[JackA]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 01/04/2016 14:37, JackA wrote:
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:19:26 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 01/04/2016 04:12, JackA wrote:
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Garth,
Notice no one else is responding.

As I mentioned 1000 Times, maybe 15% of society can detect HQ sound. Remember, a participant here mentioned a Professor training people to detect HQ sound.

Detecting HQ sound is being able to detect the difference between
otherwise identical recordings on different formats, such as CD, DVD
audio, 24 bit at high sample rates and so on.

See here, you automatically bring digital into the equation for unknown reasons. Maybe you were raised on digital only.
When I'm impressed with a (HQ) recording, I don't ask how it was recorded, my main concern is it was recorded well. I pride myself for being able to detect when a particular recording was made (by sound). Can you?

I started with a portable tape recorder in the 1960s. I graduated from
my first one to an Akai X-IV, which for its time was very advanced, and
produced some very nice recordings, even being able to almost reproduce
later virtual head results, if the microphones were carefully placed.
The gear has improved over the decades, as have the results. Hpwever,
the first relatively affordable high quality equipment that held out the
promise of near perfect sound in the home was digital.

I had a friend on the 1960s who used to let my Dad record the first
playback of any LP he bought on Dad's equipment, as the recording on our
home equipment was noticeably better than the second and subsequent
plays on a normal turntable.

As for guessing when a recording was made, there is a lot of variation
due to fashions in mic placements and processing, though the microphones
have noticeably improved through the years, as has the rest of the
chain. Even so, a first generation recording of a jazz band in the 1950s
can sound remarkably good even by modern standards.

You might be able to guess when a particular recording could first have
been made, but that sound can be and has been emulated at later dates,
if necessary by digging the old gear out of the cupboard. Some modern
pop stuff uses 1950s microphones, for example. Many modern engineers use
old valve preamps, and some companies are now producing replicas which
sound exactly the same as many old preamps and effects units.

Do you actually believe valves (vacuum tube technology) can't be totally replicated by solid-state? I know some swear by valves, but I can't personally tell the difference.

And, you mention, Jazz. Boy, Jazz sounds the same today as it did decades ago. Though I'm not a collector of it, sound quality is impressive!

Before switching to CD, I was listening to vinyl records. I found the sound quality impressive, but hated ticks and pops. While I value CDs, they just didn't match what I (audio) experienced with vinyl. Hear me out, please...

I do believe what Scott Dorsey mentions, he calls them tape jockies. Maybe they remixed, but it seems what others did in the past was forgotten with CDs. My guess, in vinyl days, they had a lot more equipment to work with, equalizers, compressors, you name it, and with the absence of it, made CDs sound lifeless.

Even the I don't think much of Steve Hoffman's mastering, I know he stuck and equalizer in-line, and that was a GOOD choice. I still believe the best choice for CD audio is a decent DAW. One heck of a lot cheaper than electronic analogue gear. I do have one or two CDs that used tube (valve) gear for mastering, but my ears weren't excited.

Thanks, John, for the story.

Jack


--
Tciao for Now!

John.