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

[iceman16]

Or try "Knock Out 2000" by Charlie Antolini

 

[MeanandGreen]

My official stance: vinyl playback sounds great, it isn't as accurate as digital, and to me hi-fi is an ever moving forward goal post of accuracy. Going back to vinyl is just that, going back to vinyl. Why is it presented as better across genres, when we all know the elephant in the room is loudness compression which is genre related?

I think that is bang on.

I also think it highly relevant to the thread subject of "How close do you think we can get to the real thing?" The real thing can only be the final result of the mastering/engineering. We can only re play what we are given as the source material.

Digital vs vinyl is very crucial to the topic in question. Vinyl does have limitations and because of this vinyl versions of the same material can sound 'different' which many describe as 'better'. But if the intention was to create a dynamically compressed 0dbfs riot, and the vinyl cannot cope with that hence a less aggressive mix is cut, then surely that means it doesn't resemble the original intentions of the producer? It may sound nicer and more pleasing to listen to, but if the rough and raw edge of the digital realise is what it's meant to be like, then isn't that 'closer to the real thing'?

Many miss the point. Yes vinyl sounds good, but that doesn't mean it sounds accurate or as it was intended. Considering the topic in question I don't think the vinyl format can be considered as a worthy format to get us as close as possible to the real thing, no matter how super duper the turntable is. The actual format is the limiting factor.

Our speakers and listening rooms are also a limiting factor, at least with digital we can have one less limiting factor in the equation.

 

[iceman16]

To the op..Im a bit confused..what "the real thing" means? Is it how the performers and or musicians or how it was recorded and mastered?

 

[manicm]

My official stance: vinyl playback sounds great, it isn't as accurate as digital, and to me hi-fi is an ever moving forward goal post of accuracy. Going back to vinyl is just that, going back to vinyl. Why is it presented as better across genres, when we all know the elephant in the room is loudness compression which is genre related?

I think that is bang on.

I also think it highly relevant to the thread subject of "How close do you think we can get to the real thing?" The real thing can only be the final result of the mastering/engineering. We can only re play what we are given as the source material.

Digital vs vinyl is very crucial to the topic in question. Vinyl does have limitations and because of this vinyl versions of the same material can sound 'different' which many describe as 'better'. But if the intention was to create a dynamically compressed 0dbfs riot, and the vinyl cannot cope with that hence a less aggressive mix is cut, then surely that means it doesn't resemble the original intentions of the producer? It may sound nicer and more pleasing to listen to, but if the rough and raw edge of the digital realise is what it's meant to be like, then isn't that 'closer to the real thing'?

Many miss the point. Yes vinyl sounds good, but that doesn't mean it sounds accurate or as it was intended. Considering the topic in question I don't think the vinyl format can be considered as a worthy format to get us as close as possible to the real thing, no matter how super duper the turntable is. The actual format is the limiting factor.

Our speakers and listening rooms are also a limiting factor, at least with digital we can have one less limiting factor in the equation.

In the context of this thread the medium is irrelevant, be it vinyl or any form of digital. If you want or find a raw recording it will be revealed as such even by a good vinyl system. Yes, even vinyl can be revealing.

This thread seems to have degenerated into another format trolling exercise, and veiled snobbery and pigeonholing as well. I mean working class music??? Please! And no, I don't think loudness compression is restricted to specific genres.

Back to the OP, the answer to the question is how much does the artist/producer/engineer and ultimately the bean counters at the record company want to reveal? The record bosses wanted to kill Steve Albini after In Utero. And maybe even Nirvana themselves - well maybe Kurt Cobain - apparently he was going to change tack drastically on the next album, dumping their grunge image.

It's like the barman deciding - how much more alcohol should I give this idiot (even though he may be wearing Armani and drive a Porsche)???

 

[Vladimir]

I think that fidelity in music is positively correlated to Cultural Capital. It's not a fact, it's a hypothesis of mine (borrowing from Bourdieu, as well as Adorno's and Horkheimer's Kulturindustrie). Think of it what you will. But let's not go too much off topic.

 

[emperor's new clothes]

Agree, but perhaps the record companies are reluctant to release the highest quality because of fear of losing control of their copyright to a world of piracy. Bob Stuart hinted at this while discusing MQA at CES.

In the meantime, they can drip feed incremental increases in quality to the likes of me - an idiot that has bought the same album several times over as the original was deliberately cr@p

 

[Blacksabbath25]

Agree, but perhaps the record companies are reluctant to release the highest quality because of fear of losing control of their copyright to a world of piracy. Bob Stuart hinted at this while discusing MQA at CES.

In the meantime, they can drip feed incremental increases in quality to the likes of me - an idiot that has bought the same album several times over as the original was deliberately cr@p

your not the only idiot I have brought the same album 5 or 6 times thinking I was getting better quality recording and the other day I was going to buy Ozzy osboure blizzard of oz album which I must of brought that album 4 times in my life time it was the expanded edition so I thought I would look up the dynamic data base to see if it was good on quality it was poor so then I looked up an older copy of the same album which I had somewhere the jet version which is the best recording so just because it says its remastered does not mean it's any better so I am an idiot too lol

 

[manicm]

Agree, but perhaps the record companies are reluctant to release the highest quality because of fear of losing control of their copyright to a world of piracy. Bob Stuart hinted at this while discusing MQA at CES.

In the meantime, they can drip feed incremental increases in quality to the likes of me - an idiot that has bought the same album several times over as the original was deliberately cr@p

It's not necessarily a matter of highest quality, it's also what is the consumer willing to digest? An album that posesses a very polished production does not mean 'low quality'. Do you think an album like Avalon has no loudness/levelling compression? Do you think it's well produced?

Another example is Double Fantasy Stripped Down, the scaled down instrumentation is a matter of taste, but I think Yoko Ono made a hash of it. The production is balls. Just my personal opinion and tast.

Now here's a rare 'raw' version of Woman but with reverb intact https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF6qaOqS6zY, and I think it proves that Yoko's direction was perhaps misguided. (Some amusing banter by Lennon so wait a while for the actual song).

 

[Frank Harvey]

In the meantime, they can drip feed incremental increases in quality to the likes of me - an idiot that has bought the same album several times over as the original was deliberately cr@p

Not necessarily, as it's getting worse, not better. More recent reissues of albums on CD are more compressed, as record companies up the loudness to make it more impressive to the masses. I bought the resissue of Rain Tree Crow's self titled album, and the balance of the original (and the vinyl copy) has gone. The bass is now far more meaty sounding, but it now sounds wrong, and some detail in Mick Karn's bass playing has gone. There are some remasters that have been good though, not that they spring to mind. I don't get it, as the level on the CD doesn't matter - if it's a lower level (allowing greater dynamic range), you just turn the amp up a bit more.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Back to the OP, the answer to the question is how much does the artist/producer/engineer and ultimately the bean counters at the record company want to reveal?

I think I'm done with it. I was hoping for something more than a format war, but as has been mentioned, it's been dragged down by the usual troll.

 

[chebby]

I think that fidelity in music is positively correlated to Cultural Capital. It's not a fact, it's a hypothesis of mine (borrowing from Bourdieu, as well as Adorno's and Horkheimer's Kulturindustrie).

You mean Marx.

 

[spiny norman]

You mean Marx.

Harpo, hopefully.

 

[Covenanter]

My official stance: vinyl playback sounds great, it isn't as accurate as digital, and to me hi-fi is an ever moving forward goal post of accuracy. Going back to vinyl is just that, going back to vinyl. Why is it presented as better across genres, when we all know the elephant in the room is loudness compression which is genre related?

I think that is bang on.

I also think it highly relevant to the thread subject of "How close do you think we can get to the real thing?" The real thing can only be the final result of the mastering/engineering. We can only re play what we are given as the source material.

Digital vs vinyl is very crucial to the topic in question. Vinyl does have limitations and because of this vinyl versions of the same material can sound 'different' which many describe as 'better'. But if the intention was to create a dynamically compressed 0dbfs riot, and the vinyl cannot cope with that hence a less aggressive mix is cut, then surely that means it doesn't resemble the original intentions of the producer? It may sound nicer and more pleasing to listen to, but if the rough and raw edge of the digital realise is what it's meant to be like, then isn't that 'closer to the real thing'?

Many miss the point. Yes vinyl sounds good, but that doesn't mean it sounds accurate or as it was intended. Considering the topic in question I don't think the vinyl format can be considered as a worthy format to get us as close as possible to the real thing, no matter how super duper the turntable is. The actual format is the limiting factor.

Our speakers and listening rooms are also a limiting factor, at least with digital we can have one less limiting factor in the equation.

I'm not sure that talking so much sense will go down very well here!

Chris

 

[Vladimir]

I think that fidelity in music is positively correlated to Cultural Capital. It's not a fact, it's a hypothesis of mine (borrowing from Bourdieu, as well as Adorno's and Horkheimer's Kulturindustrie).

You mean Marx.

Proleteriat muzik.

 

[emperor's new clothes]

Hi David,

Thanks for Rain Tree Crow - having a listen on AppleMusic. Agree that re masters are hit and miss, both on Cd and BluRay HD audio. Examples of those that I owned on vinyl and saw live in their pomp for comparison, Pink Floyd 2011 remasters are good to my ears, 2013 Rumours better at last - i saw the original Fleetwood mac and John Mcvie's superb bass lines are often airbrushed out on CD. Jimi Page, whom I've enjoyed since his Yardbird days, made a hash of the Led Zep remasters to my ears, with sibilance on some of Plant's vocals. All examples of transfer from original 16 track analogue master tapes. I presume that post 1980s modern Vinyl has been created from digitally recorded masters, then undergone DA conversion, which means it is merely filing off the nasty edges as the best electronics tend to do? I have read complaints from classical vinyl buyers in the states that say their USA version has been compressed compared to European version. We deserve better from a cynical music industry, IMHO.

 

[chebby]

Proleteriat muzik.

Rich, 1960s American's kid's music. With the most nourishment, education, healthcare and disposable income of any generation, in any geography, in the history of the world ... probably.

 

[matthewpiano]

If the 'real thing' is the live performance (which, where possible, it is to me), then the answer to the original question is actually not very close at all. There are too many variables in between the original, live performance and the sound that comes out of the speakers in the home. Acoustic of the recording space, microphone choice and placement, choice of all other studio equipment, engineer, producer, duplication/pressing, format characteristics, choice and combination of replay equipment, positioning of speakers in the listening space, and acoustic of the listening space being crucial factors. There are also instruments, including the piano, which it is not possible to record or reproduce with full accuracy.

Obviously, there is a large number of recordings which are studio creations, where there never was a full performance in the studio. Some things could never actually be recreated live, without using some of the recorded elements. In these cases, the 'real thing' is, of course, the finished master. Again there are many variables in between, but there is a much stronger chance of getting very close with the right equipment.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Hi David,

Thanks for Rain Tree Crow - having a listen on AppleMusic. Agree that re masters are hit and miss, both on Cd and BluRay HD audio.

The vinyl is excellent too, and easily a match for any aspect of the CD rpoduction. I put it on expecting it to fall short of the cymbalwork on some tracks, most notably Black Crow Hits Shoe Shine City, but it lost nothing to it. This was through a system that was well over £30,000, so any major difference would have been clear.

 

[Vladimir]

Rihanna. Tidal is shouting at me on the home page to give it a listen.

 

[tonky]

If the 'real thing' is the live performance (which, where possible, it is to me), then the answer to the original question is actually not very close at all. There are too many variables in between the original, live performance and the sound that comes out of the speakers in the home. Acoustic of the recording space, microphone choice and placement, choice of all other studio equipment, engineer, producer, duplication/pressing, format characteristics, choice and combination of replay equipment, positioning of speakers in the listening space, and acoustic of the listening space being crucial factors. There are also instruments, including the piano, which it is not possible to record or reproduce with full accuracy.

Obviously, there is a large number of recordings which are studio creations, where there never was a full performance in the studio. Some things could never actually be recreated live, without using some of the recorded elements. In these cases, the 'real thing' is, of course, the finished master. Again there are many variables in between, but there is a much stronger chance of getting very close with the right equipment.

Totally agree Matthewpiano -for classical performances

tonky

 

[chebby]

Roger still likes it today. Though he can't seem to get the right Hi-Fi to recreate it in his living room. Perhaps not bathing would help.

BTW, this is the latest arbeiterklasse song by Rihanna. Tidal is shouting at me on the home page to give it a listen.

Dunno who 'Roger' is (presumably one of your imaginary menagerie that you like to throw rocks at from the top of that mountain of yours).

I really don't want to know any more about 'Rihanna' after a couple of minutes Googling her.

 

[keeper of the quays]

Am going to get that new magazine that's has a record in it..its miles Davis 'kind of blue ' I have this on original mono..ill compare them...i agree with comment about led Zep remasters..not good...played mark knopfler sailing to Philadelphia...fab recording..whoever said quality of cd is dependant on the recording is bang on the money..i have 50 year old ears..lol...im sure there's loads I'm missing compared to as young man..

 

[emperor's new clothes]

Am going to get that new magazine that's has a record in it..its miles Davis 'kind of blue ' I have this on original mono..ill compare them...i agree with comment about led Zep remasters..not good...played mark knopfler sailing to Philadelphia...fab recording..whoever said quality of cd is dependant on the recording is bang on the money..i have 50 year old ears..lol...im sure there's loads I'm missing compared to as young man..

Hi keeper,

Thanks - sometimes wonder if it is just my ears! Was playing Sailing to Philadephia only yesterday and agree, a fine example of what is possible for CD. Have most of his solo albums, including ShangriLa on SACD. All beautifully recorded and produced. Like the duet with James Taylor on the title track and Van Morrison.

 

[Ajani]

Back to the OP, the answer to the question is how much does the artist/producer/engineer and ultimately the bean counters at the record company want to reveal?

I think I'm done with it. I was hoping for something more than a format war, but as has been mentioned, it's been dragged down by the usual troll.

I think we really need to keep in mind that having controversial opinions is not the same as being a troll.

I do think this forum really has gotten out of hand though, due to the lack of moderation. So it's easy for forum members to take baiting and insulting way too far.

 

[MajorFubar]

To try to get it back on topic, because basically I reckon it's a very good question worthwhile of a proper discussion, did we come to a decision over what 'the real thing' actually meant? Do we mean the performance, the file sat on the mastering-engineer's hard drive, something inbetween, or something completely different?