Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site


In the Forum: Audio Discussions
In the Thread: Simpson Microphones thread.
Post Subject: Science vs conjuringPosted by Andy Simpson on: 9/13/2008
 Paul S wrote:
Well, you can count me among those who are perennially frustrated by all the unnessary stupidy that goes into most recordings, that's for sure, although I have several hundred records that I would like to keep for the perfromances that somehow survived the processing.

I do have redbook CD playback in my main system, as soon as I fix the short in my DAC, but I have always in the end preferred LPs, despite their very obvious flaws, not to mention the tedious playback rituals.

Of course I would like "better recordings", including better monitoring, in the rote, physical sense.  The weird thing is that some of the best performances I have on on VERY obviously "compromised" recordings, and some of the "best sounding"  recordings are MT of musical content.

Please do not think I am a "musical versus accurate" guy, because I absolutely have no problem with "accuracy" that includes the music.  In fact, I think I prefer it.  But what I just keep coming back to is that the Music has to be there as a first consideration, meaning I am not so sure that close attention to raw data end to end will necessarilly result in music.

I have been involved in some "live versus recorded" trials that I found more interesting for social reasons than for any ultimate conclusions one might draw from them about music.

The most "realistic" sound "reproduction" I have ever heard was many years ago at a Stereophile show in Los Angeles.  They had hired a classical guitarist to wander around the show.  I heard the guy at one point playing some Bach around the corner, but when I rounded the corner he wasn't there.  What was there was Mark Levinson's stacked Quads playing high-speed tape via one of his modified Studers.  I seem to recall he had used one of Bob Fulton's mics; but Time has a way of changing everything.

Best regards,
Paul S


I will gladly send you a CD - should you fix the short in your DAC, please let me know. Anybody else unable to download/burn the recordings linked above please feel free contact me for a CD.

I don't think we can entertain the usual kind of 'musical VS accurate' debate to any advantage, since clearly if we approach the poles of either we will find logical contradiction.

However, subjective system tuning is dictated by the recordings used for the tuning - which is almost never accepted or even mentioned by system tuners.

It seems an unspoken assumption among speaker designers that the microphone is beyond reproach.

It may well be that many of the unpleasant attributes, tuned out by many a horn-system tuner, were in fact a sign of correct reproduction of unpleasant recordings.

In my subjective work, I tend to get more positive response from those listening on horn-loaded speaker systems which have not been 'tuned' by ear but to 'flat' measurement. In fact, the more 'ideal' a system sounds with conventional direct-radiator recordings, the less chance it will bring any positive qualities out of a better mechanical performance recording, as the 'ideal' performance is a result of counter measures taken to reduce issues of the recording quality.

Regarding your description of a 'realistic reproduction' experience, this is very interesting and quite to the point.

The most significant aspect to this test is the expectation bias.
 
You see the player, know of the presence of the player, and therefore expect the player to be the source of the sound, regardless of any evidence from the ear to the contrary.

RCA, in the 1930s if I recall correctly, made much of similar tests with orchestra.

For these tests they gathered an audience to watch an orchestra performance and the orchestra 'mimed' along to playback which was being transmitted live from elsewhere.

Apparently, the audience were 'amazed' that they were 'fooled' 'by the speakers'.

Expectation bias, fueled in the most powerful way - visually - renders the test worthless.

Had RCA simply blind-folded the audience and given a randomly selected programme alternating between the real orchestra and the reproduction it is likely, if not certain, that the result would have been total failure. (The fact RCA found it necessary to employ a conductor with a volume control to propery execute the dynamics of the orchestra is clue enough to this - indeed, this is typical of a direct-radiator recording, despite the horns in playback).

This is a conjuring trick, not science, but I'm quite sure you intended to imply that, so please forgive me for spelling it out.

Andy

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site