Jump to content

A Good Read


joshnich

Recommended Posts

Furthermore, this "live versus recorded" was done at each new invention (like tape), and the results were always the same - people were fooled.

 

I suspect that there are at least two issues that worked for Edison:  Since people hadn't heard a recording they didn't know what one sounded like, and also I suspect that the device and the musician were behind less than acoustically transparent curtains. 

 

Just guessing, but not unreasonable.  Love to read a full description of a setup for this or see a photograph.  Must have been some photos made.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

Furthermore, this "live versus recorded" was done at each new invention (like tape), and the results were always the same - people were fooled.

 

I suspect that there are at least two issues that worked for Edison:  Since people hadn't heard a recording they didn't know what one sounded like, and also I suspect that the device and the musician were behind less than acoustically transparent curtains. 

 

Just guessing, but not unreasonable.  Love to read a full description of a setup for this or see a photograph.  Must have been some photos made.

 

Dave

 

The book addresses all of that.  The singer's said they adjusted their voice and level to match the Gramaphone (or whatever it was on stage).

 

He also talks about recording and mixing like people like Steve Albini (Surfer Rosa, portions of original In Uetero, the full remastered version) and there much different philosophy about recording, mixing, compression, etc.

 

I went back and looked at a couple of sections of the book last night after reading some of Mark's excerpts and summary.

 

What is great about this book is it is a stark reminder that recording is part of the music BUSINESS, and it is a business.  They record for the masses, they mix for the masses, they Eq for the masses, they apply compression for the masses.  Everyone gets caught up in it.  Albini was quoted that he has never been able to record an lp that he believes didn't need changing.  He said with every one it turned into "I want a hit record."  It is not just the record company executives, it is the artists also who say they want a louder record or whatever else they think they need to have a hit.

 

The story in the book on the recordings for Nebraska were quite interesting.  

 

Fortunately, the ultimate determination of what the quality of something should be is with the consumer (although that is troubling after seeing what Apple's profit was, we may be with MP3 and headphones for quite sometime as the ideal listening situation).  

 

There are numerous examples in the book that exemplify the conflicts between the artistry and the BUSINESS of music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

 

I am so glad that you enjoyed the book. I had posted something about the book a few years ago but there did not appear to be any interest.  Recently there have been a number of  threads that made me think of a lot of the information I took from the book - which is why I brought it up again. Specifically regarding peoples stated desire to build their system or judge their system on accurate or realistic presentation. Hard to be accurate when what you are reproducing never existed!

 

Some of the information that I found interesting was near the beginning of the book regarding the phenomenon of "recording consciousness" and human evolution as rationale as to why the "tone tests' of Edison, Bell Labs, Ampex, Phillips/Sony , etc etc were successful in tricking folks into believing what they were hearing was live music – and why synthesized sounds can pass for real instruments! 

 

I wish I had an intelligent answer to your question!

 

Josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of real presence, the recording industry peaked with Edison, and has been running downhill since.

 

Yes, you'll note I came to that conclusion from the excerpts available.  Hope to dig up my Nook over the weekend to get this and read it all. 

 

joshnich is right...there are only a handful of us around here that really care about high fidelity in the true sense of the word.  Some of the 2 channel diehards actually grump about bringing it up.  Granted, it's the "2 Channel" Forum, but it's also home to those who care more about the music than other issues, so fidelity is fair game...though it requires more channels.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you've stated you don't believe that anything like audio VR is possible.  I certainly do, and have tasted it.  Certainly visual VR isn't that far in the future, and the technology for audio VR has existed for years.  Cures a lot of ills besides just being faithful to the original.  With a carefully balanced playback, it eliminates room issues by simply overwhelming them with the created sound field coming from all directions.  Granted, to make this less of an issue you'd want absorptive walls all around but that's more of a luxury than a necessity. 

 

But, back on topic the truth is most audiophiles don't want audio with good taste, but audio that tastes good.  Sad thing is that movies, which people DO want, would be much easier and inexpensive to reproduce at home with a basic, brain operated system like I advocate rather than a complex electronic system developed for theaters, just as we'd all be better off with a computer OS developed for home users rather than 90% of its code being targeted for an Exxon.

 

Edison failed to heed the Tao: "The bow that does not bend is soon broken."  He failed to understand that the public didn't care about fidelity, only cost and playback time.  The inflationary cost of an Edison Amberola today is 2700.00.  Gramophones were going for a few hundred and most couldn't tell the difference and didn't care. 

 

When and if fidelity emerges again, it will not be from the music publishers but from places like this where there are those who don't want to simply listen to music, but to be immersed in it and experience not only the sound, but the space it was created in.  I won't live to see the ultimate music room, but I have described it to my son in hopes he will build one.  You'll use a tablet or whatever passes for one in 30 years or so to select your seat in in your favorite hall, hit the play button, and you'll be precisely in that seat and in those acoustics.  I can imagine it.  Somebody will build it. 

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to pander to Mark and Dave...but as I read this book I often wondered what both of your impressions would be. I have always been interested when Dave talks about how he would mic or record a performance.  If we were like my wife’s book club we could have a few beers and I could get Dave’s take on the various recording techniques discussed -  from the field recordings of Led belly by John and Alan Lomax to the acoustics of Columbia's 30th Street Studio contributing to Columbia's signature sound.  Or the section discussing recording John Bonham’s drum intro to Led Zeps "When the Levee Breaks" in the stairwell of a mansion with the microphone hanging three stories up to get the desired natural reverb. So Dave if you do read the book let us know your thoughts!

 

In regards to audio vr . In the final notes of the book, Milner talks about wave-field synthesis which sounds like the closest thing to date to audio vr. But youll have to read the whole book to get to it!!!

 

Josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, this "live versus recorded" was done at each new invention (like tape), and the results were always the same - people were fooled.

 

I suspect that there are at least two issues that worked for Edison:  Since people hadn't heard a recording they didn't know what one sounded like, and also I suspect that the device and the musician were behind less than acoustically transparent curtains. 

 

Just guessing, but not unreasonable.  Love to read a full description of a setup for this or see a photograph.  Must have been some photos made.

 

Dave

I surmise that you are correct in your assumption. Edison was a conniving snake in grass according to several books I've read. Surely Tesla, who by no means was divorced from reality, thought so. Brilliant, but a snake just the same. So in that regard, I suppose he did take advantage of the fact that no one at the time knew what a recording sounded like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's mostly on LPs. If new recording methods are developed, like VR, that might be fine, but I don't listen to much pop music.

 

Nor do I, but I want to HEAR Avery Fisher Hall, St. Mark's Cathedral, or whatever venue and I want it to completely immerse me to the point that my eyes closed puts me there. 

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall, the book is a qualified good read. Apparently Herr Milner doesn't understand that "sound waves" as he describes them cannot propagate in the vacuum of space. Since no one was around during the so-called Big Bang, his artistic license is a bit over the top. Okay, he's keeping it between the ditches--so far.

 

 The primordial sound wave of the big bang is now around 500 million light-years across, reverberating throughout the still-expanding universe. The tone is too faint and low to be heard without the most sensitive equipment, but it’s out there and all around us. The final mix isn't complete, and we don’t know how the record ends. The hum left over from the big bang continues to pump through the speakers of space- time.

 

Describing how magnetic tape recording works, he runs off the road into the ditch by writing, 

 

With tape recording, which works on the principle of electromagnetism, there is no physical contact between the inscriber (the recording head) and the medium (the tape). Instead, the current flows past a highly magnetic material, creating patterns of varying magnetic polarity on the tape. As with disc recording, playback means reversing the process. The magnetized tape is passed over a coil, creating changes in magnetic flux. The changes in flux create the electric current that an amplifier converts into watts. Because the current can be represented without physical contact, a tape recording is remarkably durable. Those magnetized patterns will last virtually forever. The main challenge of preserving magnetic tape is not the problem of information loss but rather the breakdown of the tape’s substrate, the actual material it is made of.

 

Huh? Exactly what technology is he describing?

 

Get the Kindle version, it's cheap and if you are interested in the history of recorded sound, this is as good as any account.

 

Lee

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Artistic license with the big bang, Arky.  It is waves, and they have been converted to sound for fun.  Personally, I agree it was a bit of a stretch but he had to start somewhere. 

 

As to the tape, it's a good non-technical description.  Perhaps it's the "non physical contact" that is throwing you.  The part of the head the tape contacts isn't the business part.  There is a gap where the action takes place.  And he is correct about durability mainly being a substrate issue.  When I was running audio operations one of the tests I would run on tape was to stretch a piece of it.  On some budget brands the oxide would simply fall off leaving a clear tape.  Acetate from the 50s and 60s becomes extremely brittle and will break under very little stress.  Some of the later Ampex tapes are incredibly stable and even after 40 years show no audible degradation.   

 

Dave

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave,

 

DOH!! True, it's all about the flux. As the heads wear, the gap widens reducing output and high frequencies. IMHO, ferrite heads were mostly advertising hype; while they didn't wear in the conventional sense, they sure pitted and were not a candidate for re-lapping.

 

I've re-lapped my fair share of audio heads up to one inch (cheap studio owners!). With the proper jig, patience and the correct lapping materials, one can get at least one additional lifetime out of an Ampex, MCI, Otari, duplicator etc. record or playback head. Revox A-77 heads were easy to lap as they had a circular head profile. While this meant they wore out sooner, the heads were in contact with the tape longer than with a "steeper" contour. The result was great HF response and no drop outs when using 1.5 mil tape.

 

Here's one of the jigs I used for 1/4" tape heads.

 

http://www.recordist.com/ampex/docs/repairtips/heads/nortronics.pdf

 

The main issue I encountered with tape stock (Ampex 456) 1/4", 1" & 2" recorded in the early 80's was "sticktion". Apparently the binder would seep/weep to the oxide side of the tape causing the tape to squeal and even stop when played. I never tried the "bake and play" method as the tapes were of limited commercial value.

 

Lee 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not have the book in front of me. But I believe that the passage you quoted on sound waves was hyperbole on marconis stated belief that all sound still remains we just do not have the capacity to hear it.

I think you kind of took the passage out of context. And what's with the Herr ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Not to pander to Mark and Dave...but as I read this book I often wondered what both of your impressions would be. I have always been interested when Dave talks about how he would mic or record a performance. If we were like my wife’s book club we could have a few beers and I could get Dave’s take on the various recording techniques discussed - from the field recordings of Led belly by John and Alan Lomax to the acoustics of Columbia's 30th Street Studio contributing to Columbia's signature sound. Or the section discussing recording John Bonham’s drum intro to Led Zeps "When the Levee Breaks" in the stairwell of a mansion with the microphone hanging three stories up to get the desired natural reverb. So Dave if you do read the book let us know your thoughts!

In regards to audio vr . In the final notes of the book, Milner talks about wave-field synthesis which sounds like the closest thing to date to audio vr. But youll have to read the whole book to get to it!!!

Josh

I first learned of the bastardization of records in 1975 when I was reading "Recording Engineer Magazine." It was obvious even then, that the engineers and the audiophiles were on different paths. But what I read then is mild compared to what Milner writes about in the book with today's methods. I wonder if buyers of today's pop music know that most singers can't hold a tune and need Auto-Tune to create a vocal track? Or that groups can no longer sing harmony? Or that most of the drums you hear are sampled? The entire production is a synthetic confection made on computers (Pro Tools) and once all the life has been sucked out, there is just nothing but spectacular noise remaining.

A quote from Bruce Botnik:

Sound since the 1960s has gone backwards instead of forwards, in my estimation. In the recordings that I do today for motion pictures, I use tube microphones, tube microphone pre-amps, and I try to bypass the solid-state consoles as much as possible. It's more open, it's rounder, it has more depth. I can give you an example. If you take a room that has some reverberation not a chamber, just good clear liveness and you put an earphone in the middle of the room with a click going through it, so you hear the “tick, tick, tick.” Plug up a good microphone, maybe a (Neumann) U-67 or something like that, split the signal so it goes into a tube microphone pre-amp, and then the solid-state pre-amp, bring them both up on the console, and switch back and forth, and listen. With the tube, you'll hear all the reverberation in the room; the solid-state will close down. Ten times out of 10. So that's somewhat what you're hearing. Even the equalizers back then were tube; we had Pultech EQ-P1A's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pultech EQ-P1A's

 

Ah, Pultech, and the Urei 565t  "Little Dipper" filter, and the Universal Audio LA-3A leveler.  I acquired all of these in my first professional job producing audio tracks for educational cassette/filmstrips in the 70s and nothing I've heard since has been as good.  Total examples of what you and Bruce are saying.  Those things had NO "personalities" of their own.  They did exactly what they were designed to do, nothing more, nothing less. 

 

My personal favorite microphone is the RCA KU3A, over 70 years old.  My favorite speakers are...surprise...K'horns basic design from 1946. 

 

I won't say these devices are inherently unimprovable, but nothing has happened to improve on them yet and, as stated, most changes have been for the worse.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

post-7390-0-05400000-1424362656_thumb.jp

 

Had to throw this in.  We discuss a lot of fine recorders from time to time here, but Crown rarely comes up.  I one of those shown in the lower right (4 channel) in job mentioned above.  Absolutely marvelous machine.  Punch in was so tight and so electrically well damped I learned to edit breaths from narration by rocking in and out of record between sentences.  SCHWEET!

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josnich's OP mentioned not wanting to "...pander to Mark and Dave."  I thought his words very kind and felt I'd done a better job than I thought of trying to explain a simpler, ear-driven approach over the years to recording what I call acoustic time/space events, pretty much summed up in my state of "put the mikes where your ears want be." 

 

What didn't occur to me was his placing Mark and I in the same sentence.  Mark and I have a very long, at times pretty robust, history of debating almost anything debatable.  One thing I've NEVER debated him on is his approach to audio reproduction as I consider him to be about as good as the planet has to offer in that area. 

 

However, I had almost forgotten that our first direct communication was a request from him for copies of my CD "A Peasant Celebration" with the Hubbard Chamber Music Ensemble to include with his products.  Took me a couple of months to find the time to burn a 100 discs and print them.  Mark retired just as I had them ready.  Most have been give away but I still have a few around with the Juicy Music logo. 

 

While pleased at his request, I suppose that at the time I really didn't appreciate the situation fully as to what that said about an acknowledged master of audio reproduction's opinion my own efforts on the other end of the chain.  His comment above about CD vs LP sound (where we are in violent agreement) made me fully realize what it meant for him to include ANY CD, and especially one of mine, in his treasured products. 

 

Despite the wide gap in our positions in many areas not related to audio my sense is that in this field we are fric and frac, the audio brothers.  He's pretty much fixated design wise on creating a straight wire with gain, and my approach to recording has always been trying to replicate an ear with memory.

 

Thanks for the thoughts, josnich, and thanks for that compliment from way back, Mark.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...