AudioCircle
Industry Circles => Bryston Limited => Topic started by: James Tanner on 24 Oct 2014, 12:01 pm
-
A very interesting post on mastering recordings
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 20:32:12 -0400
Subject: Dr. AIX Post for Thursday, October 23, 2014
Dr. AIX
I know and count as friends a large number of professional recording engineers. Among them are Grammy nominees/winners and engineers that have worked with some of the biggest music acts on the planet (including the Stones, Diana Ross, Stevie Wonder etc). The recent AES Convention presented an opportunity to meet some new friends and catch up with s few old ones. And as you might have guessed, I brought up the subject of high-resolution audio to a number of them. Strolling the aisles of the show, I also stopped random individuals and asked them about high-resolution audio as well...a sort of "man in the aisles" impromptu poll.
Here's a brief report on my some of those conversations and the results of my questioning:
Outside of our little world...almost no one knows what high-resolution is or has even heard about it. This was quite surprising to me. Wouldn't you expect the engineers recording the next big hit or album would want to be current with the latest engineering trends? Well, perhaps they are...and high-resolution audio isn't one of them. Of roughly 20 people that I polled, only about 30% had any clue what high-resolution audio was. About half had heard the term but couldn't really provide any more information than, "it's when you use run Pro Tools at 96 kHz or higher, right". A couple of analog traditionalists brought up the resurgence of analog tape and vinyl LP in referring to high-resolution audio. When challenged I got the usual responses..."analog is infinite resolution", "I just like the sound of analog better", and "no one can tell the difference between a CD and high-res audio...so why bother?"
The reality is that engineers don't really have the facts and they don't really care. Their goal is to produce recordings that the labels and producers are willing to release...not ones that actually sound good.
Another interesting discussion that I had with more than one engineer is the lunacy of audiophiles. When I said that I owned and operated an audiophile record label, the responses ran the gamut from comments with a decidedly "Twilight Zone" cast or to ones that actually tried to understand the motivations of audiophiles. I think the best conversation I had was with a very successful engineer and studio owner (multiple facilities, in fact). When I mentioned some of the "accessories", "tweaks", and cable costs that are pitched to audiophiles, he rolled his eyes and said, "don't audiophiles know that we don't use any of that stuff while we're making records?" I responded that I think many are aware of the basics of audio production but they feel that they can get more out of the tracks with exotic cables, special treatments, and hocus pocus accessories.
This is a touchy area with professionals. They regard what they do as alchemy...a blend of technology, artisanship, and inspiration. What they hear from their monitor speakers (JBL, DynAudio, Tannoy, ATC etc...not Wilson or Magico) is what they approve. And the artists usually approve the final mixes and mastered tracks on their own home systems. I've seen artists approve final masters on the built in speakers on their tour busses.
Finally, there are occasions when you learn something from a veteran that you didn't know. I bumped into Allen Sides outside of the paper sessions area of the show and got chatting briefly. He told me that the Studer machines that The Beatles used form many of their early records had the low end restricted by an Abbey Road tech. I hadn't heard that before. He told me that he had heard that the machines wouldn't handle anything lower than 40-60 Hz and that's why the low end is so thin on those albums. Interesting.
Audio magazines would do a big favor to the audiophile community if they would concentrate on less pricey equipment and explore the studios where the music is actually produced.
If you would like to leave a comment on this article, you can do so at the RealHD-Audio.com site at the bottom of this article page. Click here to visit that page.
You are subscribed to this mailing list as villapatricia@msn.com. Please click here to modify your message preferences or to unsubscribe from any future mailings. We will respect all unsubscribe requests.
-
Hmmm... very insightful.
I shouldn't be surprised that most recording engineers don't know or care about high resolution. It's analogous to most physicians who don't know much about health.
-
Around 2002/3 the famous classical Swedish BIS label recorded in DSD 64, but for financial reasons and inability to work with the System DSD, they down grade to PCM 24/44.
Seems now in 2012/13 they returned recording in ''hi-resolution'' again.
Hi-resolution for them are PCM 24-96!! :duh:
For comparison ISO-MIKE from Ray Kimber recorded in DSD 128 and this year upgraded to DSD-256.
So the honors should be given to those who deserve.
By what I have see all big names in classical music do 24/96, only afew small classical labels use 24-192, and they fill their mouths saying this is high definition. :banghead:
-
Well, most bands record to make money. They may say they are in it for the music (which is somewhat true) but they are really in it for the money. We all need money to carry on. To make money, you need to sell in large quantities to the masses. If only 30% of audiophiles knew what a high-res format was, that means the rest of audiophiles either are ignorant of the files or don't care. The real clinker is that very few people that buy music can be coined as an audiophile. So to direct your sales to an infinitely small target group is just a bad idea, remember the money thing?
Many new albums are released on CD, vinyl and even a version of DVD/BR, and when you have bought that, they offer (inside the album) a pass-word to down load an even higher-res format from their website.
To say that the recording engineer doesn't care is just complete BS. They are craftsmen, just like anyone one else and they want to put out a good product. But the marketed group is not a bunch of audiophiles.....
-
I worked some time in the pro area, and in pop/rock the situation are even worse.
They think that audiophiles are boring or neurotic people obsessed with sound quality.
The guys working with pro sound, has no idea(but does not have the lightest idea even!) how is the sound of a good tube amp or the harmonics set of a single driver fullrange.
-
Most recording and mixing engineers are just as obsessed and tweaky as audiophiles. Since they are creating music, rather than just reproducing it, they just play with a different set of toys and have a different perspective. The good ones have amazing ears but they listen for different things than audiophiles. They have their favorite vintage mics, and boutique preamps/compressors/EQs that they use to shape the sound of their recordings. Most engineers like analog gear and tape because it brings a certain tone and texture to the sound, but it’s too time consuming and tedious to work exclusively in analog. So the analog stuff gets recorded to digital and tossed into the DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) like everything else.
Digital workflow is the name of the game now. Most production is done with 48 to 64 bit DSP engines and is captured at 24 bit. Sampling rates vary from 44 to 192 with 24/48 being the most common since that’s what most plug-ins run at. As an example, for film scores, Allen Sides tracks (records individual mic feeds) at 24/192, mixes in analog, and prints (the final mix) back to 24/192. That process sounds the most transparent to him.
Bottom line is the tools and resources are there to produce records with excellent sound quality. It’s the demands of the artist and the consumer that dictates the sound quality of what gets released. If the target audience primarily uses ear buds and blue tooth speakers, the engineers will deliver an album that will sound great for that playback context. The Itunes version of the new U2 album is a perfect example of that.
Russ
-
Nice post Russ. You too Wayner.
I think we need to stop blaming recording engineers for our own failure to assemble a musically enjoyable playback system at home.
-
A couple of comments:
1) Some of the best sounding recordings I have heard are Jazz and Classical from the mid 50's through the 60's. I think the engineers back then knew what they were doing. Even some rock recordings, such as early Savoy Brown have amazing presence, depth, and clarity. No loudness wars back then.
2) I have ATC speakers with the Super Linear mid driver, and they are among the very best speakers available, regardless of price. I find them to be superior to "Audiophile Speakers", such as Wilson Audio. The drivers are MUCH better.
3) I have some outstanding modern recordings. The Cream 2005 Reunion on Blu Ray is incredibly life like. Several SACD Classical recordings I own are stunning. Can't say the same for most rock/pop recordings today.
-
They would care if the listeners did...
Eventually Itunes will sell hi-rez, but not while the US has slooowwww internet.
But the irony is that live shows are a big thing among anyone that's younger than the audiophile crowd.
I don't blame anyone younger than 50 thinking that most stereo stuff is gaudy black giant piles of crap that takes up space and doesn't do anything for you... to the point that Best Buy doesn't really sell that stuff anymore.
One of the biggest issues is that, well, frankly most stuff anyone in a first world country can afford sounds like total shit.
-
I wouldn't doubt that there are many Recording Engineers who really don't care if they produce a high quality product with respect to "Audiophiles", but there are many that do. There are websites dedicated to the ones that do.
If there is a recording that I am interested in, I do a bit of research and find out if there are better versions/better recordings/better masters, and who did the Engineering (some of the Engineers have very good reputations and I am generally happy to get them w/o a ton of research). Then I get the "best" version (Yes, opinions will vary)
Sometimes it's a hi-rez version, sometimes it's Red Book, sometimes it's vinyl. It may be the original version, it may be a remaster, it may be an import.
Finding which is "best" is part of the fun. :green:
-
I look at Elusive Disc and Acoustic Sound often, as they tend to carry better versions. Elusive will note if the album is particular.
*Maybe the biggest saving grace is that engineers are typically too anal to not use some decent speakers. That means whatever sounds good to them, sounds great to those of us with better playback devices. We simply need them to not butcher it with the microphone to stored information, or in mastering. They might have very "neutral" (or so they believe) playback for checking on things, but it can still be boring and fatigue level could be very high.
-
Nice post Russ. You too Wayner.
I think we need to stop blaming recording engineers for our own failure to assemble a musically enjoyable playback system at home.
This. If anybody in the audiophile community is still actually labouring under the conceit that the music industry is going to come around and start catering to the preferences of a tiny ( and shrinking ) group of petulant silverbacks whose favorite whinge is that recording/mastering professionals are a bunch of talentless hacks or deaf or worse, it's long past time to get over yourselves and do exactly what Quiet Earth has had the temerity to suggest. Use your resources and expertise to build a system which you can actually enjoy listening to rather than one which exacerbates the proffesssed shortcomings of modern recordings. All the endless whining has accomplished the square root of jack-squat. Yes, recordings are dynamically compressed. Yes, they are mastered "hot" and often overly bright. Deal with it. It's not going to change. Stop shouting at clouds and adapt.
Or sink into the tar and be silent.
D.D.
-
Much of what passes for popular music is not recorded all that well. Current classical, jazz, and some other music from smaller labels is recored very well. So, its not good or bad across the board.
Once you own accurate equipmet like Electrocompaniet and ATC, one realizes just how good or bad a recording actually is. It's a bit shocking at first, but once you are exposed to it, becomes very hard to go back to gear that is not accurate. After all, live music is sometimes harsh, loud, and can be fatiguing.
The whole point of this hobby is to get enjoyment from listening to music. Trust your own ears, not some reviewer's point of view.
-
Freo-1,
I think your latest post could be a sticky for how not to assemble a home audio system.
Once you own accurate equipmet like Electrocompaniet and ATC, one realizes just how good or bad a recording actually is. It's a bit shocking at first, but once you are exposed to it, becomes very hard to go back to gear that is not accurate.
If you choose equipment that makes most of your recordings sound bad, wouldn't it be easier to go back to equipment that makes it sound good? And if the process of technical accuracy dictates that most recordings are bad, how long does it take before you cannot listen to music at all?
The whole point of this hobby is to get enjoyment from listening to music.
I think you are contradicting yourself.
-
Freo-1,
I think your latest post could be a sticky for how not to assemble a home audio system.
If you choose equipment that makes most of your recordings sound bad, wouldn't it be easier to go back to equipment that makes it sound good? And if the process of technical accuracy dictates that most recordings are bad, how long does it take before you cannot listen to music at all?
Nonsense. Who said anything about making the system sound bad, or that all recordings are bad. You are reading in too much.
Most of the recordings I have are at least decent, and many of them are excellent. I can assure you that Electrocompaniet/ATC combo gets a lot closer to the original intended recording than a lot of what passes as "audiophile" equipment. Most audiophiles have not experienced this level of sound clarity, which makes comments against it based on ignorance. In other words, one needs to hear the setup, and decide its not for them, before passing judgement. I get the fact that some audiophiles are not after this type of playback.
Here is a review of the speakers that provide some insight:
http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/audio-visual/hi-fi-and-audio/hi-fi-and-av-speakers/atc-scm19-hi-fi-98230/review (http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/audio-visual/hi-fi-and-audio/hi-fi-and-av-speakers/atc-scm19-hi-fi-98230/review)
The point is (which I think you missed), is speakers like ATC reveal the recordings for what they are, be it good or bad. That is why they appear in so many studios for recording/mastering. If there is a lot of compression on the recording, it will expose it. If the recording was done well, you will be rewarded with excellent results.
Some audiophiles don't want accuracy. They want euphonic sound. Stereophile back in 80's looked into this, and found that many "Audiophile Systems" were anything but flat. They tended to have elevated mid-bass, and a slightly depressed treble.
So, as always, it's "horses for courses".
-
Much of what passes for popular music is not recorded all that well. Current classical, jazz, and some other music from smaller labels is recored very well. So, its not good or bad across the board.
Once you own accurate equipmet like Electrocompaniet and ATC, one realizes just how good or bad a recording actually is. It's a bit shocking at first, but once you are exposed to it, becomes very hard to go back to gear that is not accurate. After all, live music is sometimes harsh, loud, and can be fatiguing.
The whole point of this hobby is to get enjoyment from listening to music. Trust your own ears, not some reviewer's point of view.
Recording and mastering are separate aspects of the process. A performance may be beautifully recorded and then mastered in such a manner as to make the recording less enjoyable for an "audiophile" who owns "Blah Blah" and "Blah". The music is mastered for the intended audience keeping in mind their likely choices of playback devices. What may not be desirable to the "audiophile" plunked down in front of an big pile of "accurate equipment like Blah Blah and Blah" may be highly desirable to someone listening to the same recording in a car or through earbuds. These people are often described as : "The Vast Majority".
Anyone who uses terms such as "what passes for popular music" may need to come to terms with the fact that they may not be the intended audience and as such, will not be given primary consideration.
So let's see if I've got this straight:
The "audiophile" has assembled a playback system comprised of "accurate equipment like Blah Blah and Blah" which then reproduces the, to the "audiophile", less-appealing characteristics of said recording with tremendous accuracy. This causes the "audiophile" to log on to various internet sites devoted to such things and to use up precious bandwidth complaining that his "high-fidelity playback" system is providing him with "high-fidelity playback" and that this is "shocking" to him. This is frequently described as: "Irony".
Fortunately for victims of " Irony ", they can cling to their "accurate equipment like Blah Blah and Blah" as a handful of enterprising entrepreneurs with a healthy sense of "Irony" have begun to cater to this huddled group of music refugees, offering them a ration of mediocre but beautifully- recorded and immaculately-mastered new music co-mingled with somewhat- improved versions of hoary oldies no-one wants to hear anymore, all of this at exhorbitant prices. This is frequently described as: "niche marketing".
"Audiophiles" unable to relinquish their "accurate equipment like Blah Blah and Blah", unable to enjoy music produced at prole-quality resolution rates but unwilling to pay extortion-level prices for " the good stuff" can plunk themselves down in front of their "accurate equipment like Blah Blah and Blah", fire it up and hope that a ground loop develops, thus giving them at least something to listen to... And it will be immaculately reproduced with stunning accuracy and a deep, wide soundstage.
So tell me again... why is this hobby dying? :dunno:
D.D.
-
Freo-1,
You always say horses for courses and you always tell everyone that they don't what good sound is because they don't own ATC speakers. I think you are kind of clueless.
Much of what passes for popular music is not recorded all that well.
Most of it is recorded well. It is popular music though, so it sounds like what it is. Stop analyzing it like you are in a recording session with live musicians from the 1950's and you can enjoy it.
-
Freo-1,
You always say horses for courses and you always tell everyone that they don't what good sound is because they don't own ATC speakers. I think you are kind of clueless.
Most of it is recorded well. It is popular music though, so it sounds like what it is. Stop analyzing it like you are in a recording session with live musicians from the 1950's and you can enjoy it.
If you have not listened to speakers like ATC, and criticize based on a lack of background, that to me is clueless.
Suggest you look up the loudness wars on google. Some good clues there.
-
Nonsense. Who said anything about making the system sound bad, or that all recordings are bad. You are reading in too much.
Most of the recordings I have are at least decent, and many of them are excellent. I can assure you that Electrocompaniet/ATC combo gets a lot closer to the original intended recording than a lot of what passes as "audiophile" equipment. Most audiophiles have not experienced this level of sound clarity, which makes comments against it based on ignorance. In other words, one needs to hear the setup, and decide its not for them, before passing judgement. I get the fact that some audiophiles are not after this type of playback.
Here is a review of the speakers that provide some insight:
http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/audio-visual/hi-fi-and-audio/hi-fi-and-av-speakers/atc-scm19-hi-fi-98230/review
The point is (which I think you missed), is speakers like ATC reveal the recordings for what they are, be it good or bad. That is why they appear in so many studios for recording/mastering. If there is a lot of compression on the recording, it will expose it. If the recording was done well, you will be rewarded with excellent results.
Some audiophiles don't want accuracy. They want euphonic sound. Stereophile back in 80's looked into this, and found that many "Audiophile Systems" were anything but flat. They tended to have elevated mid-bass, and a slightly depressed treble.
So, as always, it's "horses for courses".
Wow. If there's an award for " Outstanding Achievement in Condescension " here, I think we can hand it out now...
So Freo-1, that job shilling for ATC and now Electrocompaniet - how does it pay? If it's by the shill, you can probably afford to go top-of-the-line by now. Live it up. :D
D.D.
-
Well, when one comes across equipment that "delivers the goods", then its fair game to report it. I realize that not many folks have been exposed to it, so just getting the word out. Reading any more into it is not appropriate.
The thread is about recording/mastering quality. The equipment used to play them back is fair game to discuss. So are the loudness wars. Let's stick to that.
-
The original post was a very interesting post on mastering recordings. The rest of the thread -- not so much.
Tony
-
Freo,
First, I appologize for getting you all ruffled up. I think you are a nice guy and it wasn't my intention to bash you personally. So I am sorry for that.
I think you assume that very few of us if any, have heard ATC speakers or speakers like them. It might surprise you to know that a lot of us have heard them and some people here may even have owned them. So it is not a diss on ATC or other studio quality speakers, and it is not a diss on electronics that are designed for laboratory grade "accuracy". It is the notion that if I have assembled a system (of any brand) that constantly spotlights how dreadful most of my recordings are, then it is time to change the gear for something that reminds me how good most of my recordings really are. This is a way better approach than blaming the mastering engineers, the recording personnel, or the artist.
Oh, and I could care less if Jimmy Page listened to the final mix of Houses of the Holy in the back seat of a Pinto. (Is that even possible? :D) Good for him if he did.
-
QE,
While I like to be able to appreciate not-amazing recordings the one caveat that's often key no matter what gear you have is SPL. A lot of terrible recordings are a lot funner to listen to if the volume is KCANK3D. I like to listen to Lorde - Royals often. It's fun and good, but it could have used a lot better dubbing and stereo control over the snaps and bass; it's a little short on dynamic range too. But if I turn it up, it's still a blast. On the other side, I can listen to Gold by Ryan Adams are medium volumes and have fun; he even uses a gritty microphone setup (still slightly dynamic).
The point is coming, and that's that we aren't all lucky enough to be able to blast loud ass music all the time, so some higher grade stuff can be a little more consistent.
Although this made me think about maybe doing something to allow more listening to more material. If you're cooking or something else, perhaps some omnidirectional and intentional space loading, or LCS, etc, might be a good option. The two channel setup that nearly needs it's own room is a curse in many ways. But for many recordings it's blissful. Perhaps even having speakers that you can turn on/off "room listening" would be nice. The other trick in my mind is to get speakers closer to the wall via benign less noticeable treatment (and or wall cut outs even).
Most people want to attain good listening anywhere, hence a gazillion plastic pieces of shit that ipods plug into. A few quality pieces, maybe even built into cabinets running a simple NOS DAC and a DSP that will correct the massive problems, could provide some nice sound. There's some stuff like that out there, Sonos etc, but it's not near where it could be. It doesn't send quality sound everywhere, it's pretty localized. You can do better with some bookshelves speakers on a wall somewhere.
-
I do think it is possible to assemble what one might consider a fairly high end system, and have some less the desirable playback. Julian Hirsch of Stereo Review days coined the term "a wire with gain" and if a system was close to this concept, it would simply amplify what ever was fed into it. While the concept sounded good on paper, the reality was that such a system would "reveal the limitations of the source tape", to wit if the master recording sounded like crap, the magnificent stereo would amplify it, true to life levels and also sound like crap.
Does that mean we like some coloration to the sound? Perhaps the answer is yes. After all, many pioneers of early hifi were claimed to actually voice components, so that no mater what was played into them, it would sound OK, and as the source fidelity improved, so would the sound of the system.
Was this clever marketing? Perhaps, but the reality of it all was that in the over-all scheme of things, the colored system won the coin toss, because it did make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
-
If I might also add this, that never have I ever had such strong beliefs about system "synergy". We could all have the same source components, like CD player, preamp and amp, but make the speaker the variable and I can tell you that every system would sound different. I have learned this from my vinyl room where I have 4 different systems. Some speakers simply sound better with specific amplifiers. Swapping out components usually led me to much unhappiness, and I have learned to leave everything hooked up the way it is.
I understand where Freo-1 is coming from......
-
I have found that no system is perfect. One must prioritize the strengths and weaknesses to personal preferences. Fortunately there are enough choices out there that, if one is diligent, a system can be assembled to suit ones taste.
Some recordings will emphasize the weaknesses. This is inevitable. The question then becomes, do these weaknesses inhibit my enjoyment of the music? If the answer is yes, then perhaps either you really don't like the music as much as you thought, or your system needs an adjustment. The problem with this is that if you adjust for a certain recording, then other recordings become objectionable. My solution is to try to assemble as neutral a system as possible and let my enjoyment of the performance stand and fall on its own. I enjoy past the weaknesses. I know that there are many that cannot do this.
Having said all that, it's not what the subject of the OP posted about. :duh: Most of the "music industry" couldn't care less about a niche market that ranges in its opinion about what "quality" is from asceticism to "did you hear about that tweak from aliens?". They want to produce "product" that will make money. WE are not their market. Complaining about it won't change it. To quote Firesign Theater, "Live it, or live with it"!
-
Freo,
First, I appologize for getting you all ruffled up. I think you are a nice guy and it wasn't my intention to bash you personally. So I am sorry for that.
I think you assume that very few of us if any, have heard ATC speakers or speakers like them. It might surprise you to know that a lot of us have heard them and some people here may even have owned them. So it is not a diss on ATC or other studio quality speakers, and it is not a diss on electronics that are designed for laboratory grade "accuracy". It is the notion that if I have assembled a system (of any brand) that constantly spotlights how dreadful most of my recordings are, then it is time to change the gear for something that reminds me how good most of my recordings really are. This is a way better approach than blaming the mastering engineers, the recording personnel, or the artist.
Oh, and I could care less if Jimmy Page listened to the final mix of Houses of the Holy in the back seat of a Pinto. (Is that even possible? :D ) Good for him if he did.
Thanks, QE. I meant no ill will or disrespect to anyone/anything on this subject. Most audiophiles I know in this area were not familar with these brands. If that is not the case, then I'm sorry as well.
The main issue I was trying to get across was that speakers like ATC/Dynaudio, etc. do present music much different than many of the speakers out there. They allow the listener to hear deeper into the mix/mastering process (which is what this thread is about). It was a bit of a shock to me (and a revelation). In my case, that was the sound I was after (especially after owning Acoustat speakers for close to 15 years). I totally get that other audiophiles may not want that out of their audio systems. Regarding your observation about the recordings, tube DAC/phono stages can help out a lot. :D That's why I have a DIY tube setup as well as lab reference SS gear.
Konut made a lot of good observations. The loudness wars are well alive and kicking. We audiophools are a niche market. The audio engineers during the audio golden age seemed to have taken more care to get the best out of the recording sessions. Having said that, I do have a fair bit of classical and jazz recordings of recent vintage that are well mastered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war)
-
For myself, I think when a system is "dumbed down" to the point that recordings whose characteristics are not compatible with a High Fidelity system sound "listenable" you have probably compromised the system to the point that you miss out on what is possible from the best mastered modern recording of all types. I also think what people need is not coloration added to their systems but a good dose of masking. I enjoy a lot of recordings on my car stereo while driving. The lower fidelity of the car stereo plus the added road noise make recordings that have problems palatable.
With a enough masking in place all sorts things that might be noticed within the context of a High Fidelity system just disappear. Ideally you could just push a button and presto problems gone.
Scotty
-
For myself, I think when a system is "dumbed down" to the point that recordings whose characteristics are not compatible with a High Fidelity system sound "listenable" you have probably compromised the system to the point that you miss out on what is possible from the best mastered modern recording of all types. I also think what people need is not coloration added to their systems but a good dose of masking. I enjoy a lot of recordings on my car stereo while driving. The lower fidelity of the car stereo plus the added road noise make recordings that have problems palatable.
With a enough masking in place all sorts things that might be noticed within the context of a High Fidelity system just disappear. Ideally you could just push a button and presto problems gone.
Scotty
I'm not sure if they need to get "dumbed down" so much as built/assembled with an ear towards an outcome that best suits a given listener's tastes. As I've re-built much or most of my system this year, I've gone for openness and clarity as opposed to what I realize now was perhaps better described as stridency. What I once thought to be an absence of colouration ( yes, with a "u"...God Save The Queen :green: ) was just a different form of colouration. The system is certainly no less resolving than it was - far from it. I do find that the changes have made even the most notoriously poor recording/mastering efforts in my collection - such as the Genesis Trick of the Tail SACD I'm listening to right now - more enjoyable. I can hear deeper into recordings and perhaps that de-emphasizes the shortcomings for me at least in some sense by changing my focus. And when I hear a really well-mastered effort, it's AWESOME.
Perhaps the concept of some form of tone controls, long taboo among purists, needs to be reconsidered as a possible way of allowing the less-than-optimal stuff to be made more palatable for those who feel the need. Slap some lipstick on that pig... or wipe some off as required. Compressed is compressed but at least the crazy brightness of many recordings could be beaten back a bit. My current speakers do offer that ability to a point so maybe it's an idea whose time has come again...All I know for sure is that the music industry has extremely limited interest in catering to folks like us so we really need to find our own way to make that silk purse Wayner referred to.
I have found that no system is perfect. One must prioritize the strengths and weaknesses to personal preferences. Fortunately there are enough choices out there that, if one is diligent, a system can be assembled to suit ones taste.
Some recordings will emphasize the weaknesses. This is inevitable. The question then becomes, do these weaknesses inhibit my enjoyment of the music? If the answer is yes, then perhaps either you really don't like the music as much as you thought, or your system needs an adjustment. The problem with this is that if you adjust for a certain recording, then other recordings become objectionable. My solution is to try to assemble as neutral a system as possible and let my enjoyment of the performance stand and fall on its own. I enjoy past the weaknesses. I know that there are many that cannot do this.
Having said all that, it's not what the subject of the OP posted about. :duh: Most of the "music industry" couldn't care less about a niche market that ranges in its opinion about what "quality" is from asceticism to "did you hear about that tweak from aliens?". They want to produce "product" that will make money. WE are not their market. Complaining about it won't change it. To quote Firesign Theater, "Live it, or live with it"!
I agree with all of this.
D.D.
-
"Perhaps the concept of some form of tone controls, long taboo among purists, needs to be reconsidered as a possible way of allowing the less-than-optimal stuff to be made more palatable for those who feel the need."
Yes D.D.!
If you the average audiophile knew just how many layers of tone control(EQ) and processing were applied during the average modern recording, they would be appalled. The long held taboo against any form of EQ or tone controls at home is asinine and just one more audiophile "truth" that is pure BS. The same goes for DSP. Outside of the tiny realm of audiophile approved record labels that use purist micing technics and no/minimal processing, all modern recordings have their waveforms so processed and manipulated it is amazing. What's one more slight adjustment at home if the overall balance is too bright? I've got my entire CD collection ripped now and for the worst sounding offenders that I love the music, I just re-remaster it myself to tame brightness or boost a thin bottom end. Overly compressed? That's another matter that cannot effectively be undone.
Audiophiles spend way too much for minor benefits or changes to their sound from cables, different components and tweaks. Buy a great freaking EQ and most of your tonal balance problems are solved. Something like this is a fantastically transparent product used in the finest studios and mastering facilities. I wish more audiophile rags would educate about the benefits of such designs. Even better if you are Pc or Mac playback based because virtual implementations of these processors can be had for several hundred, not several thousands of dollars!
http://www.z-sys.com/pp_2ch.html#z-q2
or
http://www.weiss.ch/products/eq1
Greg Begland
-
Audiophiles spend way too much for minor benefits or changes to their sound from cables, different components and tweaks. Buy a great freaking EQ and most of your tonal balance problems are solved.
Yup! :thumb:
That's why I have this in my system:
(http://www.avalondesign.com/images/AD2055F.jpg)
http://www.avalondesign.com/eq2055.html (http://www.avalondesign.com/eq2055.html)
+6db @ 50Hz (peak) and -6db @ 5kHz absolutely transforms all those zippy-sounding vinyl pressings from the '80s.
Russ
-
I'm not really even qualified to be called an "audiophile", nor do I have much knowledge about music recording and mastering. As a moderately avid music listener, I can however observe that some well recorded materials with proper mastering would sound reasonably good in rather modest/basic playback system. They would of course show their special quality in the better system.
For examples, since my college years (early 90's), I did like both the music and the sound quality of these two compilation albums: Lionel Richie - Back to Front, and James Ingram - The Power of Great Music. I had them in CDs and played back on the early generation of (cheap) Pioneer DVD multi-player through very modest Acoustic Energy AE109 speakers driven by locally (Thailand) made amplifications. Even in the car's sound system, I've always enjoyed these CDs.
Years gone by and I happened to hear bit by bit more about different versions of LP or even CD "pressings", reissuing, re-mastering, etc. I didn't really care much about those until last of couple of years that I got involved in re-issuing a vinyl-LP album whose recording rights belong to my family. Bernie Grundman came highly recommended, so we sent the master tapes to his facility in Hollywood. Then I googled to find out about Bernie and his studio. There you go, he's one of the best mastering engineers that do care a lot about the quality of his gear and the signal purity passing through all his work chain.
Last week, I was just going back to those two CDs' files that I ripped. With the my much better listening environment and system now, it was obvious I could enjoy more deeply into the recordings. Wondering about the technical details, I brought the CDs out from storage and read the credits. Guess what? Bernie Grundman got involved with both albums. : )
-
I think an equaliser can help in some cases. However, it could just as easily detract from the overall sound.
The reason many do not like them is that it adds more electronics in the signal path, and the unit's electronics may not be of the same quality as the rest of the playback system. Well regarded analog equalisers are not cheap.
Keep in mind one of the reasons well made tube gear can sound so good is twofold: 1) Tubes are inherently more linear than sand devices, and 2) The circuits are simpler, with less gain stages and low to moderate feedback.
-
A couple of comments:
1) Some of the best sounding recordings I have heard are Jazz and Classical from the mid 50's through the 60's. I think the engineers back then knew what they were doing. Even some rock recordings, such as early Savoy Brown have amazing presence, depth, and clarity. No loudness wars back then.
2) I have ATC speakers with the Super Linear mid driver, and they are among the very best speakers available, regardless of price. I find them to be superior to "Audiophile Speakers", such as Wilson Audio. The drivers are MUCH better.
3) I have some outstanding modern recordings. The Cream 2005 Reunion on Blu Ray is incredibly life like. Several SACD Classical recordings I own are stunning. Can't say the same for most rock/pop recordings today.
Hi Freo,
What model ATC speakers do you have? are they active?
-
Hi Freo,
What model ATC speakers do you have? are they active?
No. I had a chance to get a pair of ASL 50's from the dealer, but it was just a bit outside of the price range. :duh:
I have the SCM-19's. Here is a review:
http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/audio-visual/hi-fi-and-audio/hi-fi-and-av-speakers/atc-scm19-hi-fi-98230/review (http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/audio-visual/hi-fi-and-audio/hi-fi-and-av-speakers/atc-scm19-hi-fi-98230/review)
I have the matching C1 subwoofer, along with a SVS SB13 Ultra. The SCM-19's have the 6" Super Linear driver, a real outstanding performer. I use both Electrocompaniet and DIY tubes with them. It seems that many ATC owners who have the passive models wind up buying EC gear to drive them. Both sound outstanding, with different character traits.
-
No. I had a chance to get a pair of ASL 50's from the dealer, but it was just a bit outside of the price range. :duh:
I have the SCM-19's. Here is a review:
http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/audio-visual/hi-fi-and-audio/hi-fi-and-av-speakers/atc-scm19-hi-fi-98230/review (http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/audio-visual/hi-fi-and-audio/hi-fi-and-av-speakers/atc-scm19-hi-fi-98230/review)
I have the matching C1 subwoofer, along with a SVS SB13 Ultra. The SCM-19's have the 6" Super Linear driver, a real outstanding performer. I use both Electrocompaniet and DIY tubes with them. It seems that many ATC owners who have the passive models wind up buying EC gear to drive them. Both sound outstanding, with different character traits.
Well, it is not end of the world and for next time try to get the scm 50's(active) and enjoy the music. :thumb:
I personally like the Electrocompainet stuff for not only the sound but for quality build as well.
-
Well, it is not end of the world and for next time try to get the scm 50's(active) and enjoy the music. :thumb:
I personally like the Electrocompainet stuff for not only the sound but for quality build as well.
Me too! :thumb: The speakers sound great with higher powered tube gear as well.
-
I think an equaliser can help in some cases. However, it could just as easily detract from the overall sound.
The reason many do not like them is that it adds more electronics in the signal path, and the unit's electronics may not be of the same quality as the rest of the playback system.
I understand the concern. Ideally, an EQ is installed in a tape loop or with a switch to take it out of the signal path when not being used.
Learning to EQ is an art and takes some training and practice. But it's worth the effort and it will make you a more perceptive listener. For me, having the ability to tweak an irritating recording into something fun to listen to is just too cool an opportunity to pass up.
Russ