Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:57:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Jenn" wrote in message I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities that separate it from any recorded sound. I don't think you have the evidence at your disposal that it should take to say that with such certainty. Evidence? You carry all the evidence that you should need hanging on either side of your head. Ears? Those aren't evidence, they are part of your test equipment setup. It says that the best of recordings are light years away from being perfect. Better than ever, yes, but perfect no. A lot of people hold up the 1950's recordings of Mercury's C.R. Fine and RCA's Louis Layton, and perhaps Rudy Van Gelder's jazz recordings as being among the best ever made and while I agree that many of these sound simply amazing, the technology exists today to simply blow them away and do so relatively cheaply and with a minimum of equipment. Agreed. But even as good as it's possible to get today - even on ordinary 16-bit, 24KHz CD, most recordings still don't sound very good and even the best fall short of reality. Agreed. Producers have agendas and some of those agendas have little to do with sound quality of the recordings they make and everything to do with selling CDs. Agreed. |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 07:51:59 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ): In article , Sonnova wrote: The San Francisco Symphony label records that ensemble in this manner, and I've mentioned before how good their recent Mahler cycle sounds. Fantastic recordings, IMO. Great performances as well. I've been to several of the concerts when they are recording the Mahlers... all wonderful. You're hearing it through a speaker, of course. Or earphones. One major problem with listening through earphones is that as typically used, the mic/earphone combination bypasses the human body's HRTF (Head Response Transfer Function). I believe that you are correct in your statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is "live". Agreed. However, a major difference between sitting in the seats and listening to a mic feed is that the sound is being monitored at two different locations. The sound field in a concert hall is really quite diverse. Of course, but the question remains. IMV, it is obvious that some recordings (and some gear) sound more real and live than others. Liker I said before, yes they do. Another factor is microphone technique. A forest of microphones cannot make a good sounding recording because no matter how good the mike, instruments don't sound the same up close as they do when they all "mix" in the air between the ensemble and your ears and no amount of electronic mixing can fix that. It is important for a good recording to mike the SPACE that an ensemble occupies, not the instruments. Try listening to a late 60's symphonic recording where a string section sounds like 12 violins playing instead of like a string section and the only image the ensemble throws is the one where each microphone is pan-potted between one speaker and another. Indeed. So sad that so many great Bernstein and von Karajan readings were recorded that way. Yes I know. The best performance ever (IMHO) of Respighi's "Church Windows" was made by EO and the PO in the middle 1960's. But sonically, its a multi-mike nightmare and is practically unlistenable for that reason. Karajan did a Beethoven Symphony cycle in the late 1950's. At that time, DGG was using a single M-S stereo mike to record the Berlin Philharmonic. Those are the best sounding Karajan recordings I've ever heard (along with his recording with Sviatoslav Richter of the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto #1) |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:03:27 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:57:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Jenn" wrote in message I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities that separate it from any recorded sound. I don't think you have the evidence at your disposal that it should take to say that with such certainty. Evidence? You carry all the evidence that you should need hanging on either side of your head. Ears? Those aren't evidence, they are part of your test equipment setup. In the sense that the proof of the pudding is in the eating (or in this case, the listening), it is. |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Digital to Analog downloading Question ?
The best sound IMO is a live band in a good sounding room with only a PA
system for vocals, no mics on the drums or amps. Pure, ambient sound. bob wrote: On Apr 6, 8:58 pm, Terry wrote: I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to copy them to my RX-505. If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't it have to be analog to analog copy from a record instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm analog sound? If by "that analog sound," you mean tape hiss, high-frequency rolloff, and wobbly wow & flutter, then you're in luck. Putting your newly acquired MP3s on cassette will give you all of those things! If what you're really after is "that vinyl sound"--surface noise, pops & clicks, W&F, phase distortion, frequency response anomalies, tracking error (have I missed anything?)--then you do indeed have to start with a vinyl disk. bob |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
digital or analog (live), that is my the question!!! | Pro Audio | |||
Analog vs Digital? | Pro Audio | |||
Novice question: how transfer analog audio to digital? | Pro Audio | |||
Question about downloading music | General | |||
Dumping analog to digital question | Pro Audio |