| Author |
Message |
Fred
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Don't we all rely on the "ears" of the recording engineers |
|
|
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?
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 |
|
 |
Steven Sullivan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:44 pm Post subject:
Re: Don't we all rely on the "ears" of the recording enginee |
|
|
Fred <fablaine@uwaterloo.ca> 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?
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.
|
It would require not just the same loudspeakers (the most important
component to reproduce if this was your goal), but to also use the same
listening configuration: room acoustics and listening position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:45 pm 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.
|
Exactly. Even if we grant the objectivists their notion that CD players
and amplifiers mostly sound alike (which is "supported" only by the
most narrow of evidence) there are still microphones, microphone
positions, and speakers.
So whoever chooses these things is choosing according to their
experience of live sound. They are choosing to make clear those
patterns in the original sound which are most important to them.
(Leaving aside for the moment someone who chooses only what "sounds
good" without regard for the intentions of the musicians.) Which has
two consequences:
- the "recording engineer"/"musician" specialization model breaks down
- This talk of "meaningful comparisons only in quick-switched level
matched tests" breaks down unless you want to suggest that the only
accurate recordings are made by those engineers who auditioned every
possible choice of mic/position/speaker via quick-switched level
matched tests, and also a/b 'd with the live sound via quick switching.
(Apparently this involves running very very fast between the control
room and the auditorium.)
| Quote: | 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?
|
We certainly want the best equipment. I would say you should
(1) find some recordings that capture those patterns you care about
(2) find some playback equipment that accurately reproduces those
patterns
For me, this might be (1) Sheffield Lab recordings on analog, (2) tube
amplifiers and Spendor speakers.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Per Stromgren
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: Don't we all rely on the "ears" of the recording enginee |
|
|
On 10 Nov 2005 06:44:24 GMT, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Fred <fablaine@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
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.
It would require not just the same loudspeakers (the most important
component to reproduce if this was your goal), but to also use the same
listening configuration: room acoustics and listening position.
|
Yes. In fact that must be what the engineers/producers wanted us to
hear, wouldn't it? Ergo, try to replicate the studio acoustics and
speakers in order to get maximum fidelity. It is that easy! But, the
problem is that all studios are different...
Per. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark D
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: Don't we all rely on the "ears" of the recording enginee |
|
|
I myself believe that is mostly true.
While I've participated in a few topics here already, the largest
shortcoming I've noticed with most systems, including mega-buck stuff in
the 10's of $1000's, is the lack they have to properly duplicate
authoritative, and realisitic-believeable Bass Reproduction.
Being, a drummer, and a bass player, I certainly hear a huge difference
between the ability of my system, and countless others to properly
duplicate the tight clean "real" sound of my Eden World Tour 800 Bass
Amp, with 410XLT, and 115T Cabinets.
Even with subwoofers, most systems I've heard seem to lack good clean
midbass punch. Sure they go low for stuff like Organs, but to reproduce
Rock, Funk, and the like, the vast majority of home speakers-subwoofers
just don't cut it.
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.
A personal example was going once to an Emerson, Lake, and Palmer
Concert many years ago, with ELP using 2 million bucks worth of JBL
Monitors stacked to the ceilings of the old Chicago Amphitheater in full
4-channel sound, then coming home right after, and listening to my
McIntosh/JBL system, and it sounded like I was listening to a tiny
transistor radio by comparison.
Sure, if I had my way to achieve sonic nirvana, perhaps one way I'd go,
is I'd have a pair, or two of some vintage 4300 Series JBL Monitors, and
the Amps to drive them. Maybe a pair of vintage Mac MC-2500's, or
MC-2600's, and a gymnasium sized listening room.
The one big downside to trying to achieve this "nirvana", and
duplicating true sonic Db levels, and dynamics, would be a very severe
case of hearing loss in very short order! Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven Sullivan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: Don't we all rely on the "ears" of the recording enginee |
|
|
michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
| 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.
Exactly. Even if we grant the objectivists their notion that CD players
and amplifiers mostly sound alike (which is "supported" only by the
most narrow of evidence) there are still microphones, microphone
positions, and speakers.
|
Of course -- and objectivists agree that speakers (the one factor
in that list that home audio hobbyists have control over) mostly
DON"T sound alike, and that speaker positioning has large
effects on sound.
| Quote: | So whoever chooses these things is choosing according to their
experience of live sound. They are choosing to make clear those
patterns in the original sound which are most important to them.
(Leaving aside for the moment someone who chooses only what "sounds
good" without regard for the intentions of the musicians.)
|
You can't leave that aside. That's pretty much what EVERY home
audio hobbyists does. Because you can't know the intentions
of the musicians.
| Quote: | Which has
two consequences:
- the "recording engineer"/"musician" specialization model breaks down
|
Hardly. A recording engineer may be a musician, and vice versa.
But the listening skills they bring to their arts, while
overlapping, are not 100% congruent.
| Quote: | - This talk of "meaningful comparisons only in quick-switched level
matched tests" breaks down unless you want to suggest that the only
accurate recordings are made by those engineers who auditioned every
possible choice of mic/position/speaker via quick-switched level
matched tests, and also a/b 'd with the live sound via quick switching.
(Apparently this involves running very very fast between the control
room and the auditorium.)
|
Again, your argument founders on the shoals of 'small' differences
versus GROSS differences. While blind tests will control for
preference biases in the latter case, they aren't necessary for
establishing difference.
--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: Don't we all rely on the "ears" of the recording enginee |
|
|
Basically, the answer to your question is 'no'.
We don't need to duplicate recording gear, because it's very expensive
and not necessarily designed for use in the home, with the exception of
some speakers which were indeed designed to be used either as monitors
or home speakers (JBL L100/4310, Yamaha NS-1000 and NS-1000M), Rogers
Studiio 1, some B+W models, etc. Monitors are not necessarily of higher
quality than those designed for the home.
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?
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:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:43 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.
|
The steps certainly are an issue. but another deeper isue that seems to
be largely ignored is that a recording in and of itself ha no sound. we
can only talk abou the sound of a recording in the context of a
playback system. So you are stuck not only with the inherent
limitations of given format be it stereo or 5.1 you are always making
judgements about reocrdings with other variables involed.
| Quote: | 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).
|
A good question. I don't think one can easily compensate for vaiances
in recording techniques or euipment used in recording. OTOH it seems
quite possible to compensate for inherent limitations in a given format
such as stereo that will be mostly universally applicable.
| Quote: |
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 rally that
good.
| 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.
| 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.
| Quote: | Everything else comes down to personal taste.
|
Certainly in the decisions one makes for personal use. production is a
different matter.
Scott |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Norman M. Schwartz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: Don't we all rely on the "ears" of the recording enginee |
|
|
"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dkuq8808el@news2.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | Fred <fablaine@uwaterloo.ca> 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?
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.
It would require not just the same loudspeakers (the most important
component to reproduce if this was your goal), but to also use the same
listening configuration: room acoustics and listening position.
|
Unless the goal is making the recording appealing to potential customers
listening using loudspeakers, the simple solution to that problem is one or
two words, (accurate) headphones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry Lavo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Don't we all rely on the "ears" of the recording enginee |
|
|
"Per Stromgren" <per.stromgren@telia.com> wrote in message
news:dl14dj0vl5@news1.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | On 10 Nov 2005 06:44:24 GMT, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:
Fred <fablaine@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
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.
It would require not just the same loudspeakers (the most important
component to reproduce if this was your goal), but to also use the same
listening configuration: room acoustics and listening position.
Yes. In fact that must be what the engineers/producers wanted us to
hear, wouldn't it? Ergo, try to replicate the studio acoustics and
speakers in order to get maximum fidelity. It is that easy! But, the
problem is that all studios are different...
|
True, but at least in the case of surround, most try to approximate at least
the recommended ITU configuration. Levels are another matter, but that is
equipment-independent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
---MIKE---
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Don't we all rely on the "ears" of the recording enginee |
|
|
Recording engineers ARE the problem. Some of the 50 year old RCA Living
Stereo CDs sound better than many modern recordings. For example, the
new Rattle Beethoven symphony set sounds lousy to me while some of the
Reiner Chicago recordings of the 50s sound very good (Bartok Concerto
for orchestra for example). The control room jockeys do more to screw
up a recording than any amplifier or cable at home can do. To be
honest, there are some good modern recordings. An example is the Renee
Fleming CD of Handel arias.
---MIKE---
| Quote: | In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580') |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven Sullivan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Don't we all rely on the "ears" of the recording enginee |
|
|
Norman M. Schwartz <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dkuq8808el@news2.newsguy.com...
Fred <fablaine@uwaterloo.ca> 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?
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.
It would require not just the same loudspeakers (the most important
component to reproduce if this was your goal), but to also use the same
listening configuration: room acoustics and listening position.
Unless the goal is making the recording appealing to potential customers
listening using loudspeakers, the simple solution to that problem is one or
two words, (accurate) headphones.
|
But as Ethan Winer notes in his article on Acoustic Treatment
"Some people mix using headphones in an attempt to avoid the effects of
their room. The problem with headphones is that everything sounds too
clear and present, making it difficult to find the ideal volume for some
tracks. When listening through headphones, a lead vocal or solo instrument
can be heard very clearly, even if it is quiet, so you'll tend to make it
lower in the mix than it should be. Likewise, it's difficult to assess the
amount of reverb and echo being added electronically when using
headphones."
http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html
--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: Don't we all rely on the "ears" of the recording enginee |
|
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
| Quote: | michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
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.
Exactly. Even if we grant the objectivists their notion that CD players
and amplifiers mostly sound alike (which is "supported" only by the
most narrow of evidence) there are still microphones, microphone
positions, and speakers.
Of course -- and objectivists agree that speakers (the one factor
in that list that home audio hobbyists have control over) mostly
DON"T sound alike, and that speaker positioning has large
effects on sound.
So whoever chooses these things is choosing according to their
experience of live sound. They are choosing to make clear those
patterns in the original sound which are most important to them.
(Leaving aside for the moment someone who chooses only what "sounds
good" without regard for the intentions of the musicians.)
You can't leave that aside. That's pretty much what EVERY home
audio hobbyists does. Because you can't know the intentions
of the musicians.
|
I'm talking about the recording engineer. See below...
| Quote: |
Which has
two consequences:
- the "recording engineer"/"musician" specialization model breaks down
Hardly. A recording engineer may be a musician, and vice versa.
But the listening skills they bring to their arts, while
overlapping, are not 100% congruent.
|
Okay, we see the statement here frequently that "the musician's job is
make music; the recording engineer's job is capture that music with
minimal change." This clearly refers to a type of specialization, a
"specialization model" as it were. Also, when a musician such as Jenn
asserts her skill at evaluating audio reproduction, we get the reply
"No, you are trained at evaluating musical *performances*, not
*reproduction*."
Very clearly, we have a specialization model.
Did you see my post where I made an analogy to a dish prepared by two
chefs: A prepares the meat, and B prepares the sauce? The
specialization model doesn't work in this case, because A and B could
complement each other, outright clash with each other, or anything
in-between. You could end up with something they both like, neither
likes. B could end up undoing everything A does. The specialization
model isn't appropriate.
Same with musicians/engineers.
Ideally the recording engineer would understand the intentions of the
musicians.
Listening to sound *as sound* is not the best way to approach that.
| Quote: |
- This talk of "meaningful comparisons only in quick-switched level
matched tests" breaks down unless you want to suggest that the only
accurate recordings are made by those engineers who auditioned every
possible choice of mic/position/speaker via quick-switched level
matched tests, and also a/b 'd with the live sound via quick switching.
(Apparently this involves running very very fast between the control
room and the auditorium.)
Again, your argument founders on the shoals of 'small' differences
versus GROSS differences. While blind tests will control for
preference biases in the latter case, they aren't necessary for
establishing difference.
|
We're not trying to establish differences. There are all sorts of
effects invoked by objectivists here that will apply just the same.
Objectivists invoke: short audio memory, bias of all sorts that would
lead one to attribute properties to the sound that aren't there,
level-based effects (louder sounding better).
Hence, the (1) quick-switching (2) level matched (3) blind test.
Objectivists also claim that the engineer's job is to reproduce the
sound accurately. Never seeming to realize that all the former effects,
if they truly dominate non-controlled listening, will make the latter
impossible.
Recording engineers, in evaluating the realism of recorded sound, (1)
are not able to quick-switch, (2) can't avoid knowing the identity of
each sound source, (3) aren't matching levels.
Of course, small changes in microphone position and some choices of
microphone/speakers WILL be very small differences.
So make up your minds, guys! If musicians aren't able to judge the
accuracy of reproduced sound in a meaningful way, certainly no one else
is. No one else is in a fundamentally better position to judge the
accuracy of recorded sound. Some engineers may be in an equal position.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 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:dl148s0ve5@news1.newsguy.com...
| Quote: |
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? |
| 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?
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.
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. They will often insist that certain boards be used or certain
speakers becuase for whatever reason that's what they like.
| 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. 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.
| 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.
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.
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.
Sigh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 12:18 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: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.
| 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.
| 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.
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.
| 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?
| 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.
| Quote: | 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. But why opt for this choice without considering alternatives?
Again, that is often not the best choice at all.
| 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.
| Quote: | 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.
| Quote: | 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in