Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Treble in recordings
Can it be said that treble needs to be cut in a mix if the recorded
material is deficient in some way? I mean some live recordings of rock bands for example, with roughly recorded setups, where the mix seems to be turned 'low-fi' on purpose to make the deficiencies less noticable. I used to think that it was just that the gear used in the 60s/70s didn't pick up above 14kHz say, but that seems to be untrue. Rather the highs are cut in the mix as a choice. Another example: Take the Dark Side of the Moon album recorded masterfully by Alan Parsons, he was able to keep all the high frequencies in 1973, whereas the follow ups 'Wish you were here' and 'Animals' are dull sounding in comparison, even though the recordings were made later with newer technology. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Treble in recordings
In article , hinz wrote:
I used to think that it was just that the gear used in the 60s/70s didn't pick up above 14kHz say, but that seems to be untrue. Rather the highs are cut in the mix as a choice. Put a lot of top end, and an LP becomes very difficult to cut. So bright music will be cut pretty quiet on LP. The system is slew-limited, because you can only move the stylus so fast. Easy to get high frequencies with small excursion, hard to get it with a lot of excursion. Another example: Take the Dark Side of the Moon album recorded masterfully by Alan Parsons, he was able to keep all the high frequencies in 1973, whereas the follow ups 'Wish you were here' and 'Animals' are dull sounding in comparison, even though the recordings were made later with newer technology. Are you comparing the original LP versions, the different-sounding LP reissues, the original (harsh) CD reissues, or later reissues? All are tonally different. In great part it is a matter of fashion. With classical music it's easy to know if it's tonally correct, because the playback sounds like the sound in the studio. With rock music there is no such reference point. With rock music it's tonally correct if the producer says it is. Producers are different and fashions change with time. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Treble in recordings
Scott Dorsey writes:
In article , hinz wrote: I used to think that it was just that the gear used in the 60s/70s didn't pick up above 14kHz say, but that seems to be untrue. Rather the highs are cut in the mix as a choice. Put a lot of top end, and an LP becomes very difficult to cut. So bright music will be cut pretty quiet on LP. The system is slew-limited, because you can only move the stylus so fast. Easy to get high frequencies with small excursion, hard to get it with a lot of excursion. Another example: Take the Dark Side of the Moon album recorded masterfully by Alan Parsons, he was able to keep all the high frequencies in 1973, whereas the follow ups 'Wish you were here' and 'Animals' are dull sounding in comparison, even though the recordings were made later with newer technology. Are you comparing the original LP versions, the different-sounding LP reissues, the original (harsh) CD reissues, or later reissues? All are tonally different. I must admit I haven't played the LPs in decades. Dark Side used to be admired though for its fidelity and was a test LP for high-end systems. In great part it is a matter of fashion. With classical music it's easy to know if it's tonally correct, because the playback sounds like the sound in the studio. With rock music there is no such reference point. With rock music it's tonally correct if the producer says it is. Producers are different and fashions change with time. --scott The producers went for a much duller sound for Wish you were here and Animals; my suspicion is that this was because the source material (especially drums) was not recorded as well as it was for Dark Side. The next album (The Wall) again has exceptional tonal quality with all the highs. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Treble in recordings
Early CD players skrimped on the D/A section and the buffer amps to get the sound out to the RCA output jacks. There was only ONE D/A circuit that switched back and forth from one track to the other.
Once that was solved by having separate D/A converters and the buffer circuits were improved, so did the sound. 16-bit multitrack sessions were ditched for 24-bit sessions (or higher). That also helped a lot. There was a wide variance in LP playback systems and that was made worse by people who often used graphic EQ in their systems and set them for "smiley face" with boosted bass and treble. Having said that, there had been a movement for some time in the analog recording world to increase HF response. Dolby and other noise reduction circuits, back coated recording tape to allow the tape to be hit with stronger signal without print-through, people messing with other things. Listen to original pressings of the first Pure Prairie League LP. The brights are horrible |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Treble in recordings
Ty Ford Knows **** All about Audio:
Early CD players skrimped on the D/A section and the buffer amps to get the sound out to the RCA output jacks. ** Complete bull**** presented as fact. The only thing Ty Ford knows how to do. There was only ONE D/A circuit that switched back and forth from one track to the other. ** The first Sony CD players did that and it worked extremely well. The performance was better that nearly any player that followed and better than nearly any stereo amplifier available. Once that was solved by having separate D/A converters and the buffer circuits were improved, so did the sound. ** Since there simply was no problem there was nothing to solve. Later players were made more cheaply then the early Sonys. Snip rest of this bull****ting fake's *audiophool* nonsense that Ty has been making his living from for years. .... Phil |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Treble in recordings
yawn
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Treble in recordings
Ty Ford wrote:
Early CD players skrimped on the D/A section and the buffer amps to get the sound out to the RCA output jacks. There was only ONE D/A circuit that switched back and forth from one track to the other. Once that was solved by having separate D/A converters and the buffer circuits were improved, so did the sound. 16-bit multitrack sessions were ditched for 24-bit sessions (or higher). That also helped a lot. There was a wide variance in LP playback systems and that was made worse by people who often used graphic EQ in their systems and set them for "smiley face" with boosted bass and treble. Having said that, there had been a movement for some time in the analog recording world to increase HF response. Dolby and other noise reduction circuits, back coated recording tape to allow the tape to be hit with stronger signal without print-through, people messing with other things. Listen to original pressings of the first Pure Prairie League LP. The brights are horrible The worst one I ever heard was Don Felder's solo album. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIz6rx07-Lo -- Les Cargill |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Treble in recordings
hinz wrote:
Can it be said that treble needs to be cut in a mix if the recorded material is deficient in some way? I mean some live recordings of rock bands for example, with roughly recorded setups, where the mix seems to be turned 'low-fi' on purpose to make the deficiencies less noticable. I used to think that it was just that the gear used in the 60s/70s didn't pick up above 14kHz say, but that seems to be untrue. Rather the highs are cut in the mix as a choice. Another example: Take the Dark Side of the Moon album recorded masterfully by Alan Parsons, he was able to keep all the high frequencies in 1973, whereas the follow ups 'Wish you were here' and 'Animals' are dull sounding in comparison, even though the recordings were made later with newer technology. DSOTM, Animals and "Wish You Were Here" were very consistent on the original vinyl. DSOTM has a lot of phasey stuff in the high end, though. It sounds like tape wear and saturation. -- Les Cargill |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Treble in recordings
Les Cargill writes:
hinz wrote: Can it be said that treble needs to be cut in a mix if the recorded material is deficient in some way? I mean some live recordings of rock bands for example, with roughly recorded setups, where the mix seems to be turned 'low-fi' on purpose to make the deficiencies less noticable. I used to think that it was just that the gear used in the 60s/70s didn't pick up above 14kHz say, but that seems to be untrue. Rather the highs are cut in the mix as a choice. Another example: Take the Dark Side of the Moon album recorded masterfully by Alan Parsons, he was able to keep all the high frequencies in 1973, whereas the follow ups 'Wish you were here' and 'Animals' are dull sounding in comparison, even though the recordings were made later with newer technology. DSOTM, Animals and "Wish You Were Here" were very consistent on the original vinyl. DSOTM has a lot of phasey stuff in the high end, though. It sounds like tape wear and saturation. That's interesting. I listened to some vinyl pressings on YT and they are indeed a lot more consistent in comparison. They really changed the CD remix, making DSOTM much brighter and the others duller than they were. DSOTM still seems a bit clearer on the cymbals mainly. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Treble in recordings
In article , hinz wrote:
That's interesting. I listened to some vinyl pressings on YT and they are indeed a lot more consistent in comparison. They really changed the CD remix, making DSOTM much brighter and the others duller than they were. DSOTM still seems a bit clearer on the cymbals mainly. This is frequently just a matter of what the current style is when the reissue is made. You'll notice the LP releases of the first Beatles albums were tonally quite different between the Parlophone and Columbia releases. The US releases were very midrange-heavy, because that's what they thought US customers wanted. Some reissues were clearly bungled, having been made from equalized distribution master tapes or made with incorrect playback eq or azimuth. It's not surprising to find US reissues of European recordings made by playing back CCIR-equalized tapes on an NAB machine (and if there aren't any markings on the box or tone ladders on the tape the only clue is the sound). But a whole lot of other reissues were squashed and brightented to meet the fashion of the day when they were released. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Treble in recordings
On 4/08/2019 3:36 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , hinz wrote: That's interesting. I listened to some vinyl pressings on YT and they are indeed a lot more consistent in comparison. They really changed the CD remix, making DSOTM much brighter and the others duller than they were. DSOTM still seems a bit clearer on the cymbals mainly. This is frequently just a matter of what the current style is when the reissue is made. You'll notice the LP releases of the first Beatles albums were tonally quite different between the Parlophone and Columbia releases. The US releases were very midrange-heavy, because that's what they thought US customers wanted. Some reissues were clearly bungled, having been made from equalized distribution master tapes or made with incorrect playback eq or azimuth. It's not surprising to find US reissues of European recordings made by playing back CCIR-equalized tapes on an NAB machine (and if there aren't any markings on the box or tone ladders on the tape the only clue is the sound). But a whole lot of other reissues were squashed and brightented to meet the fashion of the day when they were released. --scott Many first generation remastered CDs had the treble that was there cranked to make up for the higher treble that didn't exist. Which is why many sounded harsh and glary. geoff |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Treble in recordings
geoff wrote: "
Many first generation remastered CDs had the treble that was there cranked to make up for the higher treble that didn't exist. Which is why many sounded harsh and glary. geoff " One reason I avoid them in most cases. (Waiting for some jerk to tell me I don't know any better!) |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Treble in recordings
geoff wrote:
Many first generation remastered CDs had the treble that was there cranked to make up for the higher treble that didn't exist. Which is why many sounded harsh and glary. Maybe. On the other hand, there are recordings from the seventies, like Hotel California, that were clearly made by people blasted out of their skulls on cocaine who are massively boosting the top end. The original 45 and the consequent LP are listenable because the top end had to be tamed down just to cut it. But the CD reissue sounds just like the master and is painful to hear. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Treble Distortion | General | |||
High SPL Treble | Tech | |||
High SPL Treble | Tech | |||
Why don't classical piano recordings sound as good as pop recordings? | High End Audio |