Do artists care about " Hi-Res"

[anji12305]

It's a very important distinction to make, and one that points out the flaw in trying to make a purist, hyper realistic recording - it might not sound great in all playback chains.

 

I've noted the best compromises that I've heard (Keith Johnson's stuff) but no longer seek out recording "quality" foremost.

 

In my opinion today's garage bands with a couple of good mics can get better sound than Frank Sinatra at United Western with an army of technicians, and with little instruction beyond what was printed on the shipping cartons.

 

What happens in production is an entirely different line of inquiry.

 

For one, I like balancing and reverb in mix down, but detest pitch correction.

 

I like peak limiting, but hate compression.

 

I suspect what most of us like from recordings that wear 'Audiophile Pride' badges is that there is music between the noise floor and maximum volume, rather than having it all packed in at the highest threshold, but that's not enough to ensure a great record.

 

GnR Appetite for Destruction is a horribly compressed over produced affair that still works (and sells) to this day.

 

Famous Blue Raincoat tics off many of the audiophile recording requirements and ALSO has exquisite musicians in full flight.

 

I would assert that there are far more musically satisfying records like the former, than the latter.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Gonzbull]

I work in the recording industry and have to agree that most artists don't care. As long as it sounds good. All band music I get is 16/44.1. Some of the Electronic acts hand me 24/96 mixes but that's as high as it goes. Everything gets bounced to 16/44 anyway as that's what the Labels want.

[anji12305]

I work in the recording industry and have to agree that most artists don't care. As long as it sounds good. All band music I get is 16/44.1. Some of the Electronic acts hand me 24/96 mixes but that's as high as it goes. Everything gets bounced to 16/44 anyway as that's what the Labels want.

Hard to make a direct comparison, but do you here improvements in specific aspects, at higher sample rates or bit depths?

 

I was under the impression that higher sample rates would improve impulse response and reduce time related artifacts on playback.

 

For me, it begins and ends with getting upright bass close to what I can remember from live.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Gonzbull]

There are definite improvements with higher sample rates in electronic music. Lots of content above 20kHz and with digital delays and reverbs it helps a lot when dithering down to 44.1. Less distortion, inter-sample peaks and other artifacts. I however never up-sample. Converters play a part as well as some sound better at certain sample rates.

[anji12305]

There are definite improvements with higher sample rates in electronic music. Lots of content above 20kHz and with digital delays and reverbs it helps a lot when dithering down to 44.1. Less distortion, inter-sample peaks and other artefacts. I however never up-sample. Converters play a part as well as some sound better at certain sample rates.

I'm insensitive to anything above 13k. Any of these improvements audible in the range of vocals?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Gonzbull]

No not really. Converters and Clocks have advanced so much that sample rate has become a non issue really. There's so much other processing that goes into recorded music that has a much greater impact for better or worse.

[anji12305]

No not really. Converters and Clocks have advanced so much that sample rate has become a non issue really. There's so much other processing that goes into recorded music that has a much greater impact for better or worse.

What, then is the advantage of higher sample rates? I adopt new formats when there's new software... reissues of what I already own aren't compelling.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Gonzbull]

I see the advantage when digitising tape is involved. Most music today gets recorded straight into a computer so it stays at whatever sample rate it starts at. No point up sampling after the fact as that's just a con.

[semente]

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.

 

If one listens exclusively to classical music it is indeed possible to get by with contemporary high (sonic) quality recordings, at least when one's staple diet consists of the better known music from the most recognised composers...

 

But even so, you'd be missing out on the recorded performances of many of the great interpreters of old.

 

Personally I'd rather put up with passable sound quality.

 

R

[Fitzcaraldo215]

If one listens exclusively to classical music it is indeed possible to get by with contemporary high (sonic) quality recordings, at least when one's staple diet consists of the better known music from the most recognised composers...

 

But even so, you'd be missing out on the recorded performances of many of the great interpreters of old.

 

Personally I'd rather put up with passable sound quality.

 

R

To each, his or her own, of course. I used to follow your path, and my LP and CD collections contain tons of releases by the great interpreters of the past. And, there are also many stereo remasterings in my SACD/BD/download collection of classic performances of old which I play on occasion, my most prized being the superb BD-A of the Wagner Ring by Solti, et al. There are countless others, including access to mono and stereo remasterings from the 30's, 40s, 50's and 60s.

 

But, my attitude changed as I increasingly attended live concerts over several decades. First, I became much more attuned to the sound of live music in the hall, and I increasingly sought to come much closer to that sense of live sound in my home system.

 

Second, I became increasingly interested in new performances, new interpretations of the familiar repertoire. I became less interested in the one and only, the " ultimate best" classic interpretations frozen in time, musically and sonically. I became more interested in the composer's musical composition itself, the range of possible musical expression it provided, its evolution and a freshening of perspective. To me, older performances which have been placed on an exalted pedestal are no longer what I seek. And, truth be told, I am not a big, automatic fan of Karajan or Furtwaengler or quite a number of other icons, though I revere many others.

 

So, usually, at home, I strongly prefer the most realistic recreation of the live concert experience. More often than not, I strongly prefer a fresh interpretation rather than the revered old ones from the past, which I have probably heard many times before. And, I want to do that in the very best, most true to live, most immersive sound, which at this point to me is clearly hi rez multichannel.

 

BTW, looking at available classical releases on SACD, it strikes me that there are a disproportionate number of unfamiliar works, new and old, available in hi rez Mch. It is also true that some staples of the "standard" repertoire are underrepresented, while others are overrepresented, Mahler Symphonies, for example. In any case, there is much to explore in the thousands of classical Mch releases on my NAS, as well as all those I do not yet have. I am working on it, though. And, my sound is beyond my most optimistic dreams of even a decade ago with modern Mch recordings in hi rez. It still ain't perfect, but it is quite satisfying.

[semente]

I've never been able to listen to a proper demo of a multichannel system, they have invariably been playing movies at the shows I've been to.

 

But if multichannel is your goal then the choice for contemporary recordings is totally justifiable.

[firedog]

From the 'musicians as audiophiles' series:

Musicians as Audiophiles: Ron Carter | Stereophile.com

 

Ron Carter has some interesting comments about how he listens to recordings of his bass. And a killer rig.

[semente]

Thanks.

I have one of his albums, "Piccolo", and I enjoy most of it.

I even use it for evaluating purposes; Keepnews was a top jazz producer and in my opinion achieved more interesting results than the more famous RVG.

 

R

 

 

P.S. Those Tetra 606 speakers look interesting

[semente]

33.000usd!?!

[esldude]

From the 'musicians as audiophiles' series:

Musicians as Audiophiles: Ron Carter | Stereophile.com

 

Ron Carter has some interesting comments about how he listens to recordings of his bass. And a killer rig.

 

Yes, that is a very nice article and interview.

 

I like where he talks about not hearing himself while recording. As I have mentioned, musicians don't know what they sound like some distance away. I also enjoyed the part where he asks why this note is missing and that one isn't. Like all musicians after he has played he hopes to hear his playing on the recording.

 

I haven't recorded an upright bass, but a different instrument though similarly hard to hear is the mandolin. Even among other acoustic instruments a mando can easily get lost in it all. The mando player wants to hear the notes he/she struck. Now unlike the bass, if you record a mando it will get heard upon playback. Many notes of a bass can be well recorded yet many systems will lose some notes. Many, many otherwise fine playback systems have suckouts in parts of the bass range or large peaks. Large peaks can mask nearby notes that otherwise would be audible. Suckouts obviously suck notes in that range out of the playback sound. Getting even response 300 hz and lower always elevates the sound quality of even moderately good systems. It isn't always easy to do however.

[gmgraves]

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

 

Actually, TRACK WIDTH = Bit depth, not tape size. But the two tape decks shown in that picture of Satchmo's rig are what look like Tandberg consumer decks. They are only 7.5. and 3.75 ips, and more than likely, 1/4 track.

[gmgraves]

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.

 

You just quoted "Holt's Law". "The quality of a recording is usually inversely proportional to the quality of the performance."

[semente]

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.

 

Not unless you are displaying a reproduction of the painting, like a photograph, a print or a video.

 

R

[Gwilson]

About 20 years ago I switched from being a salesman for Telarc to a large indie distributor. At one of our conventions I talked to the owners of Rounder and suggested they might use one of my Grammy winning friends to record their music. Fell on deaf ears. They said their artists were responsible for their own recordings and saw no reason to get involved. At Telarc one day a classic musician friend got goosebumps listening to a recording over the intercom. These guys hear it deep in their brains, not through their ears.

[vmartell22]

... These guys hear it deep in their brains, not through their ears.

 

Indeed - there is a documentary on the arrival of Riccardo Chailly to the Concertgebouw - a former musician was commenting on some recordings at his some on what it look like a very cheap stereo - might be wrong, but I have found that all the musicians I know have the crappiest systems, indeed, it looks like they look for something different in music - it's us fans that tend to prefer the good systems...

 

v