How Close Do You Think We Get To The Real Thing?

[Andrewjvt]

Have you ever hear an artist play his cd and make excuses that it does not sound like that when they recorded it?

 

[spiny norman]

Have you ever hear an artist play his cd and make excuses that it does not sound like that when they recorded it?

That's why this was quite an interesting exercise.

 

[chebby]

The cult of the BBC monitor, from the 1970s onwards, was another manifestation of getting 'closer' to the studio in your own living room.

Getting closer to the broadcasting van in my living room?

Their were (and are) more BBC monitors than just the LS3/5A.

 

[andyjm]

The cult of the BBC monitor, from the 1970s onwards, was another manifestation of getting 'closer' to the studio in your own living room.

Getting closer to the broadcasting van in my living room?

To be fair, the Beeb had a whole range of speakers, LS3/5, LS3/6, LS5/1, LS5/5, LS5/9 and so on. They were designed for various monitoring and mixing duties - they key feature of which was consistency of performance. A programme mixed on one pair of speakers should sound the same on a different pair of speakers (of the same type). The Beeb approached third parties to manufacture the designs, and to take advantage of economies of scale would allow the third parties to sell speakers to others.

The well known 3/5a was indeed designed as a small studio monitoring louspeaker, primarily for O/B van use. When I was at the Beeb however it was widely used in many studio locations and as a lab bench top monitoring loudspeaker.

Many of the desks would also have the ability to play through a low quality mono speaker so that the engineer was able to see how the material would sound on a portable radio.

 

[Vladimir]

Is there a cult for the BBC monitors other than the LS3/5A?

Is there a difference between broadcasting and recording studio monitors? *scratch_one-s_head*

 

[NSA_watch_my_toilet]

"As per the title - how close do you think that a finished studio album gets to the event that actually happened in the studio?"

Listen. It's a really vague question. It completely depend on the engeneer, the band and the producer. Some will go for a natural sound, the closet to the event, but others are going far away from that for making it sound "nice" (whatever this term imply). And every path in the middle is possible too.

So as you see, there is no valuable response to that.

 

[NSA_watch_my_toilet]

I'm discovering Vladimir's response now and I agree with him on the essential points.

Greetings from an old studio worker.

 

[lindsayt]

Steve_1979, have you compared your amplification and speakers against typical amplification and speakers used in recording studios 30 years ago?

If I answer that question I'll get sucked into a long and frustrating discussion where you try to convince me that 30+ year old vintage speakers will sound as good as the best modern speakers.

That's not going to happen. Sorry.

Then in that case I will answer the question for you. Please feel free to correct me if anything I say is wrong.

The simple answer is that no you have not compared your amplification and speakers against any amp and speaker combination used in recording studios 30 years ago.

You therefore have no first hand knowledge of what you were talking about in post #2 of this thread.

Your comments were based on things that you have read. You have also read that your amplification and speakers do not sound that good at all. But you have chosen to filter IN to your hi-fi belief system everything that talks up the equipment that you've bought, whilst you filter OUT everything that talks your equipment down.

If you ever do get to properly audition a variety of high end (by sound quality) equipment then you and I may actually be able to have a proper discussion. Where you can tell us about what YOU heard and what YOU thought of it.

 

[chebby]

Steve_1979, have you compared your amplification and speakers against typical amplification and speakers used in recording studios 30 years ago?

If I answer that question I'll get sucked into a long and frustrating discussion where you try to convince me that 30+ year old vintage speakers will sound as good as the best modern speakers.

That's not going to happen. Sorry.

Then in that case I will answer the question for you. Please feel free to correct me if anything I say is wrong.

The simple answer is that no you have not compared your amplification and speakers against any amp and speaker combination used in recording studios 30 years ago.

You therefore have no first hand knowledge of what you were talking about in post #2 of this thread.

Your comments were based on things that you have read. You have also read that your amplification and speakers do not sound that good at all. But you have chosen to filter IN to your hi-fi belief system everything that talks up the equipment that you've bought, whilst you filter OUT everything that talks your equipment down.

If you ever do get to properly audition a variety of high end (by sound quality) equipment then you and I may actually be able to have a proper discussion. Where you can tell us about what YOU heard and what YOU thought of it.

You forgot to add ... "ner ner ne ner nerrrr!"

 

[Native_bon]

Have you ever hear an artist play his cd and make excuses that it does not sound like that when they recorded it?

Yes I have, and the mastered finished CD never sounds the same as when the music is played through the music DAW before mix dwn on the same very studio system.

 

[Andrew17321]

A photographer looks at a scene, looks at it through the viewfinder of his camera and photographs it. The photograph should be close to the viewfinder image, but neither will fully capture the the scene as first viewed by the photographer. Recording music is much the same. If well made and reproduced, the music heard by the listener should be close to what the recording engineer produced, but somewhat different from what the band made, and from what someone in the studio / concert hall would hear.

 

[keeper of the quays]

I listened to surprise by Paul Simon..theres so much going on in the recording..whenever I changed my kit..the album changes for the better revealing even more...would be interesting to hear it on ultra high end kit!

 

[Andrewjvt]

Have you ever hear an artist play his cd and make excuses that it does not sound like that when they recorded it?

Yes I have, and the mastered finished CD never sounds the same as when the music is played through the music DAW before mix dwn on the same very studio system.

Yes i agree but that was not my point .

 

[Andrewjvt]

Steve_1979, have you compared your amplification and speakers against typical amplification and speakers used in recording studios 30 years ago?

If I answer that question I'll get sucked into a long and frustrating discussion where you try to convince me that 30+ year old vintage speakers will sound as good as the best modern speakers.

That's not going to happen. Sorry.

Then in that case I will answer the question for you. Please feel free to correct me if anything I say is wrong.

The simple answer is that no you have not compared your amplification and speakers against any amp and speaker combination used in recording studios 30 years ago.

You therefore have no first hand knowledge of what you were talking about in post #2 of this thread.

Your comments were based on things that you have read. You have also read that your amplification and speakers do not sound that good at all. But you have chosen to filter IN to your hi-fi belief system everything that talks up the equipment that you've bought, whilst you filter OUT everything that talks your equipment down.

?

If you ever do get to properly audition a variety of high end (by sound quality) equipment then you and I may actually be able to have a proper discussion. Where you can tell us about what YOU heard and what YOU thought of it.

Really?
You actually wrote that?
Read it back to yourself and think how that comes across to us reading it.

 

[Ajani]

Steve_1979, have you compared your amplification and speakers against typical amplification and speakers used in recording studios 30 years ago?

If I answer that question I'll get sucked into a long and frustrating discussion where you try to convince me that 30+ year old vintage speakers will sound as good as the best modern speakers.

That's not going to happen. Sorry.

Then in that case I will answer the question for you. Please feel free to correct me if anything I say is wrong.

The simple answer is that no you have not compared your amplification and speakers against any amp and speaker combination used in recording studios 30 years ago.

You therefore have no first hand knowledge of what you were talking about in post #2 of this thread.

Your comments were based on things that you have read. You have also read that your amplification and speakers do not sound that good at all. But you have chosen to filter IN to your hi-fi belief system everything that talks up the equipment that you've bought, whilst you filter OUT everything that talks your equipment down.

If you ever do get to properly audition a variety of high end (by sound quality) equipment then you and I may actually be able to have a proper discussion. Where you can tell us about what YOU heard and what YOU thought of it.

Really? You actually wrote that? Read it back to yourself and think how that comes across to us reading it.

I don't think anyone writes something like that by accident. I'm sure he meant it to be as abrasive as it comes across.

The irony is that Steve_1979's initial post used words like "expect" and "probably", which makes it obvious that it is just his opinion and not likely to be made from a direct listening test. So there really was no need for the question that LindsayT both asked and answered.

 

[Ajani]

It's as natural as cola. There rarely is a real band, or real soundstage. It's all overdubbing, tons of effects, overprocessed to death. If you hear amazing presence and airyness in vocals and plucked strings, it's an effect. The soundstage is just a stereo panning effect, air is reverb. Real vocals and real instruments sound boring compared to the final production result.

A good analogy is Photoshopped and Raw photography. No one in advertising or art delivers raw photography. No one in the music business delivers raw music. Ever heard a Stratocaster without fuzzy distortion? Boring. Everything is flavored and saturated to the max, including the loudness compression that we talk about so much. Exception would be classical music and instrumental jazz. Poppy jazz with Diana Krall, Norah Jones etc. also is saturated with production effects.

So this means I cannot know what the finished product of these popular genres is suposed to sound like because I can't have a reference. Live events, vocals and instruments sound drastically different to studio recorded albums. So how do I know?

Easy.

The engineer is hearing his final mix in his studio on a pair of speakers. I'm hearing the finshed product on a pair of speakers too. Only way we both get to hear the same thing is if we both have neutral sounding speakers with good on and off axis response. Only difference would then be the SPL. In acoustically treated studio they would tend to listen very loud, and us at home for multiple reasons listen at much lower SPL. Of course at home I also have to have the rest of my system neutral, otherwise any added coloration will be presented by the neutral speakers.

Next, one needs to know how vinyl is made (cutting, pressing, several stages of compression and equalization) as well as how digital audio is made. When you know this, you realize that vinyl cannot deliver the same sound the engineer was hearing in the studio. Digital can. So if your source is digital, you can focus on your speakers as the real bottleneck in the system. If you add another transducer in the chain, now you have two bottlenecks that prevent you from hearing what the original recording is suposed to sound like. Two money pits.

Now, a valid question is do I really care if I'm getting accurate and life like sound. What if I prefer what sounds better to me? I guess if it was pop/rock/rnb/hiphop etc. maybe you shouldn't. It's like being obsessive of making the perfect copy of a $7 McDonalds burger at home. Why not even improve it? Isn't that what everyone is doing by using outdated tech like valves and vinyl? Now just pour ketchup, melt some butter, add salt, whatever makes you eat that burger with a smile. The threads how to get metal to sound warmer and nicer at an older age come to mind right now. I doubt when you were young you wanted your metal to sound tame and pleasant.

I personally don't care how rock sounds or if I'm getting it right like in the studio. I often listen to it on terrible integrated speakers in my PC monitor, while streaming from Youtube. Classical music and instrumental jazz, a different story for me. I want them perfect. Why? Because in those genres the studio engineer doesn't go out on the parking lot to hear the final mix in his car as final method of evaluating the quality of his workmanship.

By that logic, I wouldn't bother with HiFi at all, since relatively little of the music I listen to is classical or jazz.

 

[Frank Harvey]

It's as natural as cola. There rarely is a real band, or real soundstage. It's all overdubbing, tons of effects, overprocessed to death. If you hear amazing presence and airyness in vocals and plucked strings, it's an effect. The soundstage is just a stereo panning effect, air is reverb. Real vocals and real instruments sound boring compared to the final production result.

Or it could be that the recording and mixing managed to preserve more of what was there in the first place - depends on the venue/studio.

Next, one needs to know how vinyl is made (cutting, pressing, several stages of compression and equalization) as well as how digital audio is made. When you know this, you realize that vinyl cannot deliver the same sound the engineer was hearing in the studio.

When is the last time you heard a good turntable?

 

[Vladimir]

It's as natural as cola. There rarely is a real band, or real soundstage. It's all overdubbing, tons of effects, overprocessed to death. If you hear amazing presence and airyness in vocals and plucked strings, it's an effect. The soundstage is just a stereo panning effect, air is reverb. Real vocals and real instruments sound boring compared to the final production result.

Or it could be that the recording and mixing managed to preserve more of what was there in the first place - depends on the venue/studio.

Next, one needs to know how vinyl is made (cutting, pressing, several stages of compression and equalization) as well as how digital audio is made. When you know this, you realize that vinyl cannot deliver the same sound the engineer was hearing in the studio.

When is the last time you heard a good turntable?

You are the first to pull that dumb false logic trick on me. Oh no, wait. You're not.

 

[MeanandGreen]

When is the last time you heard a good turntable?

I think that is irrelevant. I don't recall reading any posts where anyone says vinyl sounds bad, because it doesn't.

I don't understand why people need to be sensitive to the fact that vinyl is physically limited in it's ability.

Even if you forget about things like S/N ratio, dynamic range, mono bass and the fact the signal must pass through an RIAA eq curve before we hear it. Just something simple like a piece of dust landing on a playing record creating a 'click' means you aren't accurately hearing the recording as intended. That single piece of dust or click were not part of the recording. In turn that is not high fidelity.

This doesn't mean records sound bad or that they are not enjoyable. But it is a fact it is not capable of fully reproducing what can potentially be recorded today.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

By that logic, I wouldn't bother with HiFi at all, since relatively little of the music I listen to is classical or jazz.

If your choice of music was produced and mastered to sound best on low fidelity devices, you should use them instead of constantly chasing your tail why Dr. Dre's "Black Niggaz" or Metalica's "Suicide & Redemption" sound bad on your 5000GBP Hi-Fi. You don't need fancy silverware to eat a damn burger.

Let's say we have a hypothetical 40+ y/o man called Roger. He listened to edgy music when he was young, blues rock, hard rock, metal etc. He loved it on his bombox, his two Pioneer cars speaker, he loved it on anything, it gave him such a rush and energy for life. Hormone bombs everytime Enter Sandman would start playing. But Roger is now old and can't produce these hormones, however his choice of music hasn't changed, he is still stuck with the same genre and artists. He now can afford a fancy hi-fi stereo as a shrine for his lost youth, but now he notices that his music is not giving him the same rush and it sounds kinda bad.

What do you suggest Roger should do now?

get a bank loan ! *lol*

 

[Vladimir]

I think that is irrelevant. I don't recall reading any posts where anyone says vinyl sounds bad, because it doesn't.

I don't understand why people need to be sensitive to the fact that vinyl is physically limited in it's ability.

Even if you forget about things like S/N ratio, dynamic range, mono bass and the fact the signal must pass through an RIAA eq curve before we hear it. Just something simple like a piece of dust landing on a playing record creating a 'click' means you aren't accurately hearing the recording as intended. That single piece of dust was not click not part of the recording. In turn that is not high fidelity.

This doesn't mean records sound bad or that they are not enjoyable. But it is a fact it is not capable of fully reproducing what can potentially be recorded today.

Last I heard was a Sansui SR-222 mkII and a Pioneer PL-930. Dave is again missing the point. The bottleneck is not the table, but the vinyl media. You keep pouring money in the table to try and compensate for what are inherent flaws of the vinyl record. need to read it does that to living beings. But I can also say I've owned a decent TT and collected vinyl, also have buddies that still do, so it's nothing foreign to me. My experience just reaffirms my opinion on the subject. David wants to deny my experience and convey it as limited and flawed. Again, David fails and fails again.

 

[Vladimir]

By that logic, I wouldn't bother with HiFi at all, since relatively little of the music I listen to is classical or jazz.

If your choice of music was produced and mastered to sound best on low fidelity devices, you should use them instead of constantly chasing your tail why Dr. Dre's "***** Niggaz" or Metalica's "Suicide & Redemption" sound bad on your 5000GBP Hi-Fi. You don't need fancy silverware to eat a damn burger.

Let's say we have a hypothetical 40+ y/o man called Roger. He listened to edgy music when he was young, blues rock, hard rock, metal etc. He loved it on his bombox, his two Pioneer car speakers, he loved it on anything, it gave him such a rush and energy for life. Hormone bombs everytime Enter Sandman would start playing. But Roger is now old and can't produce these hormones, however his choice of music hasn't changed, he is still stuck with the same genre and artists. He now can afford a fancy hi-fi stereo as a shrine for his lost youth, but now he notices that his music is not giving him the same rush and it sounds kinda bad.

What do you suggest Roger should do now?

 

[tonky]

When is the last time you heard a good turntable?

I think that is irrelevant. I don't recall reading any posts where anyone says vinyl sounds bad, because it doesn't.

I don't understand why people need to be sensitive to the fact that vinyl is physically limited in it's ability.

Even if you forget about things like S/N ratio, dynamic range, mono bass and the fact the signal must pass through an RIAA eq curve before we hear it. Just something simple like a piece of dust landing on a playing record creating a 'click' means you aren't accurately hearing the recording as intended. That single piece of dust or click were not part of the recording. In turn that is not high fidelity.

This doesn't mean records sound bad or that they are not enjoyable. But it is a fact it is not capable of fully reproducing what can potentially be recorded today.

I think you misunderstand daveatfrankharveys point - I totally (as you do I'm sure) understand that objective measurements of turntables can be inferior to digital sources - but in being critical of turntables as a source without having heard what decent ones can do in a balanced system renders the discussion unfulfilled.

- I think The"listening and comparing" is as important (at least) as the measurements. - Otherwise, how do we get the whole picture?

tonky -

 

[Vladimir]

Click on each image to hear a track sample. Decide which one is a more required taste (goat cheese) and which for everyones taste buds (cheese burger). Then ask yourself, which one demands a high fidelity reproduction and which one doesn't. Do I need to get closer to Rostropovich or Gene Simmons?

 

[Ajani]

By that logic, I wouldn't bother with HiFi at all, since relatively little of the music I listen to is classical or jazz.

If your choice of music was produced and mastered to sound best on low fidelity devices, you should use them instead of constantly chasing your tail why Dr. Dre's "***** Niggaz" or Metalica's "Suicide & Redemption" sound bad on your 5000GBP Hi-Fi. You don't need fancy silverware to eat a damn burger.

Let's say we have a hypothetical 40+ y/o man called Roger. He listened to edgy music when he was young, blues rock, hard rock, metal etc. He loved it on his bombox, his two Pioneer car speakers, he loved it on anything, it gave him such a rush and energy for life. Hormone bombs everytime Enter Sandman would start playing. But Roger is now old and can't produce these hormones, however his choice of music hasn't changed, he is still stuck with the same genre and artists. He now can afford a fancy hi-fi stereo as a shrine for his lost youth, but now he notices that his music is not giving him the same rush and it sounds kinda bad.

What do you suggest Roger should do now?

I'm not sure what special mastering is required to play on low fidelity devices. Yep, I get that a producer may have a listen to how the mix sounds in his car, but then what? Does he go back to the studio and guess that he needs to boost 3khz range to compensate for something?

I listen to many different genres of music (including Pop, Rock, Rap and Dancehall) and while some are not well produced, I find that most sound better with decent HiFi equipment. And that includes albums by Dr Dre (I've never listened to Metallica).

The whole it's not Jazz or classical so it's not a gourmet meal, really sounds like the typical audiophile thought process. What's next? It's not high res, so no point listening to it on anything other than a smartphone?