[satfrat]

Well just for that complement, I'll turn ya on to todays fusion guitarist that i personally can't get enough of, that being Doug Markley: Unwind. I just picked up this album this week and this guys jazz-funk  guitar is totally addicting. He will blow your mind. Or not,,, 



Cheers,
Robin

[mjosef]

I will have to check him out...never heard of him. Thank you Sir. 

[satfrat]

Doug Markley is a total unknown, just got lucky that I even auditioned his album. His jazz fusion gendre is what made me give him a listen. Doug's just the type of unknowns that i'm always looking for,, todays new artists. 




Robin

[SET Man]

There's been a lot of press about this artist and she photogtaphs well if you ask me, but, damn, she's good!  As a songwriter and singer.  She's got a lot of mileage on that voice, it sounds like, and just let's it go real comfortably and natural like.  I guess I understand what the buzz is about.

Hey!
 
   Yup, that is a very nice album for sure. She is a bit eccentric I would say. But her album is nicely done.

   Actually she won this year 2007 Brit's Award for best new female artist I think. And she sound pretty good live too.

   I got her album on imported LP vinyl and the sound is actually quite good.

Take care,
Buddy

[Thump553]

I bet you could divide the pro and con opinions pretty much by age.  As an older listener, I hear traces of Janis in her music, but very much of it is contrived and commercial (admittedly less so than her contemporaries) and her lifestyle makes her seem like a Britany/Paris publicity hound wanna-be.

Kari King is the real deal, on the other hand, as is Patty Larkin-two excellent female guitarists (Larkin is one heck of a song writer as well).

[mihilli]

I've got 2 of her albums,  Frank & Back To Black,,, both just stupid good. Sultry jazz vocals along with superior recording blows away yesterdays music. Don't get me wrong, I listen to the old standards alot but when it comes to high quality sound, todays recording methods simply blows away the past. 


Robin

You're a big fan of compression and engineering over reality I guess then?

[jimdgoulding]

That's a bit of an over simplification, my man.  There are plenty of live to two track, simply recorded and natural sounding recordings today just as there was compression in the day before.


PS-  That is some outrageously interesting equipment you've got.  Got any chat rooms down under?

[mihilli]

Yup, you're right that is an oversimplification.  Mapleshade, Divid Grisman's label, Signature Sounds, lots of the independents are making very fine recordings as well as a few producers on some of the major labels.

But I still contend that most pop music (which is what I class someone like Amy Winehouse as) is so compressed as to be almost unlistenable, no dynamics at all.  Not to mention many of them couldn't hope to reproduce the vocal performance on their recordings  live because the engineers have been so busy tweaking the sound.

Check out

www.audioenz.co.nz

[satfrat]

But I still contend that most pop music (which is what I class someone like Amy Winehouse as) is so compressed as to be almost unlistenable, no dynamics at all.  Not to mention many of them couldn't hope to reproduce the vocal performance on their recordings  live because the engineers have been so busy tweaking the sound.

Guess I''ll just have to consider myself fortunate I'm not having these compression problems with my HTPC Media Center. I download using a VBR WM-9 Q-90 (doubles the bit rate of a CD but only uses 1/3 more hard drive) and by using a 115db M-Audio Revolution 7 soundcard with DFX audio Enhancer, I'd be more than happy to challange you with your compression theory. I haven't listened to a CD in 3 years now, my computer system is THAT good. For me, it's only the old recordings that haven't been remastered that I find hard to listen to. The 5=6 Bill Evans albums (piano) in my library are a prime example of this low quality recording.

Robin

[Daygloworange]

I've got 2 of her albums,  Frank & Back To Black,,, both just stupid good. Sultry jazz vocals along with superior recording blows away yesterdays music. Don't get me wrong, I listen to the old standards alot but when it comes to high quality sound, todays recording methods simply blows away the past. 


Robin

You're a big fan of compression and engineering over reality I guess then?

What is reality?  Are the performances not performed by musicians?

Not to mention many of them couldn't hope to reproduce the vocal performance on their recordings  live because the engineers have been so busy tweaking the sound.

Wrong.

No microphone (typically dynamics) used in a live situation is going to capture the nuances, frequency response and dynamics like microphones used in a studio (typically large diaphram condensers) will.

If you think they don't run compressors and Eq's on live vocals, you'd be wrong as well.

If you think they don't compress and tweak any other instruments on the mixing board, you'd be wrong there too.

No PA system I've ever heard comes even close to what 2 channel audiophile rigs can do.

Cheers

[satfrat]

No PA system I've ever heard comes even close to what 2 channel audiophile rigs can do.

Especially true with the use of todays computers, it's a new world for audiophiles! 


Robin

[Daygloworange]

You're preaching to the choir dude! 

Love my tweaked SB 3 rig! 

Cheers

[jimdgoulding]

hilli-  Of those independent labels you mentioned, I am intimately familiar with Mapleshade and can advise that a visit to www.mapleshaderecords would be worth anyone's time.  Select About Us and read how they do it.  Clifford Jordan Live at Ethyll's is one of my acid test discs.  Thank's for the NZ address. 

I agree that most pop recordings do have limited dynamic contrasts.  Here's a personal experience about pros and cons of pop production.  I get a CD by an artist I heard playing unaccompanied, Laura Viers, a poignant and plaintive little songwriter/singer.  Something about her is very attractive to me.  She's on the Nonesuch label.  That's interesting, think I.  Upon first hearing their collaboration I'm saying "oh no . . she's being produced to death!"  Now, I know that if they don't attempt to give her some production help she won't be heard outside of a few college radio stations.  About eight listenings later, I do a 180.  The production and supporting musicians givin her start making sense.  I've come to believe that the assist she is getting here (Carbon Glacier) on both sides of the console is completely sympathetic and ultimately beneficial to her natural talent.  I'd still like to hear her unaccompanied on Mapleshade but this IS love.  She has a hypnotic thing going that her producer recognizes and serves.  On a couple of tracks her voice is recessed into the music.  I think this is intentional to draw you in.  Nice work and a bright new artist. 

Maybe we can talk about exceptions to the rule?     

[satfrat]

. 

I agree that most pop recordings do have limited dynamic contrasts.  Here's a personal experience about pros and cons of pop production.  I get a CD by an artist I heard playing unaccompanied, Laura Viers, a poignant and plaintive little songwriter/singer.  Something about her is very attractive to me.  She's on the Nonesuch label.  That's interesting, think I.  Upon first hearing their collaboration I'm saying "oh no . . she's being produced to death!"  Now, I know that if they don't attempt to give her some production help she won't be heard outside of a few college radio stations.  About eight listenings later, I do a 180.  The production and supporting musicians givin her start making sense.  I've come to believe that the assist she is getting here (Carbon Glacier) on both sides of the console is completely sympathetic and ultimately beneficial to her natural talent.  I'd still like to hear her unaccompanied on Mapleshade but this IS love.  She has a hypnotic thing going that her producer recognizes and serves.  On a couple of tracks her voice is recessed into the music.  I think this is intentional to draw you in.  Nice work and a bright new artist. 

Maybe we can talk about exceptions to the rule?     

No sleeping here either Jim, I in fact have an album from Laura Viers,, 2005's album "The Triumphs & Travails Of Orphan Mae". A very simplistic recording,,,, folky. She does have a way of projecting her voice tho, probably just the way it was recorded but nice neverless. This could be a good album to A/B your product Jim,,, just to see if some of that projecting would get focalized. Just thinking outloud,,, keeps me awake. 



Robin

Downloading "Saltbreakers", Laura Veirs's lastest album as I type. Not quite as simplistic as my other album,,,,, I like!

[jimdgoulding]

That's encouraging news, Rob.  I don't know about Saltbreakers but the recording I mentioned is recorded at a very high level and needs to be turned pretty far down for things to uncompress. 

[mihilli]

What is reality?  Are the performances not performed by musicians?

Sure, but in many cases they're not even in the recording studio at the same time, and usually with many takes cut and pasted to get a "perfect" take.

Call me old fashioned, I want to hear the music performed and recorded live.  That's where the magic is.

Not to mention many of them couldn't hope to reproduce the vocal performance on their recordings  live because the engineers have been so busy tweaking the sound.

Wrong.

No microphone (typically dynamics) used in a live situation is going to capture the nuances, frequency response and dynamics like microphones used in a studio (typically large diaphram condensers) will.

If you think they don't run compressors and Eq's on live vocals, you'd be wrong as well.

If you think they don't compress and tweak any other instruments on the mixing board, you'd be wrong there too.

No PA system I've ever heard comes even close to what 2 channel audiophile rigs can do.

Cheers


[/quote]

If what you're after is "audiophile" reproduction, I agree with you to a point.  And of course they use compression, eq etc in live shows, but they can't cut and mix different takes for example. 

But are you saying you'd rather listen to your system then be in a concert hall or club listening to live music?  You're system (and your room) can reproduce the dynamics of a live event?  Wow, you must have some impressive system and room to listen to it in mate.  While I've had some shite experiences with poor venues or poor sound engineers, I'll still take a live performance over a recording anytime

[jimdgoulding]

It's pop music that gets the royal treatment.  For classical or any music recorded in real time I think we want faithfulness to what the microphone heard, necessarily our ears in this situation, w/o too much messing about anywhere in the chain, humanly or mechanically, a reduction in scale being acceptable for in room reproduction.  I know I do.  Lastly, we don't want our playback environment contaminating the event overhandedly.  That may sound awfully pragmatic but the result is purer intimacy and deeper emotion.  Somethin like that.   

On the other hand, maybe you just want impress your friends?  That's supossed to be a funny (just in case).

[Daygloworange]

Sure, but in many cases they're not even in the recording studio at the same time, and usually with many takes cut and pasted to get a "perfect" take.

Paintings are done in layers as well. Often times, things are removed, changed, added or omitted. Does that make the painting any less good?

That's nothing new. A lot of your favorite recordings could be in fact, done that way. Nothing wrong with that. Sometimes that's what it takes to get a good performance across the board (no pun intended).

How many times will a musician play something perfectly out of 10 times? Now, how many musicans in a band? What are the odds of them all getting it right, and at the same time? That's a tall order.

Recording them all at the same time, in the same room just for the sake of bragging, is just a novelty. It doesn't necessarily improve the end result. The odds are actually against it.

What's the difference? You have no way of knowing if a recording was done with all the players playing at the same time, or if it was a "composite" recording.

I'm a longtime musician, and I can't tell. I can speculate, but I can't tell. And to me it makes no difference whether or not it was a composite, or not. If it's a good recording, it's a good recording.

Guitarist Tom Sholtz of the band "Boston" recorded all of the guitar parts for one of their best selling albums while lying on his back due to a severe back injury. He couldn't stand for months. Can you hear which album was recorded that way?

Call me old fashioned, I want to hear the music performed and recorded live.  That's where the magic is.

Maybe you're an idealist  . While I agree that musicians feed off a "vibe" from each other, they can also vibe off of listening to playback of another performers great performance on tape, and play to that. That's a skill that good musicians develop. Without the pressure of "having to get it right" on the first take. That is actually helpful.

A player can then loosen up and play more naturally, because he knows that if he flubs it in one spot, they can go in and "punch in".

When you have a good engineer, you can actually punch in, in between syllables in words on a vocal track.

Most "live" recordings are touched up. Some quite heavily. They often have to re-do harmony vocals for pitch correction, main vocals for pitch, and other instruments as well.

but they can't cut and mix different takes for example. 

It's often done with classical recordings as well. They'll re-do a whole movement oftentimes because of errors. You'll listen to a classical recording of a piece where the different movements were recorded on different days.

One of the best selling live albums ever, "Frampton Comes Alive" is apparently very heavily retouched.

"Kiss Alive"  from the band Kiss was sold as a live album, and was not even live at all. It was a gimmick. They dubbed in the sounds of the crowds from recordings of 2 live shows in different cities. The performances of the players was all in the studio.

But are you saying you'd rather listen to your system then be in a concert hall or club listening to live music?

Those are 2 different activities, for me at least. Kind of like watching a movie, or going to see a play at a theater.
Yes, I'd rather listen to music in my audio system. I go to see a band play for a different experience.

You're system (and your room) can reproduce the dynamics of a live event?

 

You can get much better dynamic range, S/N ratio (on average) from a good recording than you can from a live event. Let's take the example of a classical recording done in a studio with a great "live" room. A good studio will have an ambient noise floor of 20db or less. That leaves a lot of "headroom" for even the quietest of passages to be heard.

Contrast that to the ambient noisefloor of any concert hall with even the most well behaved and respectful audience, and you won't come even close to that S/N ratio.

Wow, you must have some impressive system and room to listen to it in mate.

There are people with systems capable of tremendous playback. If you have a system that can move a lot of air, with good performing speakers that can play high SPL with minimal distortion, in a room that's treated well, you can achieve astoundingly realistic sonic and visceral playback.

My system will be evolving to one that even closer fits this description, in the very near future. 

While I've had some shite experiences with poor venues or poor sound engineers, I'll still take a live performance over a recording anytime

That's your preference. I love live music as well. I see about 2 to 3 live shows a month. Everthing from dinner jazz bands, to traditional jazz bands, to funk, R&B, and Rock bands.

I was at a live concert last night, and the sound was about a 6.5 out of 10. The performance was about a 7 out of 10. Did I enjoy myself?  Yup. Would I go see them again? Probably.

I'm listening to their CD's right now, and hearing everything that I missed from the lousy PA system and room acoustics, and enjoying  mistake free performances.

 I prefer listening to a studio recording in a good system vs live.

Cheers

[jimdgoulding]

I peeped Miss Winehouse on You Tube.  Of the three tracks I listened to I thought Back to Black was the best altho I might could do without the strings unless they're set back and more discreet on high end playback.  Thought Rehab was the worst altho that line "I'd rather stay with Ray" communicates a bunch.  Somehow you just know he's at the root of her problem and her character's way of denying the obvious.  She's weak in spite of her bravado.  And while the type of woman painted in F*** Me Pumps may have been more finely rendered in Patricia Barber's Modern Cool, you gotta give credit to the succinct lines that all rhyme in keeping with pop sensibilities.  I think this lady is sharp.

(later) Do Me Good is fine.  Think this an ode to Billie?

[FullRangeMan]