Do artists care about " Hi-Res"

[orgel]

ok so this is surprising to me. Its like saying that a painter doesn't care how his/her painting is displayed to the audience.

 

It's not quite the same, IMO. I think the more analogous thing would be a musician not caring how he/she sounded at a performance (or how he/she played on a recording.). As others have mentioned, every musician I know cares a lot about his/her axe and appurtenances thereto.

 

Most of the musicians I know don't care much about audio systems. My brother (full-time classical musician) does most of his listening to recorded music in the car. I really think that if you play music all the time and have many more opportunities to listen to live music than "civilians" do, you have a much different perspective on recorded music — i.e., it's a second-class substitute for a live performance, used mostly to hear what other musicians/composers/arrangers are up to and/or how they interpret a particular piece of music. (Heresy to audiophiles, I know.)

 

I do have one very OCD guitarist/composer friend who I think recognizes some commercial potential in high-res and is willing to listen carefully (for a while) to audiophile-type setups, but even he has a very modest system, and that extends to the monitors hooked up to his DAW. Most (not all) others could care less.

 

--David

[mordante]

ok so this is surprising to me. Its like saying that a painter doesn't care how his/her painting is displayed to the audience.

 

It does not surprise me at all. For two reasons.

 

1 for many artists it is not about the finished product but about the process. Many actors never watch the finished film.

 

2 they perform their own art live, so why care about the recorded product.

 

Also I can imagine that many recording artists do not even know about the excistance of hi res nor do they know there is a market for it.

[semente]

I agree. The list of talented, established recording artists who's recent releases are horribly compressed is long. It really makes one wonder if they've actually heard their own CD's. Why would a professional musician think an album with a dynamic range of DR7 and a peak volume of 0.00db think that represents their best efforts? I have CD's and hi-res downloads by artists that I really like, whose recordings, unfortunately, are unlistenable due to poor mastering. Who wouldn't feel cheated after buying and paying for them? The unwashed, earbud masses, I guess. Not us. It's no wonder that some people treat music as a free commodity.

 

Would it be too unfair to say that some of that kind of "free commodity" music isn't worth the extra resolution or the better (than earbud) quality mastering?

Or to be played back in a high fidelity system?

 

R

[gmgraves]

Having done only a little recording I too find it not hard to get a good result. Good as audiophiles want it. I find "civilians" don't like that kind of natural sound preferring more processing. Musicians care even less and also don't like natural sound.

 

What's hard or rare is you getting recordings of top musicians that are simple and ungimmicked commercially. There's just too many reasons that doesn't happen. The difficulty making the recording ironically isn't one of those.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

 

Yeah, that's correct, unfortunately! I think the thing that most people have against what we would call a good recording is that said recording would almost have to be played on (at least) a decent system before it's positive attributes would shine through. Most people don't have such a system. They would find that what I considered a great recording, lacking in bass, too distantly miked and with much too much dynamic range: "I hate that recording! one minute it's way too soft in volume, and the next it's blasting me out of the room!"

 

When I roll my own, I get recordings that *I* like and to hell with the hoi-polloi!

[gmgraves]

You don't have to "record for audiophiles" to put out a truly good sounding recording, and in spite of your comment there are some well known musicians who clearly do make sure the final product sounds good - even to audiophiles.

 

Obviously audiophiles aren't the major concern when recording, but there is enough music being recorded and mastered at rates from 24/44.1 and higher, that there isn't much reason not to put those hi-res masters out for those of us that want to purchase them.

 

As for 1940's jazz - I have lots of it - and it doesn't sound very good (purely in terms of the SQ). Note the group recordings where you can barely hear Bud Powell in the mix and Max Roach sounds like he's drumming on a cardboard box.

 

Now, recordings from the mid 50's and later - there is some truly fantastic, brilliantly recorded stuff that still sounds great today.

 

Listen to some stuff recorded today in DSD and you won't think your 70 year old stuff sounds better. You may prefer the older music - but in terms of SQ it is a night and day difference.

 

The reason why stuff recorded in the 40's doesn't sound very good (for the most part) is due to two things: The mostly ribbon broadcast mikes that they used for recording in those days (the ubiquitous RCA 44BX specifically), and the fact that the recordings were mastered "direct-to-disc" on cutting equipment that had no high-frequency response above 7.5 KHz and no dynamic range and had high amounts of I.M. and THD. Not to mention the fact that the material from which 78 RPM records were stamped in that era was a mixture of rubber and clay and was very noisy (because rubber was a "strategic material" during WWII, records got even noisier as producers looked for replacement materials). After the war, three things changed which made 50's records sound modern. 1) high-quality condenser mikes from Germany and Austria (Neumann, Telefunken, AKG, Sennheiser, etc.) became available. 2) The German Magnetophone (tape recorder) was cloned by the likes of Ampex in the USA and Ferrograph in England. 3) The invention of the vinyl LP by CBS labs in the USA.

 

Oddly enough, at the end of the war, British Decca (known as London records in the USA) developed a series of 78 RPM records which they called "FFRR recordings". These were classical recordings that boasted a frequency range of 30Hz to 15,000 Hz. They got by the high noise of the fragile 78 RPM material by adopting a new EQ curve called, not surprisingly, "FFRR". If one's equipment had an FFRR position on it's phono EQ switch, one could enjoy, essentially high fidelity playback in 1945! I had a recording of Holst's The Planets with Adrian Boult and the London Philharmonic Orchestra on four 12" FFRR records when I was a teen, and my Knight-kit amplifier sported a whole array of EQ settings, including FFRR, RIAA (natch!) as well as AES, Columbia, DIN, NARTB, etc (RIAA had only recently been adopted as the world standard for stereo LP production). When I played these Decca/London recordings on my then Rek-O-Cut "Rondine" turntable and arm (with a GE VRII stereo cartridge), they were, while certainly not as quiet as a brand-new LP, they were, except for an overlook-able constant low-level hiss, very quiet and they sounded damned good!

[gmgraves]

So I must confess I just don't get this. I thought/assumed artists always shot for the best.

 

Some oil painting artists are not satisfied with purchasing "high end" tubes of paint, they go and mix/grind their own pigment. Woodblock print artists would make several dozen negative blocks just to get the right hue.

 

I do agree that when properly recorded/mastered, Redbook sounds great. My favorite night/day example is the Goldberg Variations CDs done by Simone Dinnerstein on Telarc 2007 (unlistenable) vs Andras Schiff on ECM 1983 (awesome).

 

 

I think they do shoot for the best - the good ones, anyway. It's just that musicians don't listen for SQ, it seems. They listen for things having to do with their musicianship. Things like phrasing, intonation, breathing patterns, playing technique, etc,. These are important to their craft and artistry. Not frequency response, not S/N ratio, not distortion and noise. And these musicians "things" that I mentioned don't need hi-fi to come across to a listening musician, apparently.

[duxservit]

I think they do shoot for the best - the good ones, anyway. It's just that musicians don't listen for SQ, it seems. They listen for things having to do with their musicianship. Things like phrasing, intonation, breathing patterns, playing technique, etc,. These are important to their craft and artistry. Not frequency response, not S/N ratio, not distortion and noise. And these musicians "things" that I mentioned don't need hi-fi to come across to a listening musician, apparently.

 

So from all the postings in this thread would I be too far off in concluding the following:

 

(a) There is little correlation between the recording-SQ and sales of music (which points to why artists don't have to care much about the SQ outcome of their recordings).

 

(b) Judging by the dominance of the Clasical genre in SACDs that audiences of other genres (Jazz, Rock, Alternative, Hiphop, etc) don't see the value in buying their music in hi-res.

 

© Apple and it's less-than-CD quality iTunes music is simply selling to a consumer market that had already been desensitized for years prior by poor SQ recordings in Redbook.

[whoozwah]

I've not met any musicians that honestly care that much about releasing a high-res version of their music. Although I have met a few that care about releasing music with proper dynamics. Dan Swano has been releasing albums for years now that include the studio-mangled DR6 squashed version and a 2nd disc with the full dynamic mix on it.

[gmgraves]

So from all the postings in this thread would I be too far off in concluding the following:

 

(a) There is little correlation between the recording-SQ and sales of music (which points to why artists don't have to care much about the SQ outcome of their recordings).

 

(b) Judging by the dominance of the Clasical genre in SACDs that audiences of other genres (Jazz, Rock, Alternative, Hiphop, etc) don't see the value in buying their music in hi-res.

 

© Apple and it's less-than-CD quality iTunes music is simply selling to a consumer market that had already been desensitized for years prior by poor SQ recordings in Redbook.

 

 

I think that the facts will stand-up under that interpretation, yes.

[duxservit]

I think that the facts will stand-up under that interpretation, yes.

 

George, thank you for the insights -- things are just beginning to make sense for me :-)

[anji12305]

Just looked up the website and found this picture with said stereo in the background!

 

https://www.louisarmstronghouse.org/images/mc_photo07.jpg

Reel to reel masters ARE a high resolution format. Equate tape speed to sample rate, tape size to bit depth.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[anji12305]

There is a trap many of us fall into; recordings sold on their sonic merits. Few records that are cut with this approach have laudable performances - I suppose this is due to cutting and pasting the best snippets together.

 

Notable exceptions include the Reference recordings of the Minnesota orchestra and Opus 3 records.

 

It is important to note that producers mix to sound best on the broadcast media of the day.

 

It was 8 track and 6x9 woofers in my day, near field monitors and earbuds today.

 

More revealing audio systems set the trap to pursue media for its own sake, rather than the music it was built to serve.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[whoozwah]

There is a trap many of us fall into; recordings sold on their sonic merits. Few records that are cut with this approach have laudable performances - I suppose this is due to cutting and pasting the best snippets together.Notable exceptions include the Reference recordings of the Minnesota orchestra and Opus 3 records.It is important to note that producers mix to sound best on the broadcast media of the day. It was 8 track and 6x9 woofers in my day, near field monitors and earbuds today.More revealing audio systems set the trap to pursue media for its own sake, rather than the music it was built to serve.Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

word. It's all about the music.

[wwaldmanfan]

There is a trap many of us fall into; recordings sold on their sonic merits. Few records that are cut with this approach have laudable performances

[edit]

More revealing audio systems set the trap to pursue media for its own sake, rather than the music it was built to serve.

 

I don't agree with that statement at all. Although there are a lot of anal-retentive/obsessive-compulsive audiophiles, for me, I only want to enjoy the music. The drawback of a revealing system is that it exposes the flaws in many modern recordings, a result of the loudness wars. And, certainly, many older recordings were not recorded or mastered well, but there's plenty of great stuff out there, whether it is on CD's from the 1980's that preserved the dynamic range of the original LP's, or, occasionally, new remasters that actually do sound better than the originals. Steven Wilson's work comes to mind.

[anji12305]

I don't agree with that statement at all. Although there are a lot of anal-retentive/obsessive-compulsive audiophiles, for me, I only want to enjoy the music. The drawback of a revealing system is that it exposes the flaws in many modern recordings, a result of the loudness wars. And, certainly, many older recordings were not recorded or mastered well, but there's plenty of great stuff out there, whether it is on CD's from the 1980's that preserved the dynamic range of the original LP's, or, occasionally, new remasters that actually do sound better than the originals. Steven Wilson's work comes to mind.

Name three records that were promoted as 'Audiophile from Start to Finish'.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[wwaldmanfan]

Name three records that were promoted as 'Audiophile from Start to Finish'.

 

Just off the top of my head, I have CD's by Dire Straits and Rickie Lee Jones with dynamic range up to DR20. I love the music, and it sounds wonderful on my system. Beyond that, i'm not sure what your definition of "audiophile" is, or why labeling like that would have any relevance to anything.

 

Folks here can express differing opinions, but still keep the tone of the discussion polite, friendly, and useful. I'm getting a little weary of forum members, emboldened by their anonymity, who think they are proving something by insisting on being argumentative. I'm not directing that at you personally, just making a general comment.

[anji12305]

Just off the top of my head, I have CD's by Dire Straits and Rickie Lee Jones with dynamic range up to DR20. I love the music, and it sounds wonderful on my system. Beyond that, i'm not sure what your definition of "audiophile" is, or why labeling like that would have any relevance to anything.

 

Folks here can express differing opinions, but still keep the tone of the discussion polite, friendly, and useful. I'm getting a little weary of forum members, emboldened by their anonymity, who think they are proving something by insisting on being argumentative. I'm not directing that at you personally, just making a general comment.

So, when you - an anonymous poster - vehemently disagree, you're just being brutally honest?

 

It was a simple question; name three recordings that were promoted on the strength of their recording quality.

 

They certainly exist, I've owned some.

None have what I would consider memorable performances and that's entirely to the point.

 

There is a regular offering from a Music seller that offers Direct titles of exquisite crap recorded in the most loving manner that hits my trashcan on the way back from the mailbox. Yet, they reliably sellout their wares.

 

When skilled performers are still young and hungry, resources aren't available. When this sort of vaunted production is touted to promote the recording, it's with an established 'star' well past their prime. It's like saying a movie has great special effects, when there's little else worth mentioning for 90 minutes.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[whoozwah]

...None have what I would consider memorable performances and that's entirely to the point.

 

So it's a matter of taste.

 

I personally enjoy both Opeth and Toto. I like the music they write. They're all excellent musicians and songwriters. Both groups take absolute care of their recordings. Toto IV, the Seventh One, Heritage and the Pale Communion are 4 albums that fit the criteria imo. But again, you might not like that kind of music so ymmv.

[wwaldmanfan]

So, when you - an anonymous poster - vehemently disagree, you're just being brutally honest?

 

It was a simple question; name three recordings that were promoted on the strength of their recording quality.

 

They certainly exist, I've owned some.

None have what I would consider memorable performances and that's entirely to the point.

 

There is a regular offering from a Music seller that offers Direct titles of exquisite crap recorded in the most loving manner that hits my trashcan on the way back from the mailbox. Yet, they reliably sellout their wares.

 

When skilled performers are still young and hungry, resources aren't available. When this sort of vaunted production is touted to promote the recording, it's with an established 'star' well past their prime. It's like saying a movie has great special effects, when there's little else worth mentioning for 90 minutes.

 

My name is Mike Krueger, and I've been on this forum for almost 3-1/2 years. Now I'm not anonymous. Just because I disagreed with your statement, I'm being vehement and brutal?

 

I'm not sure what your point is, or why anyone has to name three recordings to satisfy it, especially when you say you've owned some yourself. Make sense by naming them, and answer your own question. Whether you liked the performances or not is a matter of subjective taste.

[mansr]

Name three records that were promoted as 'Audiophile from Start to Finish'.

 

I don't recall seeing that exact phrase used explicitly, but implicitly anything from labels like Blue Coast, Chesky, Sound Liaison, etc fits the description. Or, for that matter, Mark Waldrep, even if some disagree with his miking technique.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Reel to reel masters ARE a high resolution format. Equate tape speed to sample rate, tape size to bit depth.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

Not in my book. It might be fair to call RtoR a highly quality format. But, confusing digital concepts like "resolution" with analog tape parameters like sample rate and tape speed or width is trying to make a controversial value judgement that is unproven and, frankly, unprovable, in addition to not being widely accepted at all. Start with S/N ratio, for example. RtoR is not comparable.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Name three records that were promoted as 'Audiophile from Start to Finish'.

 

 

First, I do not want "audiophile" recordings. I have quite a few on vinyl, CD and SACD. "Audiophile" generally equates to a premium price and sub-par musical quality. Or, it means yet another remastering of a prior release, often an analog-era recording, that may or may not sound slightly better than previous versions. "Audiophile" is a marketing stunt that has promised much more than it has delivered in enhanced recording quality for decades.

 

If the question is really about the greatest sounding recordings and forgetting about the audiophile tag, I have tons of new, original releases made in the past 15 years from a number of classical music specialist labels including BIS, Channel Classics, Chandos, Harmonia Mundi, Linn, 2L, Telarc, etc., even RCA and DGG and others. In discretely-recorded, hi rez multichannel, these as a group are the consistently best sounding recordings I know of, and by a substantial margin. My thousands of stereo LPs and CDs are gathering dust, and I have not bothered to rip them to my NAS.

[mansr]

Not in my book. It might be fair to call RtoR a highly quality format. But, confusing digital concepts like "resolution" with analog tape parameters like sample rate and tape speed or width is trying to make a controversial value judgement that is unproven and, frankly, unprovable, in addition to not being widely accepted at all. Start with S/N ratio, for example. RtoR is not comparable.

The analogy is accurate. You're right though that even a good tape, say 1/2" at 15 ips, doesn't begin to rival to 24/96 PCM. Most master tapes have a frequency range somewhat exceeding CD and dynamic range somewhere between vinyl and CD.

[anji12305]

I would assert that the undeniably earnest recordings from Chesky contain some of the least spontaneous performances Pacquito ever made.

 

Compare these to the Cachao 'Master sessions', made in near rudimentary conditions...

 

It's as if the intention to get squeaky clean recordings scrubs off a layer of musicality, or worse, subjects the listener to a 'Sonic Spectacle' that showcases dynamic range, etc.

 

Anybody who sat through the Kodo demonstration disc can attest to the musical content, or absence thereof.

 

Good recording quality is akin to proper lighting in photography.

 

It's VERY difficult to make the mundane appear beautiful.

 

Too often with labels that concentrate on technique; that is precisely what they offered.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[esldude]

I would assert that the undeniably earnest recordings from Chesky contain some of the least spontaneous performances Pacquiao ever made.

 

Compare these to the Cahcao 'Master sessions', made in near rudimentary conditions...

 

It's as if the intention to get squeaky clean recordings scrubs off a layer of musicality, or worse, subjects the listener to a 'Sonic Spectacle' that showcases dynamic range, etc.

 

Anybody who sat through the Kodo demonstration disc can attest to the musical content, or absence thereof.

 

Good recording quality is akin to proper lighting in photography.

 

It's VERY difficult to make the mundane appear beautiful.

 

Too often with labels that concentrate on technique; that is precisely what they offered.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

I think much of what you are describing is people prefer gimmicked, prettied up processing to a natural quality recording. Wide dynamic range recordings for instance almost always sound like the reverse compared to your normal recordings with a bit of processing/compression thrown at them. I am not saying it is wrong to want that as it is a preference. For the majority of people (including audiophiles) the world's finest musical performance with some added tasteful musical spice would be preferable to the same performance recorded well and naturally with zero processing. Now which of those is of higher quality?