Mallette's Cat on Stereo

[russ69]

I'm a 2 channel guy for one simple reason, two good channels sound better than 4 lesser ones. I guess if I felt my 2 channel rig was as good as it could get, then I might explore more channels. I think some Avantguard Trios with Bass Horns might get me closer but my budget would be shot by then........

Thanx, Russ

[Mallette]

I'm a 2 channel guy for one simple reason, two good channels sound better than 4 lesser ones. I guess if I felt my 2 channel rig was as good as it could get, then I might explore more channels. I think some Avantguard Trios with Bass Horns might get me closer but my budget would be shot by then........

Thanx, Russ

In your case, the logical move would be to two more speakers of whatever you are running now and a Hafler (DynaQuad). You would then be an "augmented" 2 channel guy, but still a 2 channel guy.

Dave

PS - One of my favorite systems is one I put together for good friends over 30 years ago. Dynaco A5's front and A25's rear with DynaQuad. Still one of the sweetest, clean, natural systems I've ever heard.

[russ69]

Sorry Dave, quad was DOA and for good reason. These might be my next logical choice but then again I might have to sell the house!: http://www.triangle-fr.com/english/magellan-grand-concert.php

Thanx, Russ

[Mallette]

Lord, I am amazed at how poorly I write after over 40 years of practice. No wonder I'm not rich.

If you are satisfied that we'll never attain anything that resembles high fidelity, fine. For me, I'll always be in pursuit of perfect reproduction of acoustic space/time events and that is not nor will ever be possible with two point sources.

If that is clear, comprehensible, and you are good with it, I've improved.

Dave

[dtel]

Lord, I am amazed at how poorly I write after over 40 years of practice. No wonder I'm not rich.

If you are satisfied that we'll never attain anything that resembles high fidelity, fine. For me, I'll always be in pursuit of perfect reproduction of acoustic space/time events and that is not nor will ever be possible with two point sources.

If that is clear, comprehensible, and you are good with it, I've improved.

Dave

We don't care how you write, we are only interested in how you record ! [:$]

[JJkizak]

Violins on the left? Why is that? I suppose because they did that from day 1. Gene Krupa used to have the drums in front. But what really amazes me is if your a violinist in a group of 10 violinists how do you keep hitting the right notes with all that stuff going on around you?

JJK

[Mallette]

Violins on the left? Why is that? I suppose because they did that from day 1. Gene Krupa used to have the drums in front. But what really amazes me is if your a violinist in a group of 10 violinists how do you keep hitting the right notes with all that stuff going on around you?

JJK

Day 1 is, indeed part of it. However, there are artistic considerations. The composers assume this orientation so in rearranging the orchestra you are making changes to the composers assumptions.

I've reversed left and right on more than one occasion and notice immediately when things are not where my ears expect them to be.

I suppose my question to the Maestro is "Why?" I've not been able to come up with any answers other than "Just to be different..." which I don't much care for. However, I hope to hear an explanation. I'm not a Maestro and don't play one on TV. Maybe he has a reason...or maybe he's just disoriented.

Dave

[pauln]

I don't know the reason, but I suspect is has to with the offset geometry of a playing seated violinist - they hold the violin off their left shoulder and they site down the fingerboard to their sheet music, and hopefully are noticing the motions of the conductor off to their right at about a 15 degree angle. I'm betting the conductor puts them on the right so their seating geometry and playing position puts the conductor in line of site straight down the fingerboard above the sheet music.

Perhaps this direct line of sight is better than depending on peripheral vision when performing works that are technically difficult as are many post common practice period works...?

[jt1stcav]

I sneer at nothing, except bad music, poorly performed, and badly engineered. I am not into mono, stereo, or surround, I am into the recreation of acoustic space-time events as accurately as possible.

This is a wonderful quote, Dave, and I totally agree with this assessment.

[Mallette]

Good to hear from you, Jim! Seems like it's been a while...

Sense this is

A. My thread

B. it's sinking into the sunset

I want to tell you about something I have going. You may remember my review of George Ellis Mims "Instruments of thy Praise" CD set. Well, George and I have become friends and he's about to take over the program of a very wealthy Mobile, AL parish. He'll be commuting, sort of.

Anyway, he's already said he's going to completely rework the organ. My take on it is that it's pretty decent already, but it's almost evenly split front and rear divisions and he doesn't like it.

So, I proposed that he work up a CD program to record on it as it is. Knowing George, it will be very fine. Then, when he has it rebuilt, we'll do precisely the same program with precisely the same mike plan and equipment chain.

I don't know if it will be a first, but I've not heard of such a thing before. Should be fun!

Anyway, looks like I'm gonna be George's recording groupie for this gig as his NPR engineer doesn't travel and can't meet my rates (free).

Dave

[Marvel]

There are some musicians and eng that actually make the effort to produce a quality recorded album but they are a minority

I don't know any musicians or engineers who start their day saying "Let's make a crappy album." They end up dealing with time/buget constraints, all the vagaries of band musician realtionships and abilities. Also, they are submerged in all the atmosphere and equipment theyhave grown to love and hate.

[Mallette]

Bruce, I can't know the people or constraints you are referring to, but from my standpoint I'm not willing to give a pass on the basis you are.

How is it that I can have 20 minutes to set up 5k worth of equipment and get a recording that is considered at least the equal of the $tereophile crew with unlimited time and budget?

My belief is that they may have degrees in engineering from MIT but they have to be deaf as a post to actually try to sell some of this crap.

Dave

[Marvel]

The Stereophile crew is another matter entirely.

I am thinking more of the regular working studio engineers, techs and musicians. Most aren't trying to recreate a natural space, though. They are just creating their own sound field and you are stuck with it.

Bruce

[Mallette]

The Stereophile crew is another matter entirely.

I am thinking more of the regular working studio engineers, techs and musicians. Most aren't trying to recreate a natural space, though. They are just creating their own sound field and you are stuck with it.

Bruce

I guess I just don't understand it. I've demonstrated to at least my own satisfaction that getting a good recording isn't rocket science. Some of the things I've heard from major producers are totally inexplicable. You'd have to go out of your way to produce crap that bad.

No matter what you are trying to create or recreate, you gotta be deaf to think this stuff is adequate even for Joe and Jill Sixpack. I mean it almost appears there is a conspiracy to kill the industry it's so bad.

Dave

[thebes]

Nonsense and poppycock. I've had enough of this drivel. It's the music. It's always the music. It could be recorded upside down in a bathtub for all I care, if the energy, the magic, the ju-ju is there, then the rest is just quibbling.

Some of the worst recorded music on this planet is still some of the best. Think about some of the early British Invasion stuff, early Elvis, all those Motown doowops. Hell, think about all those delta blues guys recorded by Willie Lomax using some system stuck in the trunk of his car.

It's a conspiracy I tell ya. It's been fomented by those twin elites, the jazz affaciondoes and the classical crowd. Smarmy fancy-pants richie-riches looking down their aristocratic, elitist noses at the common clay who are rutting and strutting to "popular tunes" after collecting their weekly pay stub.

The magic is in the musicians. Recording quality can attract or detract but it will never smother genius.

Yumpin, yimminie, even if you had the perfect recording (Thebes in the shower doing his world famous rendition of "The Duke of Earl"), what would you play it on? !950's transistor radio, yucky Ipod, also ran Frasiers or maybe a set of Cornwalls. LP, CD, MP3? Tubes, SS, Digital?

Bah! I've had enough. I think I'll go grumble somewhere else.

Grumpy Thebes

[Mallette]

Nonsense and poppycock. I've had enough of this drivel. It's the music. It's always the music. It could be recorded upside down in a bathtub for all I care, if the energy, the magic, the ju-ju is there, then the rest is just quibbling.

Some of the worst recorded music on this planet is still some of the best. Think about some of the early British Invasion stuff, early Elvis, all those Motown doowops. Hell, think about all those delta blues guys recorded by Willie Lomax using some system stuck in the trunk of his car.

It's a conspiracy I tell ya. It's been fomented by those twin elites, the jazz affaciondoes and the classical crowd. Smarmy fancy-pants richie-riches looking down their aristocratic, elitist noses at the common clay who are rutting and strutting to "popular tunes" after collecting their weekly pay stub.

The magic is in the musicians. Recording quality can attract or detract but it will never smother genius.

Yumpin, yimminie, even if you had the perfect recording (Thebes in the shower doing his world famous rendition of "The Duke of Earl"), what would you play it on? !950's transistor radio, yucky Ipod, also ran Frasiers or maybe a set of Cornwalls. LP, CD, MP3? Tubes, SS, Digital?

Bah! I've had enough. I think I'll go grumble somewhere else.

Grumpy Thebes

GT, whilst your comments are tongue-in-err, something, I happen to fully agree. The better music reviewers (largely, the dead ones) use performance, recording, pressing judged separately. I don't recall a scale for the composition, but the main three to me are the music, the performance, and the engineering.

For instance, I have a fragment of a recording done with an awful microphone from an absurd distance recorded at low level on a single track of a quarter track machine made about 1966 of my high school band playing "Dixie," which was our fight song. Performance A+, composition, A+, engineering Z-, policital correctness, off the charts.

It brings me to tears of joy and nostalgia when I hear it.

However, there is no excuse of any kind for anything made for public release to have any significant engineering issues these days except incompetence. It doesn't even save money, which makes in even more incomprehensible.

And you can tell the twins I said so. I've moved since their last Southern incursion and I ain't talking...

Dave

[Mallette]

Nonsense and poppycock. I've had enough of this drivel. It's the music. It's always the music. It could be recorded upside down in a bathtub for all I care, if the energy, the magic, the ju-ju is there, then the rest is just quibbling.

Some of the worst recorded music on this planet is still some of the best. Think about some of the early British Invasion stuff, early Elvis, all those Motown doowops. Hell, think about all those delta blues guys recorded by Willie Lomax using some system stuck in the trunk of his car.

It's a conspiracy I tell ya. It's been fomented by those twin elites, the jazz affaciondoes and the classical crowd. Smarmy fancy-pants richie-riches looking down their aristocratic, elitist noses at the common clay who are rutting and strutting to "popular tunes" after collecting their weekly pay stub.

The magic is in the musicians. Recording quality can attract or detract but it will never smother genius.

Yumpin, yimminie, even if you had the perfect recording (Thebes in the shower doing his world famous rendition of "The Duke of Earl"), what would you play it on? !950's transistor radio, yucky Ipod, also ran Frasiers or maybe a set of Cornwalls. LP, CD, MP3? Tubes, SS, Digital?

Bah! I've had enough. I think I'll go grumble somewhere else.

Grumpy Thebes

GT, whilst your comments are tongue-in-err, something, I happen to fully agree. The better music reviewers (largely, the dead ones) use performance, recording, pressing judged separately. I don't recall a scale for the composition, but the main three to me are the music, the performance, and the engineering. Bad pressings can be fixed if the engineering was correct at the source.

For instance, I have a fragment of a recording done with an awful microphone from an absurd distance recorded at low level on a single track of a quarter track machine made about 1966 of my high school band playing "Dixie," which was our fight song. Performance A+, composition, A+, engineering Z-, policital correctness, off the charts.

It brings me to tears of joy and nostalgia when I hear it.

However, there is no excuse of any kind for anything made for public release to have any significant engineering issues these days except incompetence. It doesn't even save money, which makes in even more incomprehensible.

And you can tell the twins I said so. I've moved since their last Southern incursion and I ain't talking...

Dave

PS - A considerable number of surround recordings have been released. The "give a monkey enough time, paint, and paper and he'll eventually turn out a masterpiece" seems to apply here, except I think the monkeys track record is better. I don't understand it...

[seti]

I really appreciate good recordings when I get them. The best recorded albums now are coming from some Indie labels and small studios that actually care. Lately I've been listening to lots of Caribbean and Balinese music from 1914 to the1960s. The prewar Calypso or Mento music is amazing but the quality varies greatly. The quality is from very good to poor. The musicians and singers carisma just seem to shine through which is something no recording studio can capture or easily reproduce. The defects in the recordings now seem like part of the atmosphere to me. The music is too much of a treasure for me to discard because of quality. Also most of this music never made it from 78 to LP or even CD.

Elvis Costello produced The Specials first album in 1979. Costello attempted to recreate the "defect" quality and atmosphere in the early ska recordings. This recording style bothered me for a while. He got very close to his goal and the album is charming. It took me years to figure out what Costello was trying to capture and now I appreciate it very much.

[Hifi jim]

Some of the worst recorded music on this planet is still some of the best. Think about some of the early British Invasion stuff, early Elvis, all those Motown doowops.

What's wrong with Elvis? I happen to like most of his recordings and the sense of atmosphere and space they recreate. Many of the recordings of the fifties and sixties excel in this area because they are made following simple audio engineering basics as Dave has been explaining. I'll admit, many producers from that era are overly fond of reverb, much the way todays producers overuse compression. Early Beetles and Elvis recordings are great at placing live musicians in my room. The Phil Spector "Wall of Sound", is something altogether different and seems to have progressed to where it is today... an attempt to make music sound good on lesser equipment.

[Mallette]

Some of the worst recorded music on this planet is still some of the best. Think about some of the early British Invasion stuff, early Elvis, all those Motown doowops.

What's wrong with Elvis? I happen to like most of his recordings and the sense of atmosphere and space they recreate. Many of the recordings of the fifties and sixties excel in this area because they are made following simple audio engineering basics as Dave has been explaining. I'll admit, many producers from that era are overly fond of reverb, much the way todays producers overuse compression. Early Beetles and Elvis recordings are great at placing live musicians in my room. The Phil Spector "Wall of Sound", is something altogether different and seems to have progressed to where it is today... an attempt to make music sound good on lesser equipment.

Good point about early Elvis and Beatles, Jim. I can't say there isn't some poor work as I've not heard originals of all of them, but I have one of his Sun 78's that is extraordinary. My opinion is that "Good Rockin' Tonight" was made with the band clustered around a single mic, probably an RCA 77 or 44, with a bit of slapback.

It's very, very real with virtual presence.

I also have a reel to reel issue of "Meet the Beetles" and fully agree here as well. Extraordinary closeness to the space/time event and no sense of "veil" whatsoever. This goes to at least "Revolver" of which I have a metal, DBX encoded cassette made from a reel to reel issue that had never been played. While you can tell the evolution towards complexity, that sense of presence is very startling on that album.

Dave