Article: Editorial: What's Wrong With You?

[STC]

11 hours ago, Jud said:

I guess I'm a stickler for trying to be accurate - can anyone find an interview or piece of writing where Alan Parsons actually said what was attributed to him in that quote?

 

He didn't.  It was someone else who made the comment to the interview. He said many good things in other interviews but those were mostly inconvenient truth for audiophiles.

[STC]

19 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Is it possible he said it outside this single article / interview?

 

I am very sure the comment was made by someone else in reference to this interview. IIRC, it was picked by another article highlighting the comment which led to the quote being wrongly attributed to Parsons. Meanwhile, he also commented about analogue and miking techniques in other interview which may not go well with audiophiles.

[STC]

Perhaps, if we should call them audio hobbyists because audiophile refers to a specific purpose in the sound reproduction.

[STC]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

Well, he learned from George Martin, who felt that artists and producers should have the freedom to create a sonic environment in the recording

 

Sir Martin?  I still remember the quote " why would they want to do that?" when stereo was introduced during the Beatles recording session the very first time.

 

Both the tracks you were referring to involved some audio processing. They all were different from the purist approach of typical recording which made the big difference in the sound. 

[STC]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

 I'm willing to bet that's another not accurate quote. The Beatles first album was done in both stereo and mono (excluding the previously released material  that wasn't  recorded in stereo). 
 

At their very first recording sessions for Love Me Do, etc. Martin was just fulfilling a contractual obligation to record 4 songs. There was an assumption in house that once the songs had been recorded (not even released), that would be the  end of it. Martin signed the Beatles to the contract mostly because the music publishing arm of EMI liked a couple of their songs and wanted the rights. He may very well not have signed them at all if it wasn't for that. Of course things changed once the songs were recorded and actually released. 

Sir George certainly didn't believe in the "absolute sound"; he saw the studio and technology as another "instrument" which he could use to get the result he wanted. This predates his time with the Beatles and can be seen in the various music and comedy recordings he did with Parlaphone before the Beatles ever arrived at Abbey Road. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Please_Please_Me:

 

 

 

As far as know Beatles preferred Mono and made their recordings in mono. It was the under the US agents pressure Martin released his mixed mono as stereo. OTOH, they probably sounded different with big soundstage because they were mixed for speaker that were separated by 2 or 3 feet. In order to have a big soundstage the mono tracks were hard panned to the extreme so that you get a typical 60 degrees speakers.

[STC]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

As an example of how that "terrible A to D converter on the video camera and lossy YouTube compression" can actually demonstrate that a rig is doing the job of delivering the music, with no excuses - in the same series of "World's Greatest Audio Systems",

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh please. How can you even be sure there wasn't any correction done in the recording?  I did post in their forum my videos and their multi million system compared side by side.  My posts will be moderated by removing their videos which I attached for side by side comparisons.

[STC]

47 minutes ago, firedog said:

Not accurate. They preferred mono, yes, because it was the dominant format for their fans equipment in the UK till about 67-68 or so. Doesn't mean they didn't mix for stereo or only record in mono. As noted above, their first album was also mixed to stereo at the time it was recorded and it was intended only for the UK market at that time.  Their other albums were also all mixed to stereo. 

Basically, with a few songs as exceptions, their entire catalog was done in both mono and stereo, except for Let it

Be and Abbey Road, which were done only in stereo, as by 1969 it was clear that the market had changed so that mono wasn't really necessary. 

 

I can't recall everything about Beatles now as I was gathering information on stereo development at the time. Anyway, here is something which may help to throw some light on this discussion which has now gone out of topic.

 

"

Martin: Four-track was the earliest thing we had and that wasn’t until 1965. From ’62 to ’65 we didn’t have four-track. We had mono--mono was the thing. Mono was all that pop records were. Stereo was reserved for classical. Stereo wasn’t considered to be in any way useful to pop record because it dissipated the sound...

MF: ...on the radio...

Martin: ...and pop had to hit you square on the nose. And so it was considered irrelevant. Very few people had stereo machines anyway. And if they did, they generally had them in cabinets where the speakers were about a foot apart, so you couldn’t really tell.

So mono was the thing. But I took a stereo machine and separated the tracks and made it into a twin-track machine. So when we recorded the Beatles live as we did, we didn’t overdub. I would keep the voices on one track and put the backing on another, so when they went home I could then mix it down and keep the voice forward--but at the same time get plenty of impact. I wouldn’t have to do it on the spot. So that gave me time.

MF: And there was some leakage between the two tracks because they were playing live...?

Martin: Of course.

MF: But it was amazing separation!

Martin: Yes, but then, in the instrumental where the voices stop, all the shit comes out on that track from elsewhere. When I first heard what they’d been doing, I was horrified. But they just did. And I didn’t find out 'till afterwards, and it was too late.

But the worst thing is: The people got used to this and loved it! They liked to be able to turn up the voices in songs. So I was hoisted with my own petard here. I couldn’t protest anymore. I was saying, “Why do you do this? It’s a travesty!” But then they’d say, “The people like it!”

MF: But that came out in England also—the stereo With the Beatles.

Martin: It did. By this time I’d left EMI, and I had no power there at all. I left EMI in 1965 to start my own company. Up to ’65 I was the head of Parlophone Records, so what I said went--as far as Parlophone was concerned. But once I left, I had no authority...apart from complaining.

MF: Back to those Capitol tracks: They were in mono, I assume.

Martin: Yes, "Baby, You’re a Rich Man," "Penny Lane," and "All You Need is Love" should have been mono.

Read more at https://www.analogplanet.com/content/sir-george-martin-interview-part-two-0#ZEV6pzrSh7tOpvJG.99 "

 

 

And 

 

Beyond this, working in true stereo the way the Beatles wanted to simply wasn’t possible through most of the 1960s. By the time of A Hard Day’s Night in 1964, for example, EMI had taken delivery of several new four-track machines, but that remained the state of the art for the next several years. And four tracks is far short of the number necessary to create what we might think of as a “modern” recording - with stereo drums, stereo instruments and stereo voices. Since early stereo attempts tended to sound clumsy and primitive, the Beatles gave up on the format until better times arrived. It wasn’t until 1968, when they began using eight-track machines, that they began giving real attention to stereo.

In the Beatles’ minds, we should remember, it was always more important for a record to be musically good than for it to be compatible with some new, gimmicky format. The Beatles had been raised on mono. All their early records were mono. The radio they listened to was mono. And so it’s natural that, as they began recording, mono remained their chief form of public expression. From 1962 until 1968 the Beatles would record their songs, create mono masters with George Martin plus either Norman Smith (1962-65) or Geoff Emerick (1966-67), and then go off on tour or holiday, leaving the stereo mixes to be done solely under Martin’s supervision. Stereo tapes were often couriered to Capitol in New York without the Beatles ever hearing them at all.

[STC]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

To me the very best audiophile systems manage to disappear into the room, and all that is left is the music

 

Another phrase that never made any sense to me. Can we also say in live performance when the sound is so good the performers disappear from the stage?  

[STC]

15 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

George is talking about Capitol in the US releasing "hard panned" stereo versions, which were not under his or the band's control. Not even the lineup of songs was under their control - those were different in the US and UK, as we know.

 

It was in the interview. He made them for US Capitol. 

 

 

[STC]

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

So, we're in the world where everything that contradicts our viewpoint must have been fiddled with, eh ...

 

Frank, I am doing video recording all the time to compare. I know what to expect from the Youtube videos. I have uploaded many of my own to Youtube. I also record other good systems for reference. 

 

On thing you learn from this is you cannot judge the absolute (sic) SQ from YT. Sometimes, the videos sound will give the opposite results. 

[STC]

23 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Nice summary. Can you post a link to a few of your own videos please? 

 

-Paul 

 

 

They are in my other threads and some in my signature. Pls see PM for the direct link of my old comparisons. 

[STC]

12 minutes ago, Axial said:

And sure enough, a piano is a very tough musical instrument (my favorite by the way, after the human voice) to reproduce accurately from a hi-fi stereo sound system. It is in fact . . . impossible.

 

Read this many times. Harbeth espoused vocal accuracy to sell their speakers. Until now, I am unable to find scientific papers to support this. 

[STC]

2 minutes ago, Axial said:

 

Some of the best speaker designers use the human voice to tune, fine-tune, voice their masterpieces. I would have love to grow up in my home with Opera singers. 

 

But that doesn’t mean vocal is too complex to be reproduced accurately. This, IMO, is a myth. 

 

Alan Shaw of Harbeth  uses his daughter’s voice as a reference but not for the reasons you stated. 

 

I usually don’t comment on this except that I have seen some with good system ruining their enjoyment just because they could never get the vocal correct. 

[STC]

5 minutes ago, Axial said:

Frank, one more (the very last one):

 

 

 

Is this your system? Nicely setup. 

 

7 minutes ago, Axial said:

 

Two questions if I may ...

 

1. Why don't you usually comment on this?

 

Because my opinion is not in sync with most audiophiles' belief. I have read many times that vocal is so complex that it is hard to reproduce accurately but where is the evidence for that? This is the same like another myth that only the LS3/5A could produce the most natural vocal.

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Axial said:

 

2. And what would be the main reason(s) some audiophiles could not get the vocals correct? 

 

Because vocal is the only sound in the music that you have a good reference. You audio memory bank contains thousands or millions of vocal memory that were produced naturally without any amplification. We are familiar with that more than the sound of musical instruments. We always hear music through sound reproduction machine and our reference is somewhat tied to the reproduced sound rather than the real instruments. However, when it comes to vocal we know instinctively that's not natural when reproduced by the stereo set. 

[STC]

27 minutes ago, Axial said:

Sing in your room in front of a quality microphone recording your voice

 

What type of microphone would you recommend. I mean stereo or mono?

[STC]

45 minutes ago, Axial said:

 

Are you a member @ Gearslutz? 

• https://www.gearslutz.com/

 

Yes. 

[STC]

6 minutes ago, Axial said:

 

I think a bunch of us, musicians and audiophiles with style are.

You have all the best mic recommendations and in all price ranges and for both XLR and USB connections.

...Less than $50, less than $100, less than $500, the top ones in the four digits. 

 

Ok. Thanks. I was looking for a better understanding of the type of mic to be used to record vocal because most recommend only mono mic. 

[STC]

5 minutes ago, Axial said:

 

• https://www.audiomasterclass.com/newsletter/should-vocals-be-recorded-in-mono-or-stereo

 

And how do i apply this to what you suggested earlier?  Do I also capture the ambiance or just the vocal alone since I am using the recording to check the speaker’s accuracy?

[STC]

1 minute ago, Axial said:

 

If you want the most accurate vocals reproduced by a mechanical loudspeaker, do you also want the room ambiance with it?

Do you want a singer recorded live in the room or in a booth? We're talking real live vocals here in the room where your stereo speakers are reproducing the music playing, the vocals. Your room is part of the chain. 

Invite a friend professional singer in the room where you listen to music. Ask her to sing and record her with a condenser mic with large diaphragm cardioid pickup pattern. 

 

Thanks.