The best 'source' for music? Download 24 bit? Vinyl? Or ?

[Chris A]

10 minutes ago, hsosdrummer said:

Of course, the answer to all this is that recordings serve as useful references for equipment evaluation not because they are true representations of some acoustic event, they are useful references because we’ve heard them enough times on enough of a variety of audio equipment that we know what the essence of that recording is supposed to sound like: Those are the sonic elements that continue to be present no matter what equipment it is reproduced on.

PWK once said something on this subject: https://community.klipsch.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=69383

 

Chris

 

 

[derrickdj1]

I enjoyed the read, Chris!

[hsosdrummer]

I read that article by PWK a while ago, but I take issue with the notion that the only "original sound" is the sound of musicians playing acoustic instruments* in an acoustic space. The actual "original sound" that we all have to work with (the work of art that our audio systems reproduce) is the master recording created by the artist, and this may or may not be a recording of an acoustic event that occurred in real-time. Unfortunately, contrary to PWK's assertion, our hobby deals with many yardsticks, not just one, and one person's yardstick may not work for anyone but themselves.

 

(FYI, a Fender Stratocaster playing through a Marshall amplifier is an acoustic instrument.)

[dirtmudd]

2 hours ago, hsosdrummer said:

The problem with using "live music" as the be-all, end-all reference for audio reproduction is that not all music is made by musicians playing together in the same acoustic space at the same time. Music made by artists that put it together from disparate sources inside of a recording studio control room (such as The Beatles did when creating Tomorrow Never Knows) are creating art just as much as a string quartet that plays Beethoven live in a concert hall. Any argument to the contrary is nothing more than musical snobbery.

 

In our area of interest, the actual work of art that is created is the master recording that is created by the artist. In the case of Tomorrow Never Knows it is the mono mixdown of the song that was created by Sir George Martin and all four of The Beatles who were present during its creation. In the case of the string quartet playing Beethoven it is the final stereo mixdown of the original live recording that is approved by the producer of the recording session. In both of these cases, it is only that recording that is the work of art. Any subsequent versions that are created to enable mass distribution (vinyl master/mothers/stampers, digital copies — unless the original master recording is digital and those copies are created bit-for-bit) are only copies of the work of art, the same as a lithograph is only a copy of an oil painting.

 

The notion that anyone can use "the sound of live music, played in real-time in a real acoustic space" as the ultimate goal of all audio reproduction really doesn’t make sense. Now, before getting all up in my face and insisting that Recording A makes a perfect live-music reference, answer these questions:

• Were you present at the original recording session? If not, how do you know what the music sounded like in the room? If you don’t know what it’s supposed to sound like, how can it serve as a reference for the sound of the original event?
• If you were present at the original recording session, where did you sit? An acoustic event can sound very different depending on where in the studio/hall/room you’re seated.
• Were the recording microphones located only a few inches above your head? If not, they likely heard something different from what you heard, which means that the recording does not represent the event you experienced.
• Were you present at the mixdown session that produced the final master recording? If not, it’s possible — if not likely — that the producer made modifications to the sound (subtle changes in microphone balance, the addition of small amounts of EQ or compression, etc.) before the mix was finalized. Once again, this means that the recording does not represent the acoustic event that you experienced.

Of course, the answer to all this is that recordings serve as useful references for equipment evaluation not because they are true representations of some acoustic event, they are useful references because we’ve heard them enough times on enough of a variety of audio equipment that we know what the essence of that recording is supposed to sound like: Those are the sonic elements that continue to be present no matter what equipment it is reproduced on. When those essential sonic elements are somehow changed, we know that it is the reproduction equipment that is changing them, and that what we’re hearing is an attribute of the equipment and not of the recording. That’s why unfamiliar recordings are useless as equipment evaluation tools: We don’t know if what we’re hearing is caused by the equipment or by the recording because we’re unfamiliar with the recording.

 

So, any recording can serve as a reference if you’re familiar enough with it. Of course, to be an effective tool for evaluating if a piece of audio equipment is suitable for your listening system, the recording should be representative of the type of music that you will play through the audio equipment when you’re listening for your own enjoyment. If you listen mostly to recordings of acoustic jazz trios it makes little sense to use Van Halen’s 1984 and 5150 as your reference recordings.

 

No audio system can allow us to travel through time to witness a live event that occurred in the past. The best that any home audio reproduction system can do is to create an illusion that satisfies its owner. Some owners will be satisfied with the illusion that Gabor Szabo is playing guitar in their living room; other owners will be satisfied with the illusion that they’re looking over Sir George Martin’s shoulder during the final mixdown of Strawberry Fields Forever, others may want the illusion that DJ Shadow is performing in their living room. All three are the same goal.

 

and that does not happen in the studio any more..

 

just someone's interpretation of what it should be.

(producer and or engineer)

 

I said that a few post up..

 

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/956936-1950s-techniques-equiptment-workflow.html

 

It will help you to think in terms of Recording The Band, rather than
Recording Isolated Tracks.

Mic bleed was a natural part of recording a live band, especially with highly sensitive condenser mics.

In modern recording, you can take all the time you want fixing issues and editing.

In old school recording, you spend the time mostly in pre-production, making sure everyone has their parts down to perfection, because if one person screws up, you have to rewind and go back to square one and start all over again.

As producer, engineer, you are more like the conductor in front of a live orchestra. Putting the loudest instruments further away and the quieter ones closer.

 

as you dig further back in history.. you will find the truth..

technology has made easier...

 

anybody can be a pop/rock star out of their bedroom..now..

 

so either your good or not... and I posted this earlier

 

 

dirtmudd

• Forum Ultra Veteran
•  
• 
• Regulars
•  4084
• 3164 posts
• Location: road to red

 

Posted 22 hours ago · Report post

it all comes down to what you buy into ..

 

be  careful in what you buy..    

 

here's an example of what everyone buys into

 

 

 

 

[Chris A]

 

33 minutes ago, hsosdrummer said:

(FYI, a Fender Stratocaster playing through a Marshall amplifier is an acoustic instrument.)

Right.  

 

[jimjimbo]

5 minutes ago, dirtmudd said:

and that does not happen in the studio any more..

 

just someone's interpretation of what it should be.

(producer and or engineer)

 

I said that a few post up..

 

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/956936-1950s-techniques-equiptment-workflow.html

 

It will help you to think in terms of Recording The Band, rather than
Recording Isolated Tracks.

Mic bleed was a natural part of recording a live band, especially with highly sensitive condenser mics.

In modern recording, you can take all the time you want fixing issues and editing.

In old school recording, you spend the time mostly in pre-production, making sure everyone has their parts down to perfection, because if one person screws up, you have to rewind and go back to square one and start all over again.

As producer, engineer, you are more like the conductor in front of a live orchestra. Putting the loudest instruments further away and the quieter ones closer.

 

as you dig further back in history.. you will find the truth..

technology has made easier...

 

anybody can be a pop/rock star out of their bedroom..now..

 

so either your good or not... and I posted this earlier

 

 

dirtmudd

• Forum Ultra Veteran
•  
• 
• Regulars
•  4084
• 3164 posts
• Location: road to red

 

Posted 22 hours ago · Report post

it all comes down to what you buy into ..

 

be  careful in what you buy..    

 

here's an example of what everyone buys into

Everyone?  Not hardly.

 

 

 

 

 

[BlueHusky79]

Listening through pricy Apple devices.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[derrickdj1]

5 minutes ago, dirtmudd said:

and that does not happen in the studio any more..

 

just someone's interpretation of what it should be.

(producer and or engineer)

 

I said that a few post up..

 

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/956936-1950s-techniques-equiptment-workflow.html

 

It will help you to think in terms of Recording The Band, rather than
Recording Isolated Tracks.

Mic bleed was a natural part of recording a live band, especially with highly sensitive condenser mics.

In modern recording, you can take all the time you want fixing issues and editing.

In old school recording, you spend the time mostly in pre-production, making sure everyone has their parts down to perfection, because if one person screws up, you have to rewind and go back to square one and start all over again.

As producer, engineer, you are more like the conductor in front of a live orchestra. Putting the loudest instruments further away and the quieter ones closer.

 

as you dig further back in history.. you will find the truth..

technology has made easier...

 

anybody can be a pop/rock star out of their bedroom..now..

 

so either your good or not... and I posted this earlier

 

 

dirtmudd

• Forum Ultra Veteran
•  
• 
• Regulars
•  4084
• 3164 posts
• Location: road to red

 

Posted 22 hours ago · Report post

it all comes down to what you buy into ..

 

be  careful in what you buy..    

 

here's an example of what everyone buys into

 

 

 

 

 

She can lipsync to me anytime.

[dirtmudd]

11 minutes ago, jimjimbo said:

 

then buy me this..because everything is a cheap imitation of it..

 

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=cpcG7ceQz6U

[hsosdrummer]

My point isn't about the validity of a certain way of making music recordings over another way of making them, my point is that the results of both can be considered art, and that the works of art our hobby attempts to reproduce are those recordings, not any live acoustic events that may or may not have taken place.

 

I don't necessarily buy into any particular dogma about a right way or a wrong way to create a work of art that aims to reach people via sound. I've been recording music for over 30 years, with some of it being recordings of live acoustic events (which I attempted to represent as faithfully as I could within the limitations of the technology available to me at the time), while others are creations that don't even exist as acoustic events until the listener presses "play" on their device and hears them through speakers or headphones. Both are "right", and both are valid art (which is, as always, in the ear of the beholder). If it connects with a listener in some way, it's successful; if it fails to connect, it's unsuccessful.

[Marvel]

26 minutes ago, dirtmudd said:

In modern recording, you can take all the time you want fixing issues and editing.

 

That depends on your budget, among other things.

 

Are you a musician? Have you, personally ever worked at a recording studio, been in one or anything similar.

 

I, for some reason, think not

[Chris A]

4 minutes ago, hsosdrummer said:

If it connects with a listener in some way, it's successful; if it fails to connect, it's unsuccessful.

So anyone can do anything and if it makes money...it's "successful".  Are you also saying that it's hi-fi?

[dirtmudd]

1 minute ago, Marvel said:

 

That depends on your budget, among other things.

 

Are you a musician? Have you, personally ever worked at a recording studio, been in one or anything similar.

yes I have I help build a home recording studio...back in the 80's

[jimjimbo]

Well then, that makes you an expert!

[hsosdrummer]

5 minutes ago, Chris A said:

So anyone can do anything and if it makes money...it's "successful".  Are you also saying that it's hi-fi?

Did my post mention anything at all about money? (No, it didn't.) Money is the way you judge the success or failure of commerce, not of art. I judge the success of a work of art strictly by whether or not people feel some sort of emotional connection with, or emotional reaction to it.

 

As for hi-fi, IMHO there ain't no such thing. Go back and read my long post on page 3. How are any of us to judge the 'fidelity' of an audio system when we're all making that judgment using recordings of acoustic events that we never even witnessed? The system may have fidelity to your idea of what the event in the recording sounded like, but unless you were present at the recording you're really only guessing. The best this hobby can do is provide each of us with an illusion that satisfies us in one or more ways. After all, you're not really being transported in time back to the original acoustic event, you're only taking part in the illusion that the time-transport is happening. 

[wvu80]

I don't know what the "best" sound is.  Even for vinyl, did anybody besides me buy the $25 Sheffield Labs discs when normal records cost ten bucks?  I remember them being a cut above, and other albums too, like Deutsch Grammaphone.

[DizRotus]

My copy of Thelma Houston & Pressure Cooker sounds excellent because of the dynamics, not because it is vinyl, but despite that fact.  It almost sounds as good as the best digital recordings that have greater dynamics, a better signal to noise ratio, and greater stereo separation than the best Sheffield Direct To Disc recordings, and without surface noise..

[BlueHusky79]

I bought a few albums over time. My first exposure was early 80's while comparing speakers at Hifi store (able to keep cool during heat wave, as didn't have A/C). The salesperson suggested I use the King James, Sheffield Labs album for demo'ing.

Wow, what an incredible moment, the first time hearing recording. Thirty plus years later continues to be one of our favorite recordings.

In turn, fell in love with one particular speaker, that was above anything ever heard.

They were Heresy's, not to say that the Cornwalls or La Scala's were chump change. The Heresy's at that stage of income & space were perfection.

Continue to visit them once a month. Until my new wife and I had paid off our wedding. Then with the extra cash we bought them as a gift to each other.

Sorry for long story. Am proud to share, especially since we continue to listen to Klipsch, together as best friends. Both have continue to reward with relaxing enjoyment.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[Chris A]

7 hours ago, hsosdrummer said:

As for hi-fi, IMHO there ain't no such thing...

PWK had a response that I believe appropriate:

 

 

Unfortunately, we have little common ground to communicate on this subject if "hi-fi has no meaning" is anything but rhetoric.  I come to this website--of all audio websites available on the web--because the concept of hi-fi still has specific meaning from its founder.  "Anything goes" is the end point of your arguments.  That's clearly a fashionable concept nowadays.  For me, it's just incorrect.

 

7 hours ago, hsosdrummer said:

How are any of us to judge the 'fidelity' of an audio system when we're all making that judgment using recordings of acoustic events that we never even witnessed? The system may have fidelity to your idea of what the event in the recording sounded like, but unless you were present at the recording you're really only guessing.

This is precisely what PWK was saying to do.  In my experience as a trained musician, I find that there exist musicians that automatically listen closely to others as they play and continuously adjust with virtuosity, and those that don't.   The latter I find are largely playing instruments requiring electricity...and notably in garages.  I find it takes little actual ability to play that genre.  At least 99.99% of that music isn't art.  It also has no meaning to "hi-fi" in my experience.

 

The former type that listen carefully invest years of their lives to their art and are uniformly gifted individuals in their art form--from their beginnings as musicians. Some play with absolute pitch (many, in fact).  Where musicians play with real ability together, it is the essence of acoustic jazz and other genres of improvisation, and in "art music" as you have alluded to true "art".

 

It is the concept of what music sounds like in their mind's eye that guides them all.  No trained and proficient musician that I've listened to is without this ability to recall and compare instantaneously what their music sounds like, and continuously adjust.  To suggest that we're individually incapable of doing this is to me suggesting that all are tone deaf.   I find that to be incorrect in practice.

 

I own only Klipsch loudspeakers in order to reproduce this type of music--not the everyday musical doggerel of ordinary quality that fills the broadcast airwaves--of which a stock auto sound system can easily reproduce.

 

Chris

[garyrc]

23 hours ago, wvu80 said:

I don't know what the "best" sound is.  Even for vinyl, did anybody besides me buy the $25 Sheffield Labs discs when normal records cost ten bucks?  I remember them being a cut above, and other albums too, like Deutsch Grammaphone.

I bought Sheffield Labs direct-to-disk. They were great!  DG, though were very variable and seemed to get worse over the years.