When is enough, enough, or how to get off the bandwagon??

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim: All true re modern recording practice and the lack of a natural acoustic. But can we take it a step further? Does alot of modern, top of the line home reproduction equipment (I'm not talking about throwback stuff like Shindo) strive to work best with this type of program material? .

[/QUOTE]

I hope most TOTL gear is designed to reproduce the recording as accurately as possible, and believe this is the case most of the time. If it is, you're going to get what was put on the record, within the limitations of the transducers and the room. That doesn't make the equipment "optimized" for modern recordings, but it might deliver the same net effect.

I heard that Shelby Lynne cover of that old Dusty Springfield song played back over a big, expensive system that represented the 'best' from a group of well regarded manufacturers and it was 'hyper-real,' overblown and sounded like amped up hi-fi- very good, but not realistic.

That's because, like almost all studio recordings, it's not realistic. I would make the argument that almost everything since Sgt Pepper has been "hyper-real." But I love that recording. Does it really sound like what you'd hear from a decent seat in a club? No, it's much better than that. It has a crafted intimacy to it, as if the band has surrounded you and Shelby has pulled up a chair just inches in front of you to sing to you, personally. I'm a fan of the well-crafted studio recording, and that's one of them. Natural? I'd challenge you to find even a live mainstream recording made in the last 40 years that's natural. Enjoy the art. The recording is a big part of it.

I assume Myles was talking about classical recording, not pop.

I assume he was too, but we're not just talking about pop, we're talking about pop, rock, blues, blue grass, folk, acoustic instrumental, jazz, Americana, even classical. We're talking about studio recordings. Even live recordings are close-mic'ed and manipulated in post production. Even symphonic recordings use mics hanging just a few feet above sections of the orchestra.

The ambience on our recordings is a construct. It can be a great construct or an awful one. At it's best, it renders greater clarity, detail and tonal accuracy than an unmanipulated recording possibly could.

Geez, you could put together a cheap pro-tools studio for less than the 'entertainment' budget of a single night in a real studio

With a talented engineer, a few good mics, a $250 digital interface and Garageband, you could make a recording that's cleaner, higher resolution and more sophisticated than Sgt Pepper. There are a lot of people out there making crap. That takes absolutely nothing away from the people who are making the most of what's available.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

It's even worse than that, Myles. Individual voices in a finished recording can have been supplied by artists playing in completely different locations, working to a guide-track. And will in most cases have been supplied by artists appearing at the recording venue at different times - it's rare to have them playing together, ensemble style, any more.

Worst case they are recording where it's most convenient for them. In order to be able to blend the various contributions into an apparent whole, it's important to eliminate any hint of contribution from the performance space, which is why close-mike techniques come in handy. And then one adds artificial room-reverb to the final result - track-by-track, and then to the entirety - in order to create a semblance of space to the result. There are variations to this, but most modern studios do not have a useable "room tone" and most recordings are therefore done as dry as possible.

BUT - our ears are smarter, in spite of the engineers claiming no one can tell when the reverb is "real" or "dialed in." But we know - because when we hear a recording that's done in-situ, in a well recorded real space, the music settles in our ears in a much more realistic way. This is the "secret" behind, for instance, 2L's success - they are recording in real reverberant spaces that are suitable for music, and choose the venue according to the piece.* Thus totally trumping the piecemeal, canned and processed nonsense that passes for recorded music in most instances - nonsense to the ear, if one is accustomed to the real thing.

-----Great post, and very true (good enumeration) Soundproof.

* We need more of that kind of stuff.

 

[NorthStar]

... And then we should cherish immensely yesterday's recordings by the grand recording maestros. ...Jazz, Classical, Blues Masterpieces.
...From the 40s, 50s, and 60s. ...Collect those albums, and rebuy the new remasterings;
even if they cost $100 a piece.

And that, is real music evolution: Audiophilia. ...It ain't never over, never enough;
as we can always improve from yesteryears into today and tomorrow.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Robert Johnson was recorded facing into the corner of a hotel room.

There are a ton of advantages to close-mic'ing and a lot of reasons to use it that have nothing to do with the isolation needed for multi-track recording. But, by far, the most important reason to mic close is tonality. Have access to a simple recording rig? Record yourself talking, with somebody holding the mic a few inches in front of your mouth. Now, keep talking while your human mic stand backs away to capture the ambience of the room. Let me know which one sounds better. Take your simple recording rig to a concert and tape the mic to your forehead. Listen when you get home and let me know -- which sounded better -- live, or your recording? Does the recording sound at all like your memory of the concert? Let me save you some time and trouble: It will not. It will sound distant, hollow and just plain bad. Detail, texture, balance and tonality will all be diminished. Ever see pros making a live recording? Were the mics on stage or out in the audience capturing the ambience of the room?

Now here's an experiment you can actually do -- go listen to what is now known as the Legendary Prestige Sessions, the Miles Davis Quintet albums Workin', Smokin', Relaxin'...I be forgettin'. These were recorded "live, in-studio" in a good, quiet but not dead room at Prestige records in 1959. Just a few mics and the band playing. They sound good. Now, go listen to Kind of Blue, recorded at Columbia, at the same time, with the same musicians, in much quieter rooms with instruments isolated and close mics feeding directly to the board. It's not a multi-track recording put together in the mix but it is an early recording that deliberately supressed room ambience and mic bleed.

This is how it all began and it can sound fabulous (and so can reverb -- classic Audiophile-approved Dire Straits anyone?). Oh and by the way, as someone who sings and plays, while I really like to play the music as a band, I sure to appreciate a thing called a drum booth and I love the opportunity to cut vocals and solos after all the other stuff is laid down. You get better sound, better balance and better performances that way.

I think you have a jaundiced view of controlled studio recording which when done properly, can yield more accurate tonality, lower noise and much better instrument to instrument balance. And I think you have a highly romanticized view of some notion of "ambient recording" that barely exists in nature at all.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

---Me I'm all for LIVE, RAW, PURE, DIRECT, THERE, HERE, & EVERYWHERE.

But that's just me, and my Music Mentality (M&M). ...In the FLESH. ...And FREE. :b

 

[caesar]

No gear envy here, yet I'm still surprised when something takes me further than I've gone. No lack of music focus either. I've got a fairly substantial music collection and depending on the year, I get to attend between 60 and 100 live shows every year, all over the world.

I just enjoy music, no matter what it's played on.

Tonepub, obviously you have a healthy attitude about it. I see so many folks get obsessed (and I have been there myself many times). I do think that hearing live music quells the obsession, as it forces you accept that your home system is just different.

 

[Soundproof]

Yes, Tim, but those early recordings were made with few tracks, usually just three, and they captured the sound of the performance through techniques that were truly immediate.

We should distinguish between pedestrian recordings, and the people who are able to use the modern tools to create artful and expressive recordings in spite of their being thoroughly manipulated. As a general rule I personally go much deeper into the music when it cues right in my head, with a proper semblance of real instruments, a real space and unmanipulated voices - and it seems as if the recording companies that are going for this now, in various parts of the world, are on to something.

 

[caesar]

Well just how good can they [audio systems] be Caeser? Do you think we've reached the zenith?

It's like the ages old question submitted to a designer: How will you improve on this design? And somehow the very best still do and bring us more than occassional glimpses of the real thing. And as Mike pointed out, the software is the limiting factor. You [audiophiles] don't know how good their equipment can be until they hear a master tape on their system. In so many cases, the equipment is only showing off what it's fed. So any improvements there are multiplied several fold.

Myles, I don't disagree with you. If you got the moolah and the passion, go for it.

But "pursuit of perfection" turns into obsession for a lot of people. I know some golfers that are constantly taking lessons, going to camps, looking for a pro that can teach them something new, etc. On a perfect 78 degree day they are practicing instead of playing... if you don't play when it's almost perfect, when will you play?

 

[MylesBAstor]

It's even worse than that, Myles. Individual voices in a finished recording can have been supplied by artists playing in completely different locations, working to a guide-track. And will in most cases have been supplied by artists appearing at the recording venue at different times - it's rare to have them playing together, ensemble style, any more.

Yes, that's been going on for many years One of the early artists that I seem to remember doing this was David Bowie where he combined musicians from all over the world and then overlaid his vocal track. They thought it was a neat thing back then, and I can understand the artistic viewpoint, but the album was an unmitigated sonic disaster I understand that it's sometimes hard with their [musician's] schedules to get everyone in the same place at the same time but....

Worst case they are recording where it's most convenient for them. In order to be able to blend the various contributions into an apparent whole, it's important to eliminate any hint of contribution from the performance space, which is why close-mike techniques come in handy. And then one adds artificial room-reverb to the final result - track-by-track, and then to the entirety - in order to create a semblance of space to the result. There are variations to this, but most modern studios do not have a useable "room tone" and most recordings are therefore done as dry as possible.

Funny thing is that Capitol Records really started this trend with adding reverb back in the '60s. It then became a contest between the different labels who could add more reverb to their recordings. I seem to remember Steve Hoffman once saying Capitol had eight or so "echo chambers nee bathrooms with mikes" at one time. Now it's just more sophisticated but no less obvious!

And many of our cherished jazz recordings were recorded dry and then had reverb added to them. So when they're remastered, the engineer has to make a decision on whether to recreate the recordings as it was (take for instance a Peggy Lee recording on Capitol noted for her swimming in echo or Astrud Gilberto) be more subtle in the use of the echo or just leave it out altogether (I don't think anyone wants to hear a dry recording!).

BUT - our ears are smarter, in spite of the engineers claiming no one can tell when the reverb is "real" or "dialed in." But we know - because when we hear a recording that's done in-situ, in a well recorded real space, the music settles in our ears in a much more realistic way. This is the "secret" behind, for instance, 2L's success - they are recording in real reverberant spaces that are suitable for music, and choose the venue according to the piece. Thus totally trumping the piecemeal, canned and processed nonsense that passes for recorded music in most instances - nonsense to the ear, if one is accustomed to the real thing.

]
Haven't heard the label you're referring to For me the recordings that really captured the sense and space of a hall were the Wilkie Deccas, Haddy Decca operas (I was playing Bartok's Bluebird's Castle for someone the other night and they were dumbfounded by the sense of singers singing in a real space!) and Argos done in churches. There's a lot to be said for the Decca tree.

 

[NorthStar]

Yes, Tim, but those early recordings were made with few tracks, usually just three, and they captured the sound of the performance through techniques that were truly immediate.

-----Immediacy; excellent word! :b ...And that is all the Musical Essence, the true Soul.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes, Tim, but those early recordings were made with few tracks, usually just three, and they captured the sound of the performance through techniques that were truly immediate.

We should distinguish between pedestrian recordings, and the people who are able to use the modern tools to create artful and expressive recordings in spite of their being thoroughly manipulated. As a general rule I personally go much deeper into the music when it cues right in my head, with a proper semblance of real instruments, a real space and unmanipulated voices - and it seems as if the recording companies that are going for this now, in various parts of the world, are on to something.

I agree with all of that. I'm not a big fan of heavy manipulation and I completely understand the benefits of simplicity. My point is twofold:

1) As is almost always the case, it's all in the execution. There are heavily multi-tracked recordings, in which the star performers were never in the same city, and all the "room ambience" was created with plug-ins, that sound fabulous. And there are those that are a train wreck

2) The ambient recording, as it gets described by many Audiophiles, does not exist. Period. The closest thing is what Barry Diamet is doing. Go listen to his samples. You think the ideal is a simple pair of mics capturing a live performance in a great space? That's about as good as it gets. That or binaural.

How many of those do most Audiophiles have in their collection of recordings?

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

---...By recreating it in our brain? ...Several thousands. :b

...Simplicity, Complicity, Synchronicity.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I agree with all of that. I'm not a big fan of heavy manipulation and I completely understand the benefits of simplicity. My point is twofold:

1) As is almost always the case, it's all in the execution. There are heavily multi-tracked recordings, in which the star performers were never in the same city, and all the "room ambience" was created with plug-ins, that sound fabulous. And there are those that are a train wreck

2) The ambient recording, as it gets described by many Audiophiles, does not exist. Period. The closest thing is what Barry Diamet is doing. Go listen to his samples. You think the ideal is a simple pair of mics capturing a live performance in a great space? That's about as good as it gets. That or binaural.

How many of those do most Audiophiles have in their collection of recordings?

Tim

How many do you have?

 

[Soundproof]

Haven't heard the label you're referring to

2L is one of a few present day companies that have gone back to the methods used during the "golden age" of stereo. Their most recent vinyl release is at the top of Fremer's heavy rotation list now, and for a reason.

 

[NorthStar]

.
.
---Here's Myles: 2L Audiophile Reference Recordings - The Nordic Sound

 

[microstrip]

I(...) How many of those do most Audiophiles have in their collection of recordings?
Tim

Tim,

We would know if every time you describe some technical aspects you illustrated with a few tittles of good or bad recordings as an example of the feature you are referring. Some people say an image is worth a thousand words. In this case a recording is also worth a thousand words.

And sometimes we could enlarge our music collection with your examples.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

We would know if every time you describe some technical aspects you illustrated with a few tittles of good or bad recordings as an example of the feature you are referring. Some people say an image is worth a thousand words. In this case a recording is also worth a thousand words.

And sometimes we could enlarge our music collection with your examples.

Recordings that capture the natural ambience of the instruments in the venue? I don't have any. That's the point. I'm not sure there really are any. Barry's experiments approach it, but if you visit his site and look at the pictures you'll see that even there, the mics are on stage with the performers, and to achieve something approaching balance in the mix, the performers are lined up in a very unnatural fashion. These recordings that capture the performance in the natural ambience of the venue, that audiophiles talk about their systems reproducing? They are near myth, as far as I can tell.

Tim

 

[treitz3]

Definition of ambience: a feeling or mood associated with a particular place, person, or thing : atmosphere

Tim, if you do not have any recordings that portray this?...

 

[MylesBAstor]

Definition of ambience: a feeling or mood associated with a particular place, person, or thing : atmosphere

Tim, if you do not have any recordings that portray this?...

No we're all just hallucinating or smoking crack according to Tim.

 

[NorthStar]

---Tim, you must be like me and have your own guitar(s) recordings.

What kind of mike(s) are you using, and can you hear your fridge running in the background?
That would be like Ambiance fo sur. :b

Can you hear the hollow space from inside your acoustic guitar?
...Your fingers sliding across the frets?
...Your fingernails thumping the strings?
...Your feet bumping the floor?
...Your soul echoing through your chamber?