particular mike and the music is controlled by the mix/record engineer, at that moment, it is in my opinion subjectively changing things to suit personal (or bosses) taste. I am splitting hairs here but we hear somebody elses idea of what a reference should sound like IMO. That is why I am not against changing the music yourself, however, it is easier to do with an equalizer or old fashined tone controls (things that are designed to do that) then endlessly swapping around purposely colored mega thousand dollar components and snake oil thingies.
Do you really think that the designers of the consoles, electronics are striving for the best sound or just that the equipment doesn't break down? If the electronics, etc are that good, why does any engineer worth their salt, modify all their gear. I don't give the pro side that much credit.
And in most cases, the musicians have the final say.
the moment someone selects a particular mike and the music is controlled by the mix/record engineer, at that moment, it is in my opinion subjectively changing things to suit personal (or bosses) taste.
Yes, but that's the creation phase of the project where anything goes in the pursuit of sounding subjectively pleasing. Once the mixing and mastering engineers put their final stamp on a recording, from there on accuracy should be the goal. As least as defined by "fidelity."
That is why I am not against changing the music yourself, however, it is easier to do with an equalizer or old fashined tone controls (things that are designed to do that) then endlessly swapping around purposely colored mega thousand dollar components and snake oil thingies.
Yes, there's nothing wrong with using an EQ, which I mentioned earlier. And I agree that EQ is far more sensible than changing wires. If wires actually change the frequency response of a system, then either the wires, or the gear, or both, are poorly designed IMO.
I don't modify my gear much, though I can and I have. The last mod I did was to change the fixed frequency of a midrange EQ in one of my mixers. Most of the "modders" I see in places like Audio Asylum should not be allowed within ten feet of a soldering iron.
And in most cases, the musicians have the final say.
High fidelity? Not to my ears. I wouldn't put most studio equipment by my pool.
Well built? Well that is what the equipment is supposed to do. Time is money in the music industry.
I don't modify my gear much, though I can and I have. The last mod I did was to change the fixed frequency of a midrange EQ in one of my mixers. Most of the "modders" I see in places like Audio Asylum should not be allowed within ten feet of a soldering iron.
I don't see how the latter is relevant to the discussion. As to the former, maybe that's the problem in studios today. They just use the equipment stock. To my ears, it's all about power not subtlety. And the majority of today's engineers are technogeeks who feel they must twiddle a dial or move a cursor in ProTools or they aren't doing their job. What ever happened to simplicity?
Again, that's the creation phase, not the reproduction. These are totally different.
So you're telling me that Artur Rubinstein didn't have final say on the release? He most certainly did. He wanted his piano front and center for his fans. Nothing is released from many of the top rock groups say like Led Zep w/o their approval. That's what delayed the release of the Classic Records releases.
Are you willing to put that to a blind test? NYC is not far from me! We'll get together either here or there, and I'll patch in a piece of "pro gear" and you tell me blind when it's bypassed or not.
I don't see how the latter is relevant to the discussion.
It's very relevant, mostly due to placebo effect. I often see Asylum modders claim to hear huge improvements (always better, rarely worse) after performing some ridiculous tweak that cannot possibly change the sound. Or they do a mod that can only muck things up, yet they perceive it as sounding "better." A good example is the post I saw today where someone suspended a tiny piece of crystal hanging from a thread in front of their tweeter. Sheesh. But I agree that's beside the point.
maybe that's the problem in studios today. They just use the equipment stock.
To my mind a successful recording/mix is all about the skill of the recording/mix engineers, and has little to do with the gear.
So you're telling me that Artur Rubinstein didn't have final say on the release? He most certainly did. He wanted his piano front and center for his fans. Nothing is released from many of the top rock groups say like Led Zep w/o their approval. That's what delayed the release of the Classic Records releases.
Sure, but again all of that is about the creation process. Once the creators are done the goal thereafter is fidelity to that mix, no matter who on the creation team decided what it should sound like. This is exactly the same as an artist selecting colors for a painting that will be printed on the cover of a magazine. Once the artist is done with his original, it's up to the printer to scan or photograph it correctly and ensure the colors are reproduced accurately.
But does that not come down to the skill of the record/mix engineers, I mean, don't they know what they are doing? Anyway, the equipment at a professional venue you would hope would be set up right, but those studio monitors with their non ideal frequency responses and trusting the ears of some of those folks does make one wonder.
Ethan, although I think the professional electronic engineers who design equipment try to reach the highest standards, the moment someone selects a particular mike and the music is controlled by the mix/record engineer, at that moment, it is in my opinion subjectively changing things to suit personal (or bosses) taste. I am splitting hairs here but we hear somebody elses idea of what a reference should sound like IMO. That is why I am not against changing the music yourself, however, it is easier to do with an equalizer or old fashined tone controls (things that are designed to do that) then endlessly swapping around purposely colored mega thousand dollar components and snake oil thingies.
Looki here. The pot's calling the kettle black. If you think the trash the music industry puts out today and the equipment in the majority of studios is good, then I have a bridge for sale. The sound quality of today's releases so pales in comparison to those recordings done in the golden age of stereo as to be a total joke.
For the sake of argument.
1.I have a recording studio in my bsement.
2. I birng in Cassaudra Wilson and a jazz trio.
3. Upstairs I have assembled the most musically accurate system I can find.
4. I get a live microhone feed to my system.
5. I g odown stars and listen live. I go back up staris. They play it again and I listen again.
6. So live music is my reference. Now I know my system is both musical and accurate.
Now everything I play through that system will sound like the recording. Believe me I have recordings that are not good. Usually because I could not hear them before I made my purchase. Or becaue I like the artist so much, I don't care. For example-Phyllis Hyman was a gifted artist. Never made a decent recording in her entire career.
When you have Cassandra in your basement, call me. But even then, you'll have a live reference for one singer and combo through one set of microphones in one room. It won't help with all of the rest of the recordings in the world. For them, the recording will still be your only reference, your system's only source. But it's ok. If you had the live reference and came to conclusion # 6 above, you would have discovered that accurate is "musical." Then you'd know if you heard anything that was not "musical" it would be the recording at fault, not your system.
Looki here. The pot's calling the kettle black. If you think the trash the music industry puts out today and the equipment in the majority of studios is good, then I have a bridge for sale. The sound quality of today's releases so pales in comparison to those recordings done in the golden age of stereo as to be a total joke.
There are a lot of studios out there, Myles, from bedroom project studios to SOTA. There are also a lot of excellent recordings being put out by the music industry these days. You must be listening to the wrong stuff.
Right, the only thing "higher" is the live experience of sitting in the recording room (not control room) while the performers played and sang.
Look, this hobby / profession is called High Fidelity, not "Subjectively changing things to suit my personal taste." I'm not saying people shouldn't use tone controls. But let's not lose sight of the real definition.
If CDs made in two replicating plants are not bit-identical, then one or both of those plants has a defective CD pressing machine!
It definitely does! Or does it? It could also be the quality of the blank's polycarbonate or reflective layers. It could be human error. It could be many things. One thing I will try to assess is if they are bit identical. Now if they aren't simple logic says the better sounding one is the correct one. If I were to be totally objective however even the worse sounding one might be the one that's bit perfect with the master I will never get my hands on.
Ethan again I would agree with totally if I were to wear a recording engineers hat because I'd be working to get the best, most accurate mic feed however:
As for being inside the recording room, how many recordings are recorded live? You've got a vocalist in the isolation booth, walls of wadding around a drummer, guitarists and bassists amps situated where there is less bleeding. Some instruments are recorded days or weeks ahead or after everybody else. This is not even to mention edits, overdubs and punch ins. Now add to that the various effects that were not there until they were applied at the mixing stage. This can very easily make an end user question the logic or practicality of having that as the guide post.
It reminds me of that joke about a concert pianist who after hundreds of takes and edits finally gets the track down and beamingly asks his conductor how he likes it. The conductor answered "Don't you wish you could play like that?" It's a joke but that Sir is the world we live in.
Now let me pose a question to everybody, subjectivist, objectivist and everybody in between. I've never heard Sinatra live, neither has his millions of fans even those born after his death. Despite the fact that all of us hear differently even for purely biological reasons, why can we all be pretty much sure it is him singing within a few seconds even over low fi devices?
Now let me pose a question to everybody, subjectivist, objectivist and everybody in between. I've never heard Sinatra live, neither has his millions of fans even those born after his death. Despite the fact that all of us hear differently even for purely biological reasons, why can we all be pretty much sure it is him singing within a few seconds even over low fi devices?
