What Does It Actually Sound Like?

7 minutes ago, sdolezalek said:

Updated version to account for Tom & Kal's feedback 😉 

One thing that can throw the whole chart down the drain is the talent of the engineers and artists. I'll take Bill Schnee recording with a Sony "My First Microphone" over Joe Sixpack and the best equipment money can buy. 

However, for the sake of the chart, I'm sure we can assume the best people are behind the dials :~)

28 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

One thing that can throw the whole chart down the drain is the talent of the engineers and artists. I'll take Bill Schnee recording with a Sony "My First Microphone" over Joe Sixpack and the best equipment money can buy. 

 Chris: You are correct that I started with the assumption that it can never get better than the artist.  The legitimate question is whether a great recording engineer can make a bad artist sound good.  It sounds as though you are suggesting that just as much "magic" can happen behind the glass in the studio as in front of it.  I also know that we are seeing re-mixes of old recordings that sound better than the prior releases, but are those "less-bad" or "better-than" the original? 

Having grown up in a household full of musicians, I'll still take the real thing standing/sitting next to me over a recording, but then many recordings are layers upon layers of separate musical events...so there never was a real thing. 

12 minutes ago, sdolezalek said:

 Chris: You are correct that I started with the assumption that it can never get better than the artist.  The legitimate question is whether a great recording engineer can make a bad artist sound good.  It sounds as though you are suggesting that just as much "magic" can happen behind the glass in the studio as in front of it.  I also know that we are seeing re-mixes of old recordings that sound better than the prior releases, but are those "less-bad" or "better-than" the original? 

Having grown up in a household full of musicians, I'll still take the real thing standing/sitting next to me over a recording, but then many recordings are layers upon layers of separate musical events...so there never was a real thing. 

If my words hinted that a good engineer can make a bad artist sound good, I’m sorry. That’s not what I meant to convey. 
 

I meant it more like this, give me Bill Schnee, a talented artist, and a Fisher-Price recording rig any day over the engineer who bought his way into the business with the best equipment money could buy. 
 

I have the utmost respect for talent, both behind and in front of the glass. 

19 hours ago, sdolezalek said:

The legitimate question is whether a great recording engineer can make a bad artist sound good. 

Can a great recording engineer can make a bad artist sound good? I think the reverse holds, as in , a bad recording engineer can make a great artist sound bad.

I know of only one person on the planet that might achieve the former goal but i don't think Frank has got into recordings yet !! 🙄😅

19 hours ago, sdolezalek said:

It sounds as though you are suggesting that just as much "magic" can happen behind the glass in the studio as in front of it. 

oddly as I get older I may be becoming less of a 'audiophile purist' in that I increasingly recognize that engineers can be in a collaborative arrangement with the artist

19 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Can a great recording engineer can make a bad artist sound good? I think the reverse holds, as in , a bad recording engineer can make a great artist sound bad.

 

I know of only one person on the planet that might achieve the former goal but i don't think Frank has got into recordings yet !! 🙄😅

 

I've come across "bad" engineers who mess up a good artist's work - I'm thinking here of Amy Winehouse, where tracks have been "aged" by adding vinyl pops and crackles ,,, which sound so markedly fake that you can't stop thinking, who's the idiot who decided to do this?!! 🙄

I'm sure there are recordings of "bad artists" out there, which don't deserve to be listened to - guess I haven't bumped into any of those so far ... perhaps because I take close to zero interest in pop recordings of the last 20 years ... 🤣.

I'm somewhat reluctant to test this example, but what about the work done by the father/son team of George and Giles Martin on the Beatles Love album?  I'm in no way trying to suggest that the Beatles are a bad artist these two have made good, but Love is clearly an album that is a mashup produced in the mixing studio and, as such, struck me as an interesting example of the engineer acting as the artist and producing a very listenable result.  

Just came across this, which describes some of the technical considerations with demixing audio, and in this case realised an actual album - I'm particularly interested in this concept, because this will effectively allow open slather on how people in the future will be able to experience music they like, in a way that's completely customised for themselves ...

On 4/20/2020 at 6:42 PM, ted_b said:

Yes, but the choice of mics happens wayyyyyy before we decide to buy/stream/steal/pirate/copy/borrow/listen to the damn recording.  The "damage" or sonic inprint, is done.  It's a nice-to-know aspect of recording, but no one asks us. 

Actually they do in a way. Everyone votes with their dollars. The problem for audiophiles is that we are a relatively small group and most music purchasers have systems that smooth over the differences that more revealing systems uncover with often brutal clarity.

While mics, front end recording gear, mixing effects / front end mixing and the final mix + your system and all its components + your room all affect the end result ultimately we all know generically what instruments sound like, or better stated what it shouldn't sound like. IME I've been to and recorded in studios years past and can attest to the virgin playback which more often than not holistically sounds little like the end result, but that doesn't mean a piano doesn't sound like a piano, or a cello, etc. When it comes to electronic gear like an electric guitar or synth, sure you don't know exactly how it sounded originally but let me pose it this way - there is no definitive accurate final sonic product unless you listened to the track with the exact same system and headphones / monitors and gear that the mixing engineer did. So while all our systems' playback won't 100% match the final mix system it doesn't mean we can't get accurate enough reproduction (to our ears) with our systems and in some cases even better than the studios' playback system (trust me). 🙂  

On 4/23/2020 at 10:59 PM, sdolezalek said:

I'm somewhat reluctant to test this example, but what about the work done by the father/son team of George and Giles Martin on the Beatles Love album?  I'm in no way trying to suggest that the Beatles are a bad artist these two have made good, but Love is clearly an album that is a mashup produced in the mixing studio and, as such, struck me as an interesting example of the engineer acting as the artist and producing a very listenable result.  

George always laughed at what some considered the sanctity of the "live in studio" event. He was very straightforward about the production and engineering being part of the creation. I love "Love," and am tremendously happy father and son didn't consider the Beatles canon sacrosanct. That said, I'm also very pleased with the more archival job Giles did on Pepper and Abbey Road (though there again he didn't adhere strictly to history). Lots of different ways to make (and enjoy) recordings.

I'd be curious about this album because I don't have personal experience with the specific sonic differences different mics and mic placements make for the same or nearly the same music being recorded.

42 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

In my experience there are lot of great recordings that sound very realistic once you get the headphone chain up. Even the ones that are very processed can sound natural on instruments. And if you search for binaural recordings or live ones and have a headphone setup that is technically great and is diffuse field tones (srh940 or srh1840 of the ones I know, and even hd800 to some extent) you'll be getting very close to reality

 

 

This translates to the speaker experience - if you also get the setup right. Without the headphones limitations. Try the the Twin Peaks TV show soundtrack album, as one which combines rather special spatial processing, with good pickup of the sounds.

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

This translates to the speaker experience - if you also get the setup right. Without the headphones limitations. Try the the Twin Peaks TV show soundtrack album, as one which combines rather special spatial processing, with good pickup of the sounds.

Thanks. Will give it a try.

I don't think headphones are limited. Just incompatible with a lot of songs, and also incomplete without a head tracker. With speakers you get better compatibility and head tracking but you'll have to fend off room reflections and its own crossfeed which may not be part of original recording ambeance. There's the concept of transaural audio which does look cool.

One more recording and with a VR headset this could be even more realistic feeling.

You can get the lossless recording in CD. The album name is "from M.E. to Myself" by "J.J. Lin"

19 hours ago, rinkymehra19 said:

Sometimes these folks can get great sound from lesser equipment.  In Monterey (CA), there is a little recording studio/small event location/tea spot.  The event room isn't big and has lots of hard surfaces.  I was just taking note of how bad that must be, then the owner played some video in his studio setup.  The sound was wonderful (!?).  The owner also always has music playing in the courtyard.  The speakers, wire, and setup, looks pretty basic.  But the sound is wonderful (maybe its the tea  ).  He built the studio himself.  

 

Optimization is an underrated aspect of anything!

On 4/22/2020 at 7:46 AM, Kal Rubinson said:

I have not written about it explicitly but I usually make an effort to identify producers in my record reviews and in comments about recordings used in equipment reviews.  Most of what is valuable comes from the simple habit of making note of who is responsible for the recordings that I most like. 

Following engineers is and always has been the way to get good records or hear records that are well made.  In modern times, start with Al Schmidt, George Massenburg, Chuck Ainlay and Ed Cherney.  Most of these guys do a variety of records, few if any are classified as “audiophile records“, but they are the best of the best.  They work constantly as the best musicians hire them again and again (except Ed now as he passed recently).    In previous times (60s-70s) its a different list as they worked with a much more primitive studio set up, fewer tools but all that required greater inventiveness.  Folks like Tom Dowd come to mind as absolute leaders in the field.    And even further back, I don’t know the engineer but I am always amazed at listening to Frank Sinatra realizing how loud he sang, that it was beyond the dynamic range of the recording system, that he learned to control his level by moving closer or farther from the mic without a pop filter!

In our other division we do gear supply for pro studios, and all these folks are friends.  We’ve been working in that field for 40 years. 

Brad 

Lone Mountain Audio 

ATC Consumer.