| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Playback Listening » Accuracy vs. Musicality (and YMMV) (47 posts, 3 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 3 of 3 (47 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3
08-29-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 450
Joined on 07-05-2012
Post #: 41
Post ID: 27572
Reply to: 27571
Bad LP or simply another phono correction curve?
I used to think that DG had some pretty awful recordings too - and they did, but the pitch related things seem to have more to do with them not using the RIAA curve. A bit of HF tweaking brought back the balance - if the system was capable! My biggest gripe was the artistic license the recording engineers took in rebalancing the orchestra. Whoever had a solo was brought to front center - until the solo was over, then it was like they walked back to their proper seat.

It was great that those engineers actually learned how to read the scores, but many missed the part of the composers intentions...

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
08-29-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,627
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 42
Post ID: 27573
Reply to: 27572
Sound Engineers as UberConductors,
The pipe dream might be a well-located "figure 8 pair" of mics that stays there through the performance, with set gain. However, like so many things in audio, we have no control over these processes and practices. In fact, considering the problems we encounter, from recordings, to equipment, to rooms, to electricity, it seems unlikely going in that we could ever get Musical Satisfaction from hi-fi. As far as the DGG pitch thing, I think they did as many sound engineers do, they cut curves they thought would sound best to their putative customers when played back on their putative record players. Yeah, they got it wrong with us, but someone gave them gold laurels. And it's not news to most GSC habitues that "equipment manufacturers" take the same approach. It took me a long time to build a system that's "boring" end-to-end. I think it's fair to say that most gear is pretty much swamped by signature sound, often of the sort that highlights something as it omits or even wrecks else. i would say (if asked), if your recordings sound "all over the place", you are doing something right. Getting Music from most recordings is another matter, of course, and it's easier (and normal) to fall back on "good-sounding gear". "The Industry" is still here to serve those who still operate in this mode.

Paul S
08-31-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 450
Joined on 07-05-2012
Post #: 43
Post ID: 27579
Reply to: 27573
I think that the history of microphone placement is very fascinating.
The english have just about written the book on quality playback imaging:
UK Blümlein AB - 1931

UK Blümlein MS - 1933

UK Blümlein Binaural - 1933

US Harvey Fletcher - 1933 Curtain of sound, extreme multitrack - not really stereo or for a specific playback image)

UK Hardy Decca Tree - 1954

F   ORTF - 1960

additional info:https://www.overgrownpath.com/2013/03/music-to-listener-or-listener-to-music.html

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
08-31-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,627
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 44
Post ID: 27580
Reply to: 27579
The Performance vs. Playback
It's a hoot to look up prices for restored "classic" microphones. And how many times was I smitten by the Sound of Music recorded by some of these classic microphones? Many. I wonder if anyone has made a list of and/or collected recordings that used these microphones and techniques? I will share here that the first time I heard an original Blue Note (RVG) I realized I'd been had by marketing of Classic "Quiex" copies. Day and Night, and NOT in favor of the newer copies! However, as interesting in its own right the study of recording techniques, we still have to make the basic choice of whether to "tune for the best recordings" or try for more choices in terms of program material. As I keep sharing here, I caught myself going down the first path, with lots of records and CDs I did not want to hear, and I turned around and basically re-tuned my system to where I could get more Music from more recordings. I think my system had earlier been like the "hot mic". And I will say that early efforts on my part to turn things around included adjusting operating points of gain stages. There were many other steps I also took before I got things where I wanted them, and - ironically - both my DAC and my phono stage are running hotter now than ever before, as I figured out how to get the differences without the "heat" via the speakers, which is where it counts, right.

Paul S
09-13-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,627
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 45
Post ID: 27592
Reply to: 27580
The Play of Differences

One might say that our perception of reality depends on our perception, internal processing, and organization of the Play of Differences. In any case, audible differences are certainly critical to my perception and appreciation of Music. Time to beat the topology drum again, because this is the only path I know for “maximizing differences”, fining them, and bringing relevant differences into critical focus. How this is done, or whether it is done at all, depends on system topology. All gear imposes limits of one sort and/or another. Some gear imposes hard limits. The art of audio is getting acceptable results with the gear of ones choosing.>>


Paul S
09-18-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
rowuk


Germany
Posts 450
Joined on 07-05-2012
Post #: 46
Post ID: 27596
Reply to: 27592
There is an important state of "good enough"
In my world, the art of audio is learning to live with what you have. We are creatures of habit and are what we repeatedly do. There is an acclimation period for humans that can never be counted in minutes, hours or even days. Even good habits are the result of long term repetition. I believe those that search their whole lives for minute "improvements" in dynamics, color or any other audiophile parameter are missing the most important one - our own minds.

There are so many posts about gear improving this or that - but those people never talk about their own perception. What did they learn about the performance during the last listening session.

I am a professional trumpeter and other trumpeters have a similar problem: the search for the perfect mouthpiece that makes everything easier, better in tune and more dynamic. I consider these people to be lost souls. Human beings make music, not trumpets. We develop our own voice when we STOP making changes and develop what we have. If we rob ourselves of the opportunity to become intimate with our playback, our instrument, our mouthpiece, our "impressions" are essentially random. We limit our perception to being based on something that we have no deep understanding of.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
09-18-2024 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,627
Joined on 10-12-2006
Post #: 47
Post ID: 27597
Reply to: 27596
Again With Time...
Too true, Robin. Surely, whatever it is that initially "impresses" us is subject to change... along with everything else. It seems obvious, but perhaps it needs telling again, the part where, if one doesn't hear it, one doesn't hear it, regardless of electronics, etc. For sure, it can take a while, or even a long while for gear to break in, for us to find the right locations, configurations, settings, and listening position, on and on, and - as you say - for us to become familiar and "in tune" with the Music we are getting from our system(s). It's a lot to process. Not to mention what we are hearing and "targeting" in the first place. Full circle to Personal Audio.

Best regards,
Paul S
Page 3 of 3 (47 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts