Does High Resolution Audio sound better

[sdolezalek]

Once the reverberant and reflective fields are removed or greatly attenuated, what's left is the spacial seperation of the human head and imaging and soundstage with it. Given the normal listening space's complexities, it would be impossible to attribute soundstage and imaging to anything but the speaker system, room acoustics and channel seperation.

 

Although I found the rest of your post difficult to understand, I do think you may have a point here. I have found the differences between redbook and hi-res harder to identify on my headphones than on my Magnepan 20.1's. Some of that may simply be attributable to quality differences between the two systems, but maybe there is something to speaker and room resonances involved here.

 

I don't disagree with you that speakers, room effects and channel separation may all outweigh sonic differences coming from resolution differences, but when the speakers, the room and the amplification are a constant, why couldn't you hear minute differences?

[elcorso]

I think the truth of the matter is that these are real and measurable but inaudible. A lot of technical arguments get thrown up in the to-and-fro but although they may be strictly true the significance (magnitude) is often estimated differently by warring parties.

 

Maybe it depends the importance to your business. So the 'magnitude units' could be very different.

 

It is like the pessimist versus optimist vision of life, where the first see a glass a wine half empty and the other half full?

 

Roch

[sdolezalek]

Chris: So much of the argument over whether you can/cannot hear differences is based on the focus on Nyquist and whether 16/44 can accurately reconstruct both the shape and ultimate slope of a sound-wave. To the extent those arguments suggest that higher resolution can only affect sounds beyond normal human hearing, i.e. >20kHz, then presumably all deleterious effects must also occur above that hearing threshold.

 

I largely tend to believe that 16/44 may be accurate or extremely close to accurate in reconstructing the necessary sound wave. On the other hand, if things that occur at >20kHz frequencies can somehow have effects within the audible range, then it would make sense that those "effects" could be both positive and negative. So I agree with you that it is very difficult to square an argument that says hi-res causes bad things with an argument that says hi-res can only affect frequencies we can't hear anyway.

 

This is precisely where the arguments about filters, the slope of filters and resonance affects of filters lead me to believe that hi-res can make an audible difference.

[petaluma]

Incompetent not think. Merchants, as most of the industry.

 

Goldmund is and was created for the analogue market. Although they have been forced to incur the digital market, I do not think they are very happy. In the market there are products that compete with them at a fraction of the cost.

 

White Papers is what is left in this world (and deaf too). If you do not believe me ask Dennis (elsdude) and followers.

 

Cheers!

 

Roch

 

Roch,

 

Yep its about the money, understood. What I found interesting\confusing is they have a DAC that does hi-res so why would they attempt to debunk the hi-res position? I mean just let it go, they have all resolution bases covered.....Maybe the DAC is not selling? Potentially reinforces your speculation about trying to compete against inexpensive DACS that do a good job and their client base is pissed off about it?

 

Or their market base is in the non hi-res camp and they are presenting to their, I'm going to use a political term, "constituency", what they want to hear? Sounds like some of our 24/7 news outlets....Anyway its just getting more confusing everyday....

[elcorso]

Although I found the rest of your post difficult to understand, I do think you may have a point here. I have found the differences between redbook and hi-res harder to identify on my headphones than on my Magnepan 20.1's. Some of that may simply be attributable to quality differences between the two systems, but maybe there is something to speaker and room resonances involved here.

 

I don't disagree with you that speakers, room effects and channel separation may all outweigh sonic differences coming from resolution differences, but when the speakers, the room and the amplification are a constant, why couldn't you hear minute differences?

 

Maybe you are comparing two very different listening systems. To me this goes beyond speakers and room acoustics. Even if I know speakers are very important in our listening music chain system. Hard to swallow if only I need a system with good channel separation. There is a lot more subtleties beyond...

 

Roch

[elcorso]

Roch,

 

Yep its about the money, understood. What I found interesting\confusing is they have a DAC that does hi-res so why would they attempt to debunk the hi-res position? I mean just let it go, they have all resolution bases covered.....Maybe the DAC is not selling? Potentially reinforces your speculation about trying to compete against inexpensive DACS that do a good job and their client base is pissed off about it?

 

Or their market base is in the non hi-res camp and they are presenting to their, I'm going to use a political term, "constituency", what they want to hear? Sounds like some of our 24/7 news outlets....Anyway its just getting more confusing everyday....

 

 

If we all knew the purpose of those trying to sell us something maybe we would be less poor ...

 

I am unfortunately one suspicious Corso by DNA

 

Roch

[petaluma]

If we all knew the purpose of those trying to sell us something maybe we would be less poor ...

 

I am unfortunately one suspicious Corso by DNA

 

Roch

 

Tell it like it is brother!..

[semente]

Do you honestly believe that is what Barry D. is doing with his 24/192 Soundkeeper recordings ?

Barry doesn't use close-micíng either . He uses only 2 well placed wideband microphones with a response only 1dB down at 40kHz (IIRC) and a usable response to higher than 57kHz. Neither does he use any compression or limiting.

 

I don't care about ultra-sonic frequencies that I can't hear but there's no denying that Diament commedably uses some good practices (2 high-quality evenly-matched mics w/ jecklin disk, "healthy" digital workflow).

But as I've commented before on the sound of his samples, in my opinion the mics sound and look a bit too close (closer than where people normally listen) and that produces unnaturally exagerated highs and "fake" detail ("decay", "air", "space around the instruments") that I feel should have been compensated for.

Try increasing the treble by some 5 or 10dB with the tone controls or digital EQ and you'll also get some extra "detail" and "space"...

 

If the performance has been adequatelly recorded close-mic'ing I find it near-impossible to hear differences between Redbook an High Res.

 

I'm far from an expert in these maters but if the D/AC is low-pass filtering 44.1kHz data below 20kHz (but not higher sampling-rate material) isn't it possible that you are hearing some attenuation above say 18kHz but the information could still be present in the Redbook support?

 

Weiss DAC202, Filter B (source: Stereophile)

[sandyk]

in my opinion the mics sound and look a bit too close (closer than where people normally listen) and that produces unnaturally exagerated highs and "fake" detail ("decay", "air", "space around the instruments") that I feel should have been compensated for.

That's your opinion. It certainly isn't what I hear , or my friends hear from Barry's 24/192 recordings.

Neither do these 2 reviewers agree with you.

 

Work of Art

 

SOUNDKEEPER RECORDINGS: WONDERMENT IN THE MUSIC - Boston Concert Reviews

[semente]

That's your opinion. It certainly isn't what I hear , or my friends hear from Barry's 24/192 recordings.

Neither do these 2 reviewers agree with you.

 

Work of Art

 

SOUNDKEEPER RECORDINGS: WONDERMENT IN THE MUSIC - Boston Concert Reviews

 

I'm sorry but the "reviewer badge" waving doesn't do it's magic trick on me; in most cases their opinion is no more and no less valid nor educated than mine.

[JonP]

in my opinion the mics sound and look a bit too close (closer than where people normally listen) and that produces unnaturally exagerated highs and "fake" detail ("decay", "air", "space around the instruments") that I feel should have been compensated for.

 

No it doesn't. The above comments merely reflect a lack of understanding of professional sound recording techniques required in order to "naturally" mic an acoustic ensemble in a "staged" setting in much the same way pioneers such as Everest, Mercury, Command, Decca and to a lesser extent RCA did in the late 50s and early 60s. You don't listen to your speakers from one inch away in an anechoic chamber so the placement decision of microphones reflects the goal of producing as closely as possible the actual sound perceived by a listener in that particular environment being recorded. You'd arguably be right if you listened jammed up right against your loudspeakers but when you are listening to music you are in a room at some distance from the speakers. Accordingly, the actual sound picked up by the main mics is by necessity going to have a more forward, present and detailed spectral balance than the reality experienced by actual listeners at the venue. This is the compensation needed to reflect the conditions of final playback of the mastered release in a normal listening environment. It is also one of the reasons music often sounds so un-naturally silly and uncomfortable through headphones which are honestly only ever good for critical editing purposes unless of course it was specifically recorded with that method of playback in mind.

 

The only way you could truly critique the accuracy of a recording is to be present at the actual session itself. I can assure you that Barry has a fine pedigree and is exceptionally fastidious in the pursuit of an authentic and transparent sound such that what he is hearing as an "audience member" at the session is reflected as closely as possible in the subsequent playback of the "flat" session masters in his mastering suite.

 

Onto the subject of the white paper. Although I agree with many comments it has never been my experience that 16/44 can compete with 20/48 or higher. Certainly not acoustic classical music with which I am a highly experienced listener and performer. I expect that given my listening skills with popular music are probably only slightly better than average, I would not care about the differences. I also doubt that I would hear the differences in ABX testing without considerable practice and coaching. When listening to an orchestra on a revealing system, however, I have to say that I cannot agree with any of the practical conclusions reached in the paper. When it comes to classical acoustic music, the very best 16/44 remains a compromise, the degree of which is largely subject to the skills and experience of the remastering engineer.

 

I should also point out that the comments made in the paper about DSD needing to be converted to PCM for editing then converted back to DSD are somewhat misleading. It can be done that way but Telarc at the very least have gone on written record stating that their DSD editing techniques only caused the actual edit points to undergo the DSD - PCM - DSD conversion. Therefore the bulk of the audible material remained "pure" DSD. Telarc were also at pains to point out that those who could detect those PCM polluted edit points would do well to donate their ears to science.

[bdiament]

Barry: I very much agree with you that room size cues are better in the hi-res versions of otherwise identically recorded 16/44 vs 24/192 recordings. It also seems to me that those cues have nothing to do with ultrasonics and may, in fact, occur more prominently in low rather than high frequencies. I also know that you generally tend to be of the "if I can clearly hear a difference, I don't necessarily need to understand the underlying physics/acoustics/math" crowd (absolutely no offense meant by that). For those here of the "I don't believe my ears until you can show me a mathematical/physical/acoustic reason for the difference," crowd, are there good reasons for this possible distinction other than those that Jud (and others here) have cited with regard to the ability to more cleanly do A/D and D/A filtering at much higher bit and sample rates?

 

Hi sdolezalek,

 

For things like room size cues, which I would agree tend to "live" at the low end frequency-wise and the low levels amplitude-wise, I think the word length is where many of the prime benefits lie. In other words, going 24-bit may contribute more to this particular than going 192k. That said, I've been saying for the longest time that as far as I'm concerned, one of the greatest benefits to high sample rates is how much more realistic information in the bass sounds.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

It would be interested to verify if those "cues" you mention are indeed occuring in the lower frequencies...have you tried disconecting your tweeters?

 

I have played with crossvers (and driver attenuation) in the past and having compared a few online (Redbook vs. High Res) samples I am led to believe that those "effects" you are hearing (all this "decay", "air", "space around the instruments") are related to exagerated high frequency content, and in most cases the producers have resorted to the use of close-mic'ing.

 

Hi semente,

 

I think the cues occur throughout the frequency range. However, to my ears, one of the great benefits of having a system that can reproduce the bottom octave (and having recordings where this range is captured) is how much more in evidence information about the room is.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[semente]

No it doesn't. The above comments merely reflect a lack of understanding of professional sound recording techniques required in order to "naturally" mic an acoustic ensemble in a "staged" setting in much the same way pioneers such as Everest, Mercury, Command, Decca and to a lesser extent RCA did in the late 50s and early 60s. You don't listen to your speakers from one inch away in an anechoic chamber so the placement decision of microphones reflects the goal of producing as closely as possible the actual sound perceived by a listener in that particular environment being recorded. You'd arguably be right if you listened jammed up right against your loudspeakers but when you are listening to music you are in a room at some distance from the speakers. Accordingly, the actual sound picked up by the main mics is by necessity going to have a more forward, present and detailed spectral balance than the reality experienced by actual listeners at the venue. This is the compensation needed to reflect the conditions of final playback of the mastered release in a normal listening environment. It is also one of the reasons music often sounds so un-naturally silly and uncomfortable through headphones which are honestly only ever good for critical editing purposes unless of course it was specifically recorded with that method of playback in mind.

 

The only way you could truly critique the accuracy of a recording is to be present at the actual session itself. I can assure you that Barry has a fine pedigree and is exceptionally fastidious in the pursuit of an authentic and transparent sound such that what he is hearing as an "audience member" at the session is reflected as closely as possible in the subsequent playback of the "flat" session masters in his mastering suite.

 

If remember correctly, Barry wrote somewhere that the mic feed sounded similar to what he could listen to from the mic location but I wonder whether he would be listening to a live performance from that position.

 

I understand that there are other things that must be taken into account, such as balancing the louder and wider dynamic range of the drum kit with an acoustic guitar or vocals which requires adjusting the instrument layout for balance purposes.

Moving the mics further back reduces "detail" (so revered by many audiophiles) and increases the amount of reflected sound (ambiance) which could become overpowering when you record in a church and would not provide the impression of "having the musicians playing in one's living room" (again so revered by many audiophiles).

I wonder if Barry chose to record in a church so he could capture that "air" and "detail" while still preserving some spatial cues from natural reverberance of the church.

Some "classical" record labels have ralso recorded "hall music" in chuches and some like BIS have actually been able to produce good results.

 

Close mic'ing and amplification make it much easier, of course; here's how the Cowboy Junkies worked around the problem at "The Trinity Sessions" recorded with a single Calrec Ambisonic mic:

 

November 27, 1987

 

The pews and all seating had previously been removed so we had a choice of where to set up our equipment and recording gear, but since Peter had done some recording in the church he had a general idea of where he felt was the most acoustically sound spot. This was at the far end of the church hall away from the altar which would act as an enormous bass trap if we got too close to it.

 

The first order of the day was to set up all the gear and try and get a balance between the four of us, that would be the ultimate key to the recording. Once we were balanced properly the other instruments could be layered on top with a lot more ease. Peter set up the mic and we set up as we had for the Whites session in our garage with drums on one side facing the bass and guitar off to the side. As fate would have it we had a great stroke of luck that day. Whoever had been using the church before us had had the need of a PA system which they had left behind. It was head and shoulders above the one that we had brought from our rehearsal space and meant a huge difference in the final recording. Margo's vocals, like during the Whites session, had to be run through a PA speaker and some guardian angel had seen fit to leave us a high quality system. The "vocal" or speaker was placed on top of the bass cabinet, Margo then stood about six feet outside the circle and sang through a separate mic.

 

It took us about six hours of fussing to finally capture a sound that we were all happy with. This time was spent readjusting the microphone, moving an instrument five inches closer and then another instrument five inches further, turning one thing up and another down etc.. The process was far from simple and for a while it looked like we weren't going to be able to reign in the acoustics of the church. The natural reverb of the hall was overpowering our instruments. Finally after a few more adjustments we ran through a version of a song and adjourned to the small office (maybe it was one of the confessionals) where Peter had his playback equipment set up. The playback revealed Petes drums simmering softly in the background, Alan's bass rumbling underneath, my guitar airily chiming and Margo's voice floating easily above it all. We had found our sound.

[bdiament]

We know who Barry is and what he does for a living. I have used some of Barry's recommendations in the area of room treatment to make my room a better listening experience.

 

He as much a right to post on this forum as you or I. We can take it at face value or ask questions or make comments in a civilized manner. I don't think I remember Barry ever attacking anyone. He makes his comments and states that these are his opinions. Take it or leave it which I respect.

 

Thank you petaluma. Much appreciated.

 

I wonder why some of these very sad folks just cannot avoid such shameful behavior and why they never seem to see how much more they are saying about themselves than about whom they are attacking.

 

One could very easily be skeptical of a person who sells car parts and advocates round wheels. "Of course he advocates round wheels! He *sells* round wheels!" Maybe, just maybe, he truly believes round wheels *work better* than square wheels.

 

Maybe some folks who choose to record, master, listen (when the recording allows it) and yes, sell high res recordings because they believe it *sounds* better.

 

How often have I marveled at having, after all these years, a recording format where for the first time at recording sessions, I have not yet been able to discern the recorded sound from the direct mic feed?

 

Folks who know me (as opposed to those who don't but still feel free to throw stones from behind monikers) will realize that the Soundkeeper site has had its Format Comparison page from the beginning, in order for there to be a place folks can compare and decide for themselves.

 

I would never force anyone to listen to or purchase high res. I'd never force anyone to use round wheels either. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

Barry,

This is incorrect, at least for the reason you give. Assuming normalisation, any given signal above the 16th bit is quantised to the same accuracy for both 16 and 24 bit depths. They both get "increasingly raggedy as the level goes down." Assuming correct dither, 16 bit simply has a higher noise floor than 24 bit. I'm not questioning that you hear a difference, just saying that the reason you give isn't why.

 

Hi Don,

 

What I'm describing has nothing to do with the noise floor as the signals are well above this.

While it may be that they both get increasingly raggedy as the level goes down, so far I have not heard this phenomenon with real 24-bit recordings.

In view of this (not a theoretical analysis but an experiential one), I would say the levels of accuracy are not even close, much less the same.

I understand we may view (hear) this differently.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[semente]

Hi semente,

 

I think the cues occur throughout the frequency range. However, to my ears, one of the great benefits of having a system that can reproduce the bottom octave (and having recordings where this range is captured) is how much more in evidence information about the room is.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

 

Hi Barry,

 

Do you have any ideia of what could be causing the benefits you are hearing from higher word-length files?

I will try to compare your "Winds Of Change" samples low-passed at 100Hz this weekend.

 

Cheers,

Ricardo

[JonP]

It took us about six hours of fussing to finally capture a sound that we were all happy with. This time was spent readjusting the microphone, moving an instrument five inches closer and then another instrument five inches further, turning one thing up and another down etc.

 

I know that the above is something you were quoting but it is very pertinent. It is arguably one of the reasons most modern recordings simply don't stack up in my opinion. There simply isn't the time do it any more. Mercury used to spend so much time refining mic locations that they would literally spend hours finding the right locations and painstakingly document them for future setup. To be honest, however, I am not sure this was always the best method, since as a string player of experience myself, just a change in temperature, humidity and pressure are more than enough to completely throw out those settings. It is also a likely explanation as to why some Mercury recordings made at exactly the same venue over a period of days vary so much when the microphones never moved and the equipment stayed warmed up the entire time. The series of cello concertos recorded by Starker are a good example. I'm sure of we could have gotten the weather reports for that week, it would have changed significantly.

 

Mind you, when it comes to high res versus 16/44, I'll take the 16/44 with better microphone placement over the 24/192 any time. Mitigating the loses before the analogue mic signal hits the desk are far more important than the subsequent deleterious effects of the playback format and their relative fidelity capabilities (within reason and in my humble opinion).

[bdiament]

I don't care about ultra-sonic frequencies that I can't hear but there's no denying that Diament commedably uses some good practices (2 high-quality evenly-matched mics w/ jecklin disk, "healthy" digital workflow).

But as I've commented before on the sound of his samples, in my opinion the mics sound and look a bit too close (closer than where people normally listen) and that produces unnaturally exagerated highs and "fake" detail ("decay", "air", "space around the instruments") that I feel should have been compensated for.

Try increasing the treble by some 5 or 10dB with the tone controls or digital EQ and you'll also get some extra "detail" and "space"...

 

Hi semente,

 

We've been through this before and I'll say again that if you hear even a hint of any "exaggerated highs" in the recording, I would look at the playback system and/or its setup.

As to the mic positions, they "look" too close? "Fake detail and space"? Not sure what that means as I don't hear any of that and I was there, remember?

Do you know what the sound would be if the mics were say, in the first row instead of where they were? I do. I suggest that you try to make some recordings some day using a fine pair of omni microphones. You will learn a lot more than I could ever put into any number of posts.

 

I can provide this hint: Microphones do not "hear" the same way human ears do. There are of course many reasons for this but the one I think most pertinent is that the human ears are (often) attached to a brain that filters and directs the attention. Microphones do not have this benefit. Also, omnidirectional microphones respond differently than the more commonly used directional mics. Again, try it some time. It can be fascinating.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

... Accordingly, the actual sound picked up by the main mics is by necessity going to have a more forward, present and detailed spectral balance than the reality experienced by actual listeners at the venue....

 

Hi JonP,

 

Actually, the sound picked up by the matched pair of Earthworks QTC-1s in this particular arrangement is, to my ears at least, *not* more forward or detailed at all. That is one of the reasons I love these mics so much. What I hear from them is what I hear when standing behind the mic array at the session.

 

From a given distance, omnis tend to sound "further away" from the subject than it would sound to our ears if we listened from exactly the same position as the mics. One some of my earliest test recordings, I placed the mics where I wanted to listen from with my ears. The results had too much of the reflected sound and not enough of the direct sound. Omnis are my mics of choice because to my ears they are the most accurate. But since mics do not have the advantage (?) of being attached to a brain that would direct the listener's attention toward or away certain things, this must be done via placement of the mics.

 

But this is about the ratio of direct to reflected sound pickup. In terms of forwardness or detail, I'd say the mics are spot on with no exaggeration or diminution.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[semente]

I know that the above is something you were quoting but it is very pertinent. It is arguably one of the reasons most modern recordings simply don't stack up in my opinion. There simply isn't the time do it any more. Mercury used to spend so much time refining mic locations that they would literally spend hours finding the right locations and painstakingly document them for future setup. To be honest, however, I am not sure this was always the best method, since as a string player of experience myself, just a change in temperature, humidity and pressure are more than enough to completely throw out those settings. It is also a likely explanation as to why some Mercury recordings made at exactly the same venue over a period of days vary so much when the microphones never moved and the equipment stayed warmed up the entire time. The series of cello concertos recorded by Starker are a good example. I'm sure of we could have gotten the weather reports for that week, it would have changed significantly.

 

Mind you, when it comes to high res versus 16/44, I'll take the 16/44 with better microphone placement over the 24/192 any time. Mitigating the loses before the analogue mic signal hits the desk are far more important than the subsequent deleterious effects of the playback format and their relative fidelity capabilities (within reason and in my humble opinion).

 

While I agree that the late 50s and early 60s did produce very nice classical music recordings, the use of un-EQ'ed mics with peaky treble in a spaced-omni configuration resulted in the infamous "hole in the middle" stereo image and adulterated the sound of vocals and instruments alike, such that of Heifetz's shrill-sounding violin on RCA.

 

On the other hand, mics and electronics of that era produced significant roll-off above 16-18kHz which in my opinion makes recordings sound more "natural" and "realistic" than the modern ones using flat-FR mics, though less "airy" and "detailed".

[bdiament]

...I wonder if Barry chose to record in a church so he could capture that "air" and "detail" while still preserving some spatial cues from natural reverberance of the church...

 

I chose to record in this particular church for the same reason I choose the venue for any recording: because the acoustics of the space provided the best complement for the type of music and instrumentation I was to record. In other words because this is where I would want to listen to a live performance of these instruments playing this music.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

Hi Barry,

 

Do you have any ideia of what could be causing the benefits you are hearing from higher word-length files?

I will try to compare your "Winds Of Change" samples low-passed at 100Hz this weekend.

 

Cheers,

Ricardo

 

 

Hi Ricardo,

 

I would surmise they are doing a better job of capturing the input signal.

 

Why would you only want to hear the bottom 2 1/2 octaves instead of all of them?

To me "Winds of Change" sounds even better when the low-pass filter is omitted from playback. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[semente]

We've been through this before and I'll say again that if you hear even a hint of any "exaggerated highs" in the recording, I would look at the playback system and/or its setup.

As to the mic positions, they "look" too close? "Fake detail and space"? Not sure what that means as I don't hear any of that and I was there, remember?

Do you know what the sound would be if the mics were say, in the first row instead of where they were? I do. I suggest that you try to make some recordings some day using a fine pair of omni microphones. You will learn a lot more than I could ever put into any number of posts.

 

I can provide this hint: Microphones do not "hear" the same way human ears do. There are of course many reasons for this but the one I think most pertinent is that the human ears are (often) attached to a brain that filters and directs the attention. Microphones do not have this benefit. Also, omnidirectional microphones respond differently than the more commonly used directional mics. Again, try it some time. It can be fascinating.

 

By "look" too close I mean that I wouldn't probably be listening to the musicians from that position but as you have mentioned mics don't capture sound the way we hear it so I understand that some compromise is mandatory.

I did mention fake "detail" but not fake "space" because the high frequencies don't sound "natural" from what I remember hearing live; I have tried your samples with different speakers and headphones and that impression is common in all of them.

 

I would like to try recording music sometime: what (very) affordable (preferably used) mics and pre-amps do you suggest?

 

By the way, do you perform any EQ'ing to your recordings?

 

Cheers,

Ricardo

[semente]

Why would you only want to hear the bottom 2 1/2 octaves instead of all of them?

 

You mentioned that

 

"For things like room size cues, which I would agree tend to "live" at the low end frequency-wise and the low levels amplitude-wise, I think the word length is where many of the prime benefits lie"

 

and that

 

"one of the great benefits of having a system that can reproduce the bottom octave (and having recordings where this range is captured) is how much more in evidence information about the room is"

I wish to test this by listening to your 16/44.1 and 24/96 samples low-passed.

 

Cheers,

Ricardo