are you really after High Fidelity?

[Ceptorman]

 

Did they even have recordings that were high quality enough to pull this off back in 1980 even if you had perfect equipment?...My dad told me about high speed tape being used around then before. Surely vinyl wouldn't cut it. That was way before CD's.

 

Actually CDs have been around since 1982...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_audio_formats

 

Higher speed analog tape (up to 30 IPS) was really very good in all ways except possibly absolute SNR, relative to DSD in the audio passband that was available in the early 1980s in the form of Direct Stream Digital recorders.  I've actually got some pretty good recordings from ca. 1962 using high speed analog tape--one of them can be found here.

 

The problem has always been the analog transfer to different analog format (7 1/2 IPS tape or vinyl), which, IMHO has always been significantly inferior to the original recording format, and in those days, each edit or transfer of the incoming source degraded the original recording's SNR by 3 dB or more.  Typically, it took seven (7)  transfers or edits to get from recorded master to produced commercial record - you do the math.

 

Chris

 

I have cds i bought in 83.

How was VHS hifi as a recording/playback format back in the early 80s?

[babadono]

Taking a live feed, digitizing it to 24/96 LPCM (master "tape"), mixing it on a large console--where losses occur...big time

 I am a ignorant. What losses are you referring to. The ones intentionally introduced by the person running the desk? I mean 24bit/96kHz LCPM is pretty lossless isn't it?

Or are you talking about an analog desk?

Edited October 23, 2014 by babadono

[Chris A]

I have to be brutally honest.  I HATE classical music, orchestras.  I NEVER listen to that stuff and I would simply never use it to gauge what audiophile sound is all about.  I'm glad PWK did it all for me and saved me the pain.

 

Sorry..........not for me. 

 

I don't listen to Grateful Dead albums very often, either.  

 

On a more serious note...this isn't about orchestral music, IMHO, it's about faithful reproduction of the recorded, edited, and produced recordings.

[Chris A]

 

Taking a live feed, digitizing it to 24/96 LPCM (master "tape"), mixing it on a large console--where losses occur...big time

 I am a ignorant. What losses are you referring to. The ones intentionally introduced by the person running the desk? I mean 24bit/96kHz LCPM is pretty lossless isn't it?

Or are you talking about an analog desk?

 

I watched an entire documentary on the Sound City (Los Angeles area) that almost entirely focused on an analog console: meaning..."it has its own sound". 

 

They were quite proud of that console.  Why?  The answer to that rhetorical question is the answer to your question. 

 

Why not use a digital mixer?  Because it doesn't "...sound like they want it to sound...".

 

For me, I'd prefer adding as little as possible to the master recording in order to preserve the notion of "hi-fi".  YMMV.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Chris A

[babadono]

 

 

Taking a live feed, digitizing it to 24/96 LPCM (master "tape"), mixing it on a large console--where losses occur...big time

 I am a ignorant. What losses are you referring to. The ones intentionally introduced by the person running the desk? I mean 24bit/96kHz LCPM is pretty lossless isn't it?

Or are you talking about an analog desk?

 

I watched an entire documentary on the Sound City (Los Angeles area) that almost entirely focused on an analog console: meaning..."it has it's own sound". 

 

They were quite proud of that console.  Why?  The answer to that rhetorical question is the answer to your question. 

 

Why not use a digital mixer?  Because it doesn't "...sound like they want it to sound...".

 

For me, I'd prefer adding as little as possible to the master recording in order to preserve the notion of "hi-fi".  YMMV.

 

Chris,

 So you are alluding to taking the digital master, converting to analog, mixing on an analog desk(cuz that's what we got or we like the "sound" of this desk or whatever reason one may have) then reconverting back to digital. Yep there is going to be losses or coloration of the sound.

                                                              Eric

[Emjay]

 

 

 

Taking a live feed, digitizing it to 24/96 LPCM (master "tape"), mixing it on a large console--where losses occur...big time

 I am a ignorant. What losses are you referring to. The ones intentionally introduced by the person running the desk? I mean 24bit/96kHz LCPM is pretty lossless isn't it?

Or are you talking about an analog desk?

 

I watched an entire documentary on the Sound City (Los Angeles area) that almost entirely focused on an analog console: meaning..."it has it's own sound". 

 

They were quite proud of that console.  Why?  The answer to that rhetorical question is the answer to your question. 

 

Why not use a digital mixer?  Because it doesn't "...sound like they want it to sound...".

 

For me, I'd prefer adding as little as possible to the master recording in order to preserve the notion of "hi-fi".  YMMV.

 

Chris,

 So you are alluding to taking the digital master, converting to analog, mixing on an analog desk(cuz that's what we got or we like the "sound" of this desk or whatever reason one may have) then reconverting back to digital. Yep there is going to be losses or coloration of the sound.

                                                              Eric

 

Isn't this what people like about tube amps?

 

The colouration ("warmth") that they add to the sound?

[Emjay]

Thanks - that's pretty much a problem in this pastime, I've found.  Another article that I found yesterday that's very similar to the one that you linked to above:

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/audio/audiophile.htm

 

 

Chris

I actually enjoyed his article right up to the little spiel at the end, where he tries to claim his copyright on the article especially prevents you from printing the page for personal use(!!) and that you have to pay $5 for the privilege.

 

This couldn't be more wrong - I understand that he wants to make a living from blogging, but that's no reason to mis-represent copyright law.

 

If there was any way he could possibly know whether you print the page, I would print multiple copies just to prove the point

[Lemon string]

I for one like listening to recorded music of all kinds. I think there are some and have been some, amazing, recording artists. My personal goal is to be able to playback those recordings and enjoy them to their fullest. That said though not all of the recordings that I like ever started out as a natural sounds at least not by my definition of natural. Furthermore, Im not sure that I think music needs to be natural in order to be interesting, enlightening, sonically fulfilling or to artistic merit.

 

Pet Sounds, Sgt Peppers, In Rainbows, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, Noble Beast, Darkside of the moon, Fragile and on and on and on................

 

But anyways I thought it was a good read and worthy of question and thought. Interesting reading everyones responses.

 

Edited October 24, 2014 by Lemon string

[garyrc]

 

 I have never walked into a listening room and thought; "Geeze that sounds just like the philharmonic orchestra, right there in my room". It never happened and never will.

 

I have played in several orchestras, as well as listened to them from many positions in the audience.  I have heard many instances of audio sounding "just like" a live orchestra -- although it usually does not.   Something like 20% of the recordings I play at home sound sufficiently like a real orchestra.  True, orchestras sound different than one another, and no two halls sound the same, but, IMO, there is reproduction that is a plausible replica of a live orchestra, and reproduction that is not.  The above mentioned J. G. Holt said (specuating) that the musicians that wrote to him found something in music played back on Klipschorns that "triggered their musical Gestalt."  I think that is a good way to put it. 

 

Did they even have recordings that were high quality enough to pull this off back in 1980 even if you had perfect equipment? I was 4 years old at the time of this writing so I have no idea. My dad has told me about high speed tape being used around then before. Surely vinyl wouldn't cut it. That was way before CD's.

 

The 15 inch per second reel to reel tape recordings my friends and I used to make in the '70s were closer to reality than almost any CD.  Some vinyl of the '50s, '60s, and '70s played on my old Thorens, SME, Ortofon set ups were just as good as our tapes.  Pre-recorded tapes ranged from horrible to superb.  The good ones were usually "real time duplicated."

 

I have to be brutally honest.  I HATE classical music, orchestras.  I NEVER listen to that stuff and I would simply never use it to gauge what audiophile sound is all about.  I'm glad PWK did it all for me and saved me the pain.

 

Sorry..........not for me. 

 

What do you think of the orchestral music (classical, romantic era, later, or modern simulations) that you hear in movies, from Zarathustra in 2001: A Space Odyssey, to the scores of John Williams, Miklos Rozsa, Bernard Herrmann, etc?

Edited October 24, 2014 by Garyrc

[LarryC]

mark1101, on 23 Oct 2014 - 5:42 PM, said: I have to be brutally honest.  I HATE classical music, orchestras.  I NEVER listen to that stuff and I would simply never use it to gauge what audiophile sound is all about.  I'm glad PWK did it all for me and saved me the pain.   Sorry..........not for me.    What do you think of the orchestral music (classical, romantic era, later, or modern simulations) that you hear in movies, from Zarathustra in 2001: A Space Odyssey, to the scores of John Williams, Miklos Rozsa, Bernard Herrmann, etc?

Carmina Burana?  Bach "Air on the G String"? 

[Chris A]

Isn't this what people like about tube amps? The colouration ("warmth") that they add to the sound?

Yes - and why I prefer to not use tube amplifiers without enough forward gain to support feedback to reduce THD to manageable levels.  There is one type of amplifier topology that is associated with this: the single-ended triode (SET) amplifier.  Push-pull tube amps possessing much lower amounts of second and fourth harmonics are much more preferred. These high levels of harmonics turn into modulation distortion on playback.

 

I believe that there's a problem with music that is electronically amplified from the beginning--and calling it "hi-fi".  Much of this music intentionally uses distortion, i.e., electric guitars and electronic keyboards/synthesizers, drums, and I've found that the listeners of these music types also believe that adding more distortion is okay including harmonic and non-harmonic distortion in their setups.  This is where I find the concept of hi-fi disappears for me, and "creative home brew" seems to replace it. It's not that I can't enjoy some forms of it, it's that I just can never consider it hi-fi. 

 

The story is usually very different with acoustically produced music.  I actually believe that most people tacitly agree with this notion.  Even the MTV "Unplugged" concerts from many years ago produced higher fidelity recordings in these genres that even today are regarded with a bit more of a respect for fidelity in playback than their non-acoustic counterparts.  The very notion of the word "unplugged" itself implies that the musicians and the listeners can both leave their earplugs at home and enjoy listening to the music.

 

 

More recently, there have been many synthesized-only music subgenres created, some of which I can enjoy for short periods of time, but most of which seemingly has self-generated from night club/dance music beginnings.  It seems to me that the notion of hi-fi sort of disappears, and the longevity of this music itself suffers because of the throw-away nature of this music...not all of it, but large fractions of this music.

 

 

Note that all of the above have notable exceptions, but these are the thoughts that actually go through my head when thinking about the types of music that command the title "hi-fi".  Acoustically produced music seems to enjoy an almost automatic identification with hi-fi relative to these other genres--true at least for my ears.

 

 

Chris

Edited October 24, 2014 by Chris A

[JJkizak]

As long as the music is crystal clear, the treble and bass where I want it, the volume where I want it, the Klipsch speakers put me into Nirvana Land even if my hearing stops dead at 10KHZ and the room has a zillion acoustical problems.

JJK

[ClaudeJ1]

Of course back in 1980, amplified rock concerts probably sounded horrendous compared to what is possible today, and a live orchestra really was the only way to accurately judge things.

That's what PWK was all about with his Khorns, center Belle, and twin omni mike recordings of symphonies. Heard them myself at his home and they sounded great! He was a man of the highest integrity a practiced what he preached (as did I in my youth). False corners, 3 channels, all horn transducers (birch Khorns and a LaScala in my case), both tube and ss amplification of lower power.

 

In the interview on the "Klipsch Tapes" re-issue on DVD, he even said that the best one could do is come close to a live orchestra and cited the original Bell Labs reseach from the 20's and 30's. So after having his 2PH3 system in my various domiciles for 30 years (before I caught the HT bug) I came as close as possible. But let's not kid ourselves, as good as it is, it is still an ILLUSION where the greatest VARIABLE is the recording quality (or lack thereof) followed by the integrity of the room in the same manner.

 

Even though modern drivers are better than ever, all Direct Radiator speakers are "air pushers" without Constant Directivity (except CBT and Geddes speakers), higher distortion, and less than stellar transient response.

 

Horns do a better job in this area when done right, and after experiencing Heil Air Motion Transformers, I'm a believer in "Air Squeezers."

 

It's all about SYNERGY or transient response, dynamics, low distortion at adequate power output. So far, horns are still the best compromise in electro-acoustic transducers at any frequency, BUT they have to be BIG to work right.

Edited October 24, 2014 by ClaudeJ1

[mark1101]

 

mark1101, on 23 Oct 2014 - 5:42 PM, said: I have to be brutally honest.  I HATE classical music, orchestras.  I NEVER listen to that stuff and I would simply never use it to gauge what audiophile sound is all about.  I'm glad PWK did it all for me and saved me the pain.   Sorry..........not for me.    What do you think of the orchestral music (classical, romantic era, later, or modern simulations) that you hear in movies, from Zarathustra in 2001: A Space Odyssey, to the scores of John Williams, Miklos Rozsa, Bernard Herrmann, etc?

Carmina Burana?  Bach "Air on the G String"? 

 

 

This is a language I don't speak, or care to learn..........

 

.............Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world.........

[agile1966]

I am always interested to read these discussions. I believe the differences are very small between this article and the paper written by PWK. They were both going to the same bottom line. PWK put the emphasis on the "RE" in reproduction each time it was written. My interpretation was that speakers are reproducing sound. Therefore, the ultimate goal would be for a system to remain as true to the intended sound of the source and the artist without coloring the sound in any way.

If you have a system which can truly reproduce the music that was recorded you have a baseline that you can then do with what you want. The system is yours, the sound you hear is yours. You can leave it as a true reproduction of the artist intention or change it in a way that pleases you.

Edited October 24, 2014 by agile1966

[garyrc]

 

mark1101, on 23 Oct 2014 - 5:42 PM, said: I have to be brutally honest.  I HATE classical music, orchestras.  I NEVER listen to that stuff and I would simply never use it to gauge what audiophile sound is all about.  I'm glad PWK did it all for me and saved me the pain.   Sorry..........not for me.    What do you think of the orchestral music (classical, romantic era, later, or modern simulations) that you hear in movies, from Zarathustra in 2001: A Space Odyssey, to the scores of John Williams, Miklos Rozsa, Bernard Herrmann, etc?

Carmina Burana?  Bach "Air on the G String"? 

 

Yes.  Carmina Burana keeps popping up in the background during TV commercials, of all places.  To say nothing of 2 minutes of Zarathustra which may be the all time champ, thanks to 2001, from the Swanson pie commercials of 1968 to a recent carpet commercial.  But these are perverted uses of such grand music.  BTW, I like all kinds of music, and they all sound better when well reproduced (e.g., without much extra distortion, even if distortion is being creatively used by the artists).  One of my daughter's discs (by Nightwish, I think) sounds obscurred on computer speakers, but so much more interesting and moving when played back on a good system.

[Mallette]

It is, and always has been, my opinion that it is only in acoustical instruments that "high fidelity" matters or may be attained.  Basically, any musical instrument that requires electricity has nothing like the complex tonal qualities of a Stradivarius, a Selmer Paris, a Silbermann organ, a Bosendorfer piano, or the like.  In the case of all these, the entire quest for "high fidelity" is further made a struggle in that they also interact with the space they are played in. 

 

It was in the quest for these things that PWK labored.  He told me so. 

 

My own collection contains about as wide a variety of human music as you will find in one home.  Over the decades, I bought things I didn't really care for and they'd sit unopened, sometimes for decades.  Why?  Because I knew the problem wasn't the music, but me.  I figured the time would come when my life experience would expand enough to encompass them.  Granted, for Schoenberg, I may not make it long enough, but he still sits on the shelf patiently. 

 

For the vast majority of popular music I care only that it sound good, as "high fidelity" on "Dark Side of the Moon" is an absurd quest.  It really only comes into play a few times such as the clocks chiming.  For the rest originating in chips, mixing boards, and such, it need only sound great as there is no definable absolute sound quality to be benchmarked and reproduced. 

 

You know you have high fidelity when you can tell the difference between a Bosendorfer and a Steinway.  You know you are done when you can also tell where it was being played and the position of the microphones.

 

THAT is what "high fidelity" is IMHO.  The rest is just great sound.

 

Dave

Edited October 25, 2014 by Mallette

[Marvel]

THAT is what "high fidelity" is IMHO. The rest is just great sound.

That, Dave, is the truth.

 

A post that is short but full of insight.

 

 

I watched an entire documentary on the Sound City (Los Angeles area) that almost entirely focused on an analog console: meaning..."it has its own sound". They were quite proud of that console. Why? The answer to that rhetorical question is the answer to your question. Why not use a digital mixer? Because it doesn't "...sound like they want it to sound...". For me, I'd prefer adding as little as possible to the master recording in order to preserve the notion of "hi-fi". YMMV.

Interesting...

I have read a lot about Rupert Neve, and his consoles. Flat out to 50+Khz. Everything I have read before says they are transparent. That's the way I always interpreted it. A LOT of engineers feed their digital back through an analog console to mix because they say is sounds/translates/ whatever, as real, the way they heard it in the studio.

 

Bruce 

[Chris A]

Perhaps I misunderstood the comments of the participants in the documentary as it unfolded, but "transparent" wasn't in their conversations. YMMV.

 

 

http://www.mbird.com/2013/08/the-neve-8028-shaping-the-contours-of-creativity-and-freedom-since-1973/?ModPagespeed=noscript

[Lemon string]

Perhaps I misunderstood the comments of the participants in the documentary as it unfolded, but "transparent" wasn't in their conversations. YMMV.

 

 

http://www.mbird.com/2013/08/the-neve-8028-shaping-the-contours-of-creativity-and-freedom-since-1973/?ModPagespeed=noscript

 

 

I really enjoyed this movie, also I'd highly recommend the Muscle Shoals documentary to anyone that hasn't seen it.