Stereophile article about the demise of high end audio

[minermark]

Some interesting parallels to other potentially costly acquisitions:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/how-revive-high-end-audio

Don't look at me, im just getting ready/geared up to trouble shoot my KT88 amp. I love tubes, always will.

[Mallette]

We went over this one. I had considerable traffic to my own blog entry on the same subject from the Stereophile web site. Still getting a trickle from Audioholics on that subject as well.

Dave

[etc6849]

Most young folks have never heard what a real system can sound like. Plus, most of what we hear are albums with no dynamic range. Not that the individual is the only one at fault... Companies could offer better products (e.g. bigger speakers, better quality recordings, etc) in places like Best Buy where folks can hear them, but there's probably business reasons on why they don't.

How is anyone ever going to buy a good sounding product when there's not even an option to compare to when purchasing (unless you live in a large city like Chicago)? In fact, there are no high end audio shops where I live now. However, the one's I've been to sell similar little towers to what Best Buy offers, wanting you to believe they can sound as good as a real speaker that's much larger and horn loaded (of course). Not that young folks can afford to drop $10k on a good multichannel system, have a spare room, etc... They can't afford it unless they have a great job, but most of us younger folk don't.

I really don't think there's a market for HD audio either, but I hope I'm wrong. With the increased internet bandwidth we have now, maybe things will change. However, the failure of DVD-A and SACD has shown there's no market for it in the past. Plus a lot of the "HD" audio tracks you can download aren't even true HD audio, but are remastered from analog tape which cannot compete with 96khz/24bit audio. No wonder why folks still say vinyl sounds better than digital formats. Vinyl really does sound better, but only because of loudness wars and bad audio engineering practices.

There is hope thanks to the internet. I'm young, but got interested in the heritage line from the forums (plus craigslist helped too). I now study a lot before I buy an album too using sites like this: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ I think a lot of industry folks are realizing the loudness war has gone too far. It's bad when I have to go to a used CD store to find a copy of a CD, just because the remastered (e.g. butchered) version at Best Buy sounds like crap. I have to believe there's at least a few million other folks who have the same issue. As for folks buying little speakers that have zero resale value, I feel bad for them. I really do.

[DrWho]

2. Make every new audio engineer learn to record surround sound using only 4 microphones direct to disc with NO MIXER. On "2," I do NOT mean that mixed productions are bad or show go away, but until one knows how to capture an acoustic space/time event as it happens, one cannot be expected to create one artificially.

You would have to convince people as to how that would increase profits....

Music is rarely art in America - it's usually a utility.

Interesting thought, Mike. I know of hardly anyone I've ever been exposed to in the business that gave much thought to profits. That's what the music biz does. It doesn't cost anymore...in fact IMHO a lot LESS...to make a high fidelity recording than a mess of sound coming from all directions. Basic HF surround is just 2 more mikes and two more channels than a stereo recording. Not really significant cost.

Dave

My point was that you'll sell less albums with that production method.....nothing to do with the cost of creating the album.

Most people don't like the kind of sound you get with your favorite mic technique.

[Mallette]

Most people don't like the kind of sound you get with your favorite mic technique

The few I've demo'd it for all liked it. I've never heard of a release using it...are there any?

Hard to imagine how anyone not liking the sound of the front end of a hall wouldn't also enjoy even more hearing the rest of it...

Dave

[DrWho]

Most people don't like the kind of sound you get with your favorite mic technique

The few I've demo'd it for all liked it. I've never heard of a release using it...are there any?

Hard to imagine how anyone not liking the sound of the front end of a hall wouldn't also enjoy even more hearing the rest of it...

Dave

There is no doubt "a few" that share your same tastes. It certainly isn't a universally held belief.

I personally am not in the business of documentation. I very much prefer art.

[Mallette]

There is no doubt "a few" that share your same tastes. It certainly isn't a universally held belief

I guess I am suggesting that only a few have ever heard a really realistic recording. Seems certain to me that anyone really into the concept of "high fidelity" would embrace it if it were accurate and easy. It's easy to record, but no format has ever been developed to make it easy to play back. Wish I had skills in that area of programming. I just don't think it would be that hard to develop a "wrapper" to containerize 4 discrete channels into a package and then a codec for a player to play them back.

Not sure what you mean by "preferring art." The music is art. The recording engineer's job is to deliver it to the listener as close to the original as possible (we are talking ACOUSTIC here). At the moment, we don't have a format accessible to people like me to provide discrete surround to people like you.

Dave

[ZAKO]

I have recorded professionally for 25 yrs,,,,You cant do surround sound with 4 mics....That is a nieve statement by a amature...Several have attempted it and failed. The NAXOS label did a good job several yrs back. With J ERGLE as recording engineer..Seattle Sym.

Edited February 11, 2014 by ZAKO

[DrWho]

The music is art.

The recording engineer's job is to deliver it to the listener as close to the original as possible (we are talking ACOUSTIC here).

I don't know of one professional recording engineer that views that as a summary of his job title. What you are describing is the process of documentation.

My point is that a recording engineer is just as much a part of the art as the musicians.

The recorded medium, no matter how hard you try, is different than the live event. It must be. I've never heard a system/recording that brought me back to the actual live acoustic space. I've heard several systems that bring me to a different "space" - sometimes even similar to the live event, but more often it is a space that cannot even exist in the acoustic / non-electronic world.

Having experienced several live events - even in spaces considered to have excellent acoustics - I gotta say I prefer the "unnatural" spaces. The live event isn't even close to the epitome of music enjoyment in my world. Obviously we all have different tastes in music and preference and all that, but the vast majority of the music listening population isn't trying to hear some abstract representation of some live event. There is a different entity to modern music that can only exist within the mediums on which it is created and played back. It takes an artist (several artists) to create that entity - however it needs to be defined.

It's one thing to say you don't prefer that sound. It's another to imply ignorance of the entire audio industry. Please pardon my defensiveness on this subject, but this really strikes home as I absolutely consider my own mixing to be a very artistic expression. In fact, I might even say I express myself best when behind a sound board mixing for a band that I love.

[DrWho]

At the moment, we don't have a format accessible to people like me to provide discrete surround to people like you.

If that's how you want to express your art, then I would recommend using a digital storage medium (like a harddrive or flash drive) and simply record to multiple files. There are free multichannel recording programs that would allow a user with a computer based setup to pipe each channel directly to independent amplifier channels. Just make a folder with the program file and the raw music tracks and then it's just a matter of the user piping through the appropriate sound cards.

You don't need to get into the Dolby/DTS realm to do what you're talking about. Most AVR's have a multi-channel preamp input if you're looking for a less expensive solution.

[Mallette]

I don't know of one professional recording engineer that views that as a summary of his job title. What you are describing is the process of documentation

To me: Duh.

My point is that a recording engineer is just as much a part of the art as the musicians.

Obvious difference of opinion. I cannot imagine wanting to editorialize on the acoustics of St. John the Devine...or any venue, nor on the musicians therein. In fact, my feeling would that it's a breach of fiduciary interest.

Dave

[Mallette]

Just make a folder with the program file and the raw music tracks and then it's just a matter of the user piping through the appropriate sound cards

Precisely. No easy way. Users don't have "sound cards," they have HT equipment.

Dave

[Mallette]

The recorded medium, no matter how hard you try, is different than the live event.

To the extent it varies, it is wrong. I may not see it, but my pursuit is solely to preserve the work of great musicians in great spaces. I am painfully aware that it doesn't work yet. That is a failure of technology, however.

Dave

[Mallette]

I have recorded professionally for 25 yrs,,,,You cant do surround sound with 4 mics....That is a nieve statement by a amature...

So, how many does it take and how arrayed?

Dave

[DrWho]

Just make a folder with the program file and the raw music tracks and then it's just a matter of the user piping through the appropriate sound cards

Precisely. No easy way. Users don't have "sound cards," they have HT equipment.

Dave

Modern "users" use their computers (and now moreso their handheld portable devices) for music playback. It's only you old fart ancients that still have the issues of handling physical media

But seriously, a USB stick to capture what you're doing would be very inexpensive.....and if you really care that much, it would be super easy to construct a "player" that you stick the USB stick into and it would just play the four files. Technology is absolutely there.....there's just no demand for such a playback environment.

[DrWho]

The recorded medium, no matter how hard you try, is different than the live event.

To the extent it varies, it is wrong. I may not see it, but my pursuit is solely to preserve the work of great musicians in great spaces. I am painfully aware that it doesn't work yet. That is a failure of technology, however.

Dave

So would you agree that your goal is fundamentally an exercise in documentation?

Btw, I disagree that it is a failure of technology. The entire process is fundamentally (as in, by definition) going to yield something different than the actual event. You can't make technology the scapegoat here....such thinking creates an empty hope, and forever unreachable ideals.

Now if you want to talk about the art of faking someone into thinking it was "effectively" the same as the live event, then that's a totally different subject.....but at the end of the day this is a process of fabricating an acoustic space on a storage medium. This is why I would disagree with the premise that your process is somehow more pure than recording engineer that chooses to use more tools. Intentionally choosing to limit the tools at your disposal is your own artistic decision and no doubt affects your results, but you're still in the same business of fabrication.

I absolutely agree with the merit of learning to master a few tools, versus the extreme opposite of poorly implementing a huge quantity of tools, but really at the end of the day all that matters is that people understand/relate to the artistic intent. Art can exist with horrible technical mastery - in fact, that is ironically more often the case.....just look at the welding quality of all your modern metal sculptures that make the fancy art museums.

[DrWho]

I have recorded professionally for 25 yrs,,,,You cant do surround sound with 4 mics....That is a nieve statement by a amature...

So, how many does it take and how arrayed?

Dave

Bell labs showed in the 70's that a minimum of 7 playback channels are required to not have any ambiguity of direction for surround sound. I can't seem to find that paper, but it was posted on the forum at one point I believe.

I'm not sure how you would map your 4 mics into that playback configuration, but there is plenty of research showing that quadraphonic surround sound doesn't "work". Isn't that why the format died such a horrible death in the 70's was it? Or maybe 80's? I dunno - I wasn't there for that atrocity.

[Mallette]

I'm not sure how you would map your 4 mics into that playback configuration, but there is plenty of research showing that quadraphonic surround sound doesn't "work". Isn't that why the format died such a horrible death in the 70's was it? Or maybe 80's? I dunno - I wasn't there for that atrocity.

I'd like to see that Bell labs paper as well, since it defies logic. 2 mikes do an exemplary job of handling a 180 degree sound field. Why is it so hard to figure that 2 more can handle the other 180 degrees?

As to speakers, why would you do anything other than invert the transducers?

I am not going to get into a debate about this. I've run this experiment with SoundCube as well as 4 coincident ribbon mikes and the results were conclusive. Others experienced it. None were aware of what they were "supposed" to hear.

I intend to get back into this sometime in the next year or two, but certainly not just to avoid some folks here from double daring or calling me delusional. It makes sense as a thought experiment, it made sense on paper, and it worked in experiment. If there is "delusional," it's in "it can't be done.'

Dave

Edited February 12, 2014 by Mallette

[babadono]

Posted Yesterday, 04:52 PM Mallette, on 11 Feb 2014 - 1:03 PM, said: The music is art. Mallette, on 11 Feb 2014 - 1:03 PM, said: The recording engineer's job is to deliver it to the listener as close to the original as possible (we are talking ACOUSTIC here). I don't know of one professional recording engineer that views that as a summary of his job title. What you are describing is the process of documentation. My point is that a recording engineer is just as much a part of the art as the musicians.

If the recording "engineer" is an artist why isn't his title recording "artist"?

Funny how i have two ears but it takes 27 microphones to record 2 guitars , a bass and a drumkit and make it sound "real".

[Taz]

Could be that she loves doing things with her Daddy! Sounds like she will learn to like things her Daddy likes in your house. Sounds like a good house for her to be raised in. Keep it up and give her Good Memories to have as she gets older.

John