| Author |
Message |
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Don't we all rely on the "ears" of the recording enginee |
|
|
Mark D wrote:
| Quote: | I used to shake my head at the Bose 901's, and other more modern
speakers, like some $3400/pr skinny Linn Tower speakers. Maybe fine for
classic (Violins/strings.etc) and fine at playing at Dr's Office levels.
|
Not sure what you mean by this comment. Bose 901s can POUND. They can
take any amount of power you can put to them, and I have never heard
them distort yet. They are not known mainly for this, but they can go
loud without compressing and, when matched with some good subs, can do
as much in your basic home as anyone could want.
You can contrast this with most electrostatics or ninny 3-way speakers
with a single 1-inch tweeter.
Gary Eickmeier
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BEAR
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Don't we all rely on the "ears" of the recording enginee |
|
|
Fred wrote:
| Quote: | Hi all,
I started following some threads about the quality of reproduction and small
differences wirng amplification etc. can make, and I started thinking about
it and something occured to me that hasn't really been discussed.
No recording is an exact reproduction of the live performance, there are too
many steps. How can we expect a system to reproduce live sound, unless it
compensates for the changes due to, and made in, the recording process (and
how can we expect that).
Now I am a bit ingnorant of all the subtleties of what a recording engineer
does, but it leads me to my point; if the recording is adjusted so it is the
closest to live on the studio equipment, shouldn't we all have studio
equipment if we are looking for the closest to live sound?
|
You've got two ideas intermixed and intertwined that need to be separate.
First: "live sound" is *not* the goal for close to 99% of all commercial
recordings made, so let's put that idea aside for another day. It's a
premise and assumption that is not accurate.
Second: "Studio equipment" is not a constant. There is no "standard".
Ergo there is no way to have such a thing per se.
However, IF one knew where and when a specific recording was made, it
would be possible to replicate the playback gear to a fair extent. Would
that be good? Possibly. Possibly not.
The problem with this approach is multiple - the most obvious is that
your room and the control room are acoustically quite different. And,
should you duplicate a given control room, that room is different than
all other control rooms... :- )
However, should you want to experiment with this idea, you'll need two
pieces of gear:
Altec 604s in a big enclosure (maybe a "Big Red" implementation) or a
UREI... probably backed with both a tube amp and a 70s solid state
amp... (external EQ likely required...)
A set of vintage 60s or 50s 15" Tannoys set up in a typical British
studio monitor box, backed with a tube amp.
This will get you most of the way toward almost every recording made
prior to 1975 in the USA and almost every British or European recording
of the same era and vintage... and quite a few after that as well.
_-_-bear
| Quote: |
I know not all studio equipment is created equal, but if it is engineered on
it, why wouldn't it sound best on it. You can't add something that isn't
there in the recording. Everything else comes down to personal taste.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Don't we all rely on the "ears" of the recording enginee |
|
|
<Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dl5bm00bli@news1.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dl148s0ve5@news1.newsguy.com...
Now I am a bit ingnorant of all the subtleties of what a recording
engineer
does, but it leads me to my point; if the recording is adjusted so it
is
the
closest to live on the studio equipment, shouldn't we all have studio
equipment if we are looking for the closest to live sound?
Impossible task. Studio equipment and rooms vary far too much. Also not
always a good goal. a lot of studio equipment was and is not really
that
good.
In what way would that be?
In the same ways that any other playback system can be not all that
good. The answer is unfortunately rather broad given the large
variations one can find in so many studios.
If the answer is so broad, then perhaps your criticism should have been less |
vauge.
The studios I've been in used very good eqipment as far as I could tell,
stuff the averagge audiophile would probably approve of. B&K amps, Hafler
amps, a variety of speakers,
and microphones. The problem with recordings is more about people than
equipment IMO. Consider the James Taylor album that won a Grammy after
being recorded on a digital 4 track machine in places like barns. The
person doing the mixing and recording is far more important than the gear.
Of course they could be better if they simply threw out all the analog
recording gear. :-)
| Quote: |
I know not all studio equipment is created equal, but if it is
engineered
on
it, why wouldn't it sound best on it.
A fair question but inferior monitoring equipment does not make
valuable information on a recording not translate better on better
equipment.
Inferior in what way?
In any way that it masks or damages the playback of a recording.
How about concrete examples in stead of broad generalizations?
You can't add something that isn't
there in the recording.
But you can miss somethng that is there using bad studio playback
equipment.
|
To few digital recorders?
| Quote: | A lot of that, at least in the case of pop music has to do with the
artists
preferences for certain kinds of equipment such as speakers and mixing
boards.
Actually no unless they are using their own pesonal studios. They don't
get to rebuild studio monitor rooms when they rent the studios nor do
they get to change out the monitoring equipment. It comes with the
studio.
Actually, they get to insist on certain types of speakers for playback, and |
only go to studios that have certai kinds of boards, the bigger they are
they more stuff they get to insist on.
| Quote: |
They will often insist that certain boards be used or certain
speakers becuase for whatever reason that's what they like.
Can you think of an example of this?
David Bowie would only record in a studio that had a Triton board IIRC. |
| Quote: |
Everything else comes down to personal taste.
Until it's on the master, then it's what it is and we either choose to
hear
that (accuracy) or play with diffferent things to make it sound some way
that most likely is not what was on the master.
Simply not true. The master is nothing more than a recording. It has no
sound completely unto itself. hence it cannot be used as a reference.
Flat tarnsfers are often not the best way to go from a master
recording.
The reason I and others
choose to get as close to what is on the master as possible, is because
when
a recording comes along that has been mastered by and performed with
proper
love and respect, we'll know it and won't have missed that in our efforts
to
"fix" the other lesser recordings.
You really don't get to make that choice unless one can find a flat
transfer.
|
The master is the master, I can't do much about it. I like to know what
level of skill was involved in the recording, so sticking to adherence to
it, is thill the best bet for me.
But why opt for this choice without considering alternatives?
| Quote: | Again, that is often not the best choice at all.
Don't buy bad recordings. Find out which people aren't good at their jobs |
and stop buying their products. Insist on higher quality mixes. None of
the reasonable things are going to work on this problem because it's an art
form and artists don't like being told they suck.
| Quote: |
Certainly in the decisions one makes for personal use. production is a
different matter.
My ssytem is to try for the best performance first and hope that it was
captured by someone who was good at it. After a while you get to know
who
does what the best.
I would agree that one does get a feel for the skills of different
recording and mastering engineers.
Sometimes you find certain labels that score well on both, but they tend
to
be a bit less mainstream and not usually the bigger record companies IME.
Like RCA, EMI, and Decca for classical? Ooops they are pretty
mainstream. Maybe Riverside, or Bluenote for Jazz? ooops again.
Then again I had a moment the other day listening to a Paul Simon album
where the opening was just Simon and accoustic guitar. It was one of
those
moments where you have your eyes closed and have to open them to prove
that
he isn't in the room with you playing. After that I said let me play
this
sample I have of all accoustic guitar music and see if I can recreate
that
kind of moment.
The sampler was a collection of different artists, some quite talented
and
all on indy labels. Not one even came close to the feeling of a person
playing live in the room.
Single instruments are supposed to be better than a whole band or
orchestra
for evaluation, so you'd think at least one or two cuts could have
created
another of those moments.
Why would a single instrument be better for evaluation than an
orchestra? Orchestral recordings are amoung the most demanding of
playback eqipment. I consider it a must to have at least one orchestral
recording on my list of recordings for evaluation of equipment
Scott. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark D
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:58 pm Post subject:
Re: Don't we all rely on the "ears" of the recording enginee |
|
|
Not sure what you mean by this comment. Bose 901s can POUND. They can
take any amount of power you can put to them, and I have never heard
them distort yet. They are not known mainly for this, but they can go
loud without compressing and, when matched with some good subs, can do
as much in your basic home as anyone could want.
You can contrast this with most electrostatics or ninny 3-way speakers
with a single 1-inch tweeter.
Gary Eickmeier
======================================
Sorry for coming down on your 901's (Not sure what version we're talking
about here)
But I've heard the orginals (with EQ), and heard them, and heard them.
Seems every time I walked into the one store I used to patronize, they
were always throwing these things at me.
Of course back then ('74-'75), no one was really using subs to
supplement a speaker. A speaker back then had to stand on it's own
laurels/qualities. That was where I found that these speakers just
didn't cut it for me.
When part of the musical spectrum was missing (The lows just weren't
there), to me it didn't matter was else they could do, even if it was
very good. Yes, I can picture perhaps today, supplementing these with a
good Sub, that they might be a very nice combination.
I'm not sure what speakers you would consider a "ninny" 3-way speaker,
with a 1" tweeter?
How about a pair of 3-way Dynaudio's? a pair of B+W 801's, or a Pair of
let's say vintage JBL 4333A Studio Monitors? Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:12 am Post subject:
Re: Don't we all rely on the "ears" of the recording enginee |
|
|
nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
| Quote: | Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dl5bm00bli@news1.newsguy.com...
nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
Theporkygeorge@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dl148s0ve5@news1.newsguy.com...
Now I am a bit ingnorant of all the subtleties of what a recording
engineer
does, but it leads me to my point; if the recording is adjusted so it
is
the
closest to live on the studio equipment, shouldn't we all have studio
equipment if we are looking for the closest to live sound?
Impossible task. Studio equipment and rooms vary far too much. Also not
always a good goal. a lot of studio equipment was and is not really
that
good.
In what way would that be?
In the same ways that any other playback system can be not all that
good. The answer is unfortunately rather broad given the large
variations one can find in so many studios.
If the answer is so broad, then perhaps your criticism should have been less
vauge.
|
No, if the answer were more specific than my criticism should have been
more specific and would have been. Think about it.
| Quote: |
The studios I've been in used very good eqipment as far as I could tell,
stuff the averagge audiophile would probably approve of. B&K amps, Hafler
amps, a variety of speakers,
and microphones.
|
Personally i am not concerned with the aprovals of "the average
audiophile." I'm not sure it is at all meaningful to speak for this
person.
| Quote: | The problem with recordings is more about people than
equipment IMO. Consider the James Taylor album that won a Grammy after
being recorded on a digital 4 track machine in places like barns. The
person doing the mixing and recording is far more important than the gear.
|
They are both important. It's like saying the driver is more important
than the race car. Rest assured you need both to win.
| Quote: |
Of course they could be better if they simply threw out all the analog
recording gear. :-)
|
For some reason many of the best recording engineers seem to like the
analog recording gear better. Now days you can do quite well with
digital but it wasn't always the case IMO. And some of the very best
recordings ever made were done on that old analog gear. Go figure.
| Quote: |
I know not all studio equipment is created equal, but if it is
engineered
on
it, why wouldn't it sound best on it.
A fair question but inferior monitoring equipment does not make
valuable information on a recording not translate better on better
equipment.
Inferior in what way?
In any way that it masks or damages the playback of a recording.
How about concrete examples in stead of broad generalizations?
|
While this is a bit of a generalization i think it says plenty about
the subject.
© Altec Lansing Technologies
1973 Billboard magazine announced that more Altec monitor loudspeakers
used in recording studios than all other brands combined. Altec Lansing
Sound Products Division formed. National sound engineering seminar
held. Altec Lansing International, Ltd., founded in England.
© Altec Lansing Technologies
http://www.audioheritage.org/html/history/altec/1973-1987.htm
Maybe you think those Altec lansing studio monitors were truly
transparent and capable of perfect reproduction but I have heard quite
a few and I'd say they were all missing and damaging valuable musical
information. I don't keep logs on all the various equipments used by
studios but i have payed attention to it and I hav been consistantly
shocked at the choices
| Quote: |
You can't add something that isn't
there in the recording.
But you can miss somethng that is there using bad studio playback
equipment.
To few digital recorders?
|
That doesn't even make sense. Doesn't even matter what the recording
device is. we are talking playback of recordings. that would refer to
the equipment afer the recorder.
| Quote: |
A lot of that, at least in the case of pop music has to do with the
artists
preferences for certain kinds of equipment such as speakers and mixing
boards.
Actually no unless they are using their own pesonal studios. They don't
get to rebuild studio monitor rooms when they rent the studios nor do
they get to change out the monitoring equipment. It comes with the
studio.
Actually, they get to insist on certain types of speakers for playback, and
only go to studios that have certai kinds of boards, the bigger they are
they more stuff they get to insist on.
|
Examples please?
| Quote: |
They will often insist that certain boards be used or certain
speakers becuase for whatever reason that's what they like.
Can you think of an example of this?
David Bowie would only record in a studio that had a Triton board IIRC.
|
Reference please. Not that it would surprise me that someone like Bowie
would do something like that after he was a force in the business. i do
think that would be the exception not the rule.
| Quote: |
Everything else comes down to personal taste.
Until it's on the master, then it's what it is and we either choose to
hear
that (accuracy) or play with diffferent things to make it sound some way
that most likely is not what was on the master.
Simply not true. The master is nothing more than a recording. It has no
sound completely unto itself. hence it cannot be used as a reference.
Flat tarnsfers are often not the best way to go from a master
recording.
The reason I and others
choose to get as close to what is on the master as possible, is because
when
a recording comes along that has been mastered by and performed with
proper
love and respect, we'll know it and won't have missed that in our efforts
to
"fix" the other lesser recordings.
You really don't get to make that choice unless one can find a flat
transfer.
The master is the master, I can't do much about it. I like to know what
level of skill was involved in the recording, so sticking to adherence to
it, is thill the best bet for me.
|
If that is what you want. Isee no reason to limit one's self to flat
transfers when so amny other versions of a given recording may sound
better. Seems you are serving a philosophy rather than your senses.
| Quote: |
But why opt for this choice without considering alternatives?
Again, that is often not the best choice at all.
Don't buy bad recordings.
|
I have no choice if I like the music. Besides, even with good
recordings this is still an issue. A major one in fact.
| Quote: | and stop buying their products. Insist on higher quality mixes.
|
You must be joking. Yeah i'll just skip buying recordings by the likes
of Miles Davis or The Rolling Stones or Dylan or Klemperer or Boult etc
and demand that they do "higher quality mixes" whatever that may mean
to each artist even the dead ones and just not buy all that great
music. That makes a lot more sense than investigating the various
masterings of those great recordings to find the best sounding ones
regardless of the philosophy or technology used to master them. What is
the point of high end audio if it isn't to play the music we love with
the best sound possible for that music?
| Quote: | the reasonable things are going to work on this problem because it's an art
form and artists don't like being told they suck.
|
Not realy sure what you are trying to say here.
| Quote: |
Certainly in the decisions one makes for personal use. production is a
different matter.
My ssytem is to try for the best performance first and hope that it was
captured by someone who was good at it. After a while you get to know
who
does what the best.
I would agree that one does get a feel for the skills of different
recording and mastering engineers.
Sometimes you find certain labels that score well on both, but they tend
to
be a bit less mainstream and not usually the bigger record companies IME.
Like RCA, EMI, and Decca for classical? Ooops they are pretty
mainstream. Maybe Riverside, or Bluenote for Jazz? ooops again.
Then again I had a moment the other day listening to a Paul Simon album
where the opening was just Simon and accoustic guitar. It was one of
those
moments where you have your eyes closed and have to open them to prove
that
he isn't in the room with you playing. After that I said let me play
this
sample I have of all accoustic guitar music and see if I can recreate
that
kind of moment.
The sampler was a collection of different artists, some quite talented
and
all on indy labels. Not one even came close to the feeling of a person
playing live in the room.
Single instruments are supposed to be better than a whole band or
orchestra
for evaluation, so you'd think at least one or two cuts could have
created
another of those moments.
Why would a single instrument be better for evaluation than an
orchestra? Orchestral recordings are amoung the most demanding of
playback eqipment. I consider it a must to have at least one orchestral
recording on my list of recordings for evaluation of equipment
|
Scott. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 2:57 am Post subject:
Re: Don't we all rely on the "ears" of the recording enginee |
|
|
"BEAR" <bearlabs@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:dl61n602m9e@news2.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | Fred wrote:
Hi all,
I started following some threads about the quality of reproduction and
small differences wirng amplification etc. can make, and I started
thinking about it and something occured to me that hasn't really been
discussed.
No recording is an exact reproduction of the live performance, there are
too many steps. How can we expect a system to reproduce live sound,
unless it compensates for the changes due to, and made in, the recording
process (and how can we expect that).
Now I am a bit ingnorant of all the subtleties of what a recording
engineer does, but it leads me to my point; if the recording is adjusted
so it is the closest to live on the studio equipment, shouldn't we all
have studio equipment if we are looking for the closest to live sound?
You've got two ideas intermixed and intertwined that need to be separate.
First: "live sound" is *not* the goal for close to 99% of all commercial
recordings made, so let's put that idea aside for another day. It's a
premise and assumption that is not accurate.
Second: "Studio equipment" is not a constant. There is no "standard". Ergo
there is no way to have such a thing per se.
Arer you saying that studios make no effort to have equipment that adds |
nothing audible to the recording that is not there by design?
| Quote: | However, IF one knew where and when a specific recording was made, it
would be possible to replicate the playback gear to a fair extent.
|
Aside from speakers and the room, there's nothing else that would likely
make any difference.
Would
| Quote: | that be good? Possibly. Possibly not.
The problem with this approach is multiple - the most obvious is that your
room and the control room are acoustically quite different. And, should
you duplicate a given control room, that room is different than all other
control rooms... :- )
However, should you want to experiment with this idea, you'll need two
pieces of gear:
Altec 604s in a big enclosure (maybe a "Big Red" implementation) or a
UREI... probably backed with both a tube amp and a 70s solid state amp...
(external EQ likely required...)
Odd that in the studios I've visited in Hollywood, A&M, Capitol, Boulevard |
Sound, and a couple smaller ones that I can't remember the name of, I never
say any of the above or that listed below.
| Quote: | A set of vintage 60s or 50s 15" Tannoys set up in a typical British studio
monitor box, backed with a tube amp.
This will get you most of the way toward almost every recording made prior
to 1975 in the USA and almost every British or European recording of the
same era and vintage... and quite a few after that as well.
|
Yet none of it appeared in the studios I visited in 1972-1974 or later in
the 90's.
I'm not syaing I saw every inch of these studios, but I did get to see some
people listening to mixes on some big horn systems, but they were JBL's and
the only Tannoy speakers I saw were much smaller near field monitors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BEAR
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Don't we all rely on the "ears" of the recording enginee |
|
|
nyob123@peoplepc.com wrote:
| Quote: | "BEAR" <bearlabs@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:dl61n602m9e@news2.newsguy.com...
Fred wrote:
Hi all,
I started following some threads about the quality of reproduction and
small differences wirng amplification etc. can make, and I started
thinking about it and something occured to me that hasn't really been
discussed.
No recording is an exact reproduction of the live performance, there are
too many steps. How can we expect a system to reproduce live sound,
unless it compensates for the changes due to, and made in, the recording
process (and how can we expect that).
Now I am a bit ingnorant of all the subtleties of what a recording
engineer does, but it leads me to my point; if the recording is adjusted
so it is the closest to live on the studio equipment, shouldn't we all
have studio equipment if we are looking for the closest to live sound?
You've got two ideas intermixed and intertwined that need to be separate.
First: "live sound" is *not* the goal for close to 99% of all commercial
recordings made, so let's put that idea aside for another day. It's a
premise and assumption that is not accurate.
Second: "Studio equipment" is not a constant. There is no "standard". Ergo
there is no way to have such a thing per se.
Arer you saying that studios make no effort to have equipment that adds
nothing audible to the recording that is not there by design?
|
Do you infer that I said that?
I don't seem to recall addressing that issue in my text.
BUT, since you bring it up... actually professional studios typically
make an effort to use the equipment that is (in no particular ranking)
A) gear that will attract artists because the artists percieve it as
good; B) gear that they perceive is necessary to produce a product that
is comensurate with their client(s) demands (artists, producers and
record companies).
In practical terms MANY if not a vast majority of studios do not strive
as much for a completely neutral sound as much as they strive for a
"characteristic" sound that is "their sound." That is why certain
studios (one reason, anyhow) attract top rung performers there to record.
Certainly, Producers deliberately "add" their own outboard gear and use
"techniques" to "get their sound." Examples abound.
The goal is rarely to add nothing audible to the recording. Very rarely.
In practice they *add* a whole lot.
| Quote: |
However, IF one knew where and when a specific recording was made, it
would be possible to replicate the playback gear to a fair extent.
Aside from speakers and the room, there's nothing else that would likely
make any difference.
|
In your opinion.
| Quote: |
Would
that be good? Possibly. Possibly not.
The problem with this approach is multiple - the most obvious is that your
room and the control room are acoustically quite different. And, should
you duplicate a given control room, that room is different than all other
control rooms... :- )
However, should you want to experiment with this idea, you'll need two
pieces of gear:
Altec 604s in a big enclosure (maybe a "Big Red" implementation) or a
UREI... probably backed with both a tube amp and a 70s solid state amp...
(external EQ likely required...)
Odd that in the studios I've visited in Hollywood, A&M, Capitol, Boulevard
Sound, and a couple smaller ones that I can't remember the name of, I never
say any of the above or that listed below.
|
What years?
What is in vogue in Hollywood?
I am quite sure of what was most popular in the time frame I mentioned.
Pray tell what did you find there??
| Quote: |
A set of vintage 60s or 50s 15" Tannoys set up in a typical British studio
monitor box, backed with a tube amp.
This will get you most of the way toward almost every recording made prior
to 1975 in the USA and almost every British or European recording of the
same era and vintage... and quite a few after that as well.
Yet none of it appeared in the studios I visited in 1972-1974 or later in
the 90's.
I'm not syaing I saw every inch of these studios, but I did get to see some
people listening to mixes on some big horn systems, but they were JBL's and
the only Tannoy speakers I saw were much smaller near field monitors.
|
Let's see... JBL and Westlake are what? Ahhh... "West Coast"
companies... so I am not surprised that there was JBL gear being used...
so what??
I stand by what I said about those two/three speakers *covering fully* a
vast majority of all recordings made in the period from 1950 to ~1975...
Which means zip as far as what the main thrust of what I said was.
Is your purpose to probe in order to get a response?
Why not state facts about what you saw or think?
Why not state your opinion clearly instead?
_-_-bear
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in