Popular Post Bill Brown Posted May 13, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 13, 2020 6 hours ago, mevdinc said: I just don't listen to bad recordings, no matter how good the music is. And, to me it's a bad recording if it doesn't sound good on my system. There are so many recordings that sound great on my system, and I just listen to those. I spend my time discovering more recordings that sound good, which is much easier nowadays with all the streaming services. Stay safe. I so wish that Louis' Armstrong's Hot Fives and Sevens, Charlie Parker, Robert Johnson, Toscanini (and others) were recorded with modern techniques. I find myself trying sometimes to "listen through" and perceive what the tone was in the studio/concert hall to increase my enjoyment. But I can't imagine not listening to them anyway; I feel like I would be depriving myself of music that touches me profoundly. Heck, I would rather listen to them on an AM radio than well-recorded music on my "hi-fi" that I don't feel is musically valuable to me. See JGH's comments in the old days re. "Tibetan nose-flute." And as to the thread topic (maybe only sort-of), I am able to connect more deeply to poor recordings on a good system. I believe that good systems lay bare the good and bad aspects of a recording before us and allow us to separate them, focusing on the good. As an example, with vinyl ticks and pops/surface noise on a good TT they become separate from the music, almost in a separate plane and can be ignored. The one flaw that I can't overcome (it is at least exceedingly difficult) is compressed/clipped modern digital. This pains my soul. I feel that an entire generation of good music has been to some degree lost. Just my thoughts, Bill Audiophile Neuroscience and Qhwoeprktiyns 1 1 Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 I had no intention of being insulting to others' musical preferences re. the nose-flute comment. It was in the context of his lament that he believed the quality of the recording was often inversely proportional to the quality of the music. I wouldn't want to go down the slippery slope of quality music being determined in an absolute v relative way. We are all different and thats cool. Bill Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Popular Post Bill Brown Posted May 14, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 14, 2020 9 hours ago, gmgraves said: I have stereo recordings that sound worse than some 78’s from the late ‘Thirties and ‘Forties. So, yeah. And it’s hard to fathom why anyone would make and release recordings that poor. Especially since we’ve had the ability to make incredibly lifelike stereo recordings since the Mid ‘Fifties and did make them! Amen!! If all recordings were made like they were in the "golden era" I would be over the moon. Despite the mild, non-objectionable tape hiss listen to the tone of Johnny Hodges on Ellington records, RCA Living stereo, the DECCA recordings of the era, the air in the studio and tone of "Kind of Blue," the tone of Coltrane on most Impulse! recordings (I could go on and on) and compare it to almost all modern releases, many of them painful from a sonic standpoint. The recording industry went astray! Pains my soul. Many times I have played records for non-audiophile friends and after they were blown away explained that the recordings were made on all tube equipment to tape. Audiophile Neuroscience and bluesman 2 Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 1 hour ago, bluesman said: There's a lot of praise for Kind of Blue as a "great recording". Technically, it's a truly bad recording. If you have access to an original, listen carefully to it. The bass is recessed and thin, the "placement" of the musicians is artificially constricted (because it was recorded on 3 mono tracks with suboptimal mic use and later mixed into a fake stereo space), there's crude reverb on Miles' horn and Chambers' bass (because they stuck a monitor speaker and a mic in the basement of the church building to make a crude acoustic echo chamber), the pitch on the A side is a bit higher than life (because the tape machine needed maintenance and was slow for the first of its two recording sessions), etc etc. But it's a great musical experience because it delivers the soundprint of Miles and his band. Yes, a bad recording can sound good. I don't want to be argumentative, but in several aspects I would disagree. When I listen the bass is nicely placed back and to the right in the soundstage. From the introduction being played solo, I hear appropriate finger on neck sounds, depth from the body, and an appropriate "woody tone." I think Miles' Harmon-muted tone is good/natural- metallic without being grating. As my system improved this aspect of reproduction has improved. I no longer cringe in anticipation of it coming (maybe an artifact of early digital?). Coltrane is possibly mic'd too closely, but the tone....Cannonball seems less precisely placed. I hear the piano off to the left in a different plane from the horn. The tone is good, I acknowledge not great. The atmosphere is good. I feel as though I can sense the CBS 30th Street Studio in which it was recorded. The pitch anomaly on side 1 (from a mis-calibrated tape machine) was corrected on subsequent releases (high-end LP, high-res download, etc.). I think the last to feature it was the original CD, which I agree doesn't sound good- not based solely on the speed problem. I also love recordings where all of the musicians are in the same room playing in real time. I wish The Red Hot Chili Peppers were recorded similarly But again, I listen more to the "Coltrane Live in Europe" discs that are, without a doubt, bad recordings. Bill Bill Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 20 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said: Define "Good." If Good is accuracy to the source, then yes. If Good is pleasing to the listener, also yes as its completely subjective This goes to the ages old debate that I have been thinking about all along in this thread. In the "golden age" (hi-fi's early days) systems were judged based on acoustic instruments in a real space (typically classical) being reproduced accurately- fidelity to the source (JGH), or "the absolute sound" (HP) were the leading mantras. The next wave was "sounds good" or "causes enjoyment for the listener" as defining "good." This is was perhaps typified at the extreme by Art Dudley. JGH fought very hard against this, feeling that it drifted away from the "fidelity" part of hi-fi. AD responded equally strongly. As with you, I try to be fairly agnostic in this regard (who am I to say that someone's enjoyment is bad), but lean a bit toward JGH's thoughts. Bill Audiophile Neuroscience 1 Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 Seems like we agree in several ways. I first heard the original CD in the 80s, wasn't yet much of an audiophile. Then the next release that I can't remember the name for (? "super bit-mapping"), then the 50th anniversary set, then the stereo version of the LP that Fremer is referring to, then the high-res download. I got into record collecting too late to get an original "6-eye" pressing so my comments are not (unfortunately for comparison's sake) based on that. My vinyl rip and the 24/192 download sound wonderful to me, with the characteristics I described. Some of the Fremer quotes apply to what I hear (I acknowledge that he was listening in mono): "You can 'see' further into the mix and hear a clear delineation of direct and echo chamber sound as well as what sounds like 30th street studio room sound. Instrumental timbers are natural and textures rich." First CD sounded terrible, BTW- not that I cared at the time Bill Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 24 minutes ago, bluesman said: So now that you know how heavily it's been leaned on to make it sound good (and apropos of this thread), I'd love to know if you think Kind of Blue is a good recording, and why or why not? I do. Except for a few very-select recordings (usually on audiophile labels), all recordings are processed in some way (reverb, eq, all the stuff they can do in workstations these days). The means they used were simply different. To me it conveys the sound of real musicians in a real space and the sound of live instruments as I have heard them. Also, I can use its sound to assess the quality of a system. Is it as good as many others I could name (all the way from Beethoven's 6th or Bruckner's 9th on Columbia to modern "Reference Recordings" albums), no. But I believe it is good. Best, Bill bluesman 1 Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 18 minutes ago, gmgraves said: what I consider the most important ingredient: simplicity! Triple amen! To use simple, well-engineered gear, recording music in real-time, classic mic arrays, musicians interacting with each other in the same room/hall, no "fixing it in the mix," etc. nonsense. All of the labels/recordists you mentioned are on my list as well. Bill Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 1 minute ago, gmgraves said: No. “we” hate The sound of electric solid-body guitars, and Hendrix playing is just noise to me! Uh-oh :). No Duane Allman Les Paul? I couldn't live without it. Certainly ok if you can, though. Best, Bill Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 Totally understand. I am pretty selective with it as well, though have my guilty pleasures. I also have genres that I avoid at all costs. Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 13 hours ago, jabbr said: Yes and if you had recorded Charlie Parker that way the world would be eternally grateful! Its interesting that, for example Alan Lomax is credited with making many recordings of what are now considered the "worlds best blues guitarists". These pre-WWII recordings aren't what I would call great technical recordings given modern capabilities, yet the greatness of the performance shines through. So perhaps I'd use that as an example, of course Lomax did the best he could at the time ... and the world is grateful. Oh my, if I could hear Parker that way I would be in heaven. And the Hot Fives and Sevens. And early Lester Young, and, and... I have a theory that because it is hard to access the musical content/have to "listen through" to get it and it can be so off-putting, that there are those who don't get exposed to the genius because they can't get past the sound. I almost mentioned the field recordings yesterday but held back. There are certainly tracks that are plagued with hossible wow, other artifacts that George could explain better than me. But when it is right, the directness can be startling- I like the Irish recordings as I explore my heritage . One mic, one track- again, simplicity Bill Audiophile Neuroscience 1 Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 56 minutes ago, Summit said: I see that am in minority here that believes that a better audio system will make all music sound better, more real and lifelike than with a lesser system. I have never experienced that I have preferred a low quality system before a high quality system even if the recordings are of low quality and many records are. I guess that I favour the qualities a better audio system has like: better transparency, bigger sound, better drive, dynamics, more power full bass and less harsh treble and more natural mid-range no matter what. IOW I want and always find accuracy to the original source to be preferred. It true that a good audio system cannot make bad recordings sound good, but a good system are not adding its own flaws on top of the ones already imprinted in a mediocre recording. I am very much in the minority with you. For the old music that I referenced prior I definitely think it sounds better on a better system. Part of this, I feel, is that the music is easier to engage as the artifacts are laid bare and thus easier to ignore. The good parts certainly sound better. The only possible exception is on overly-compressed modern crap, maybe...; curses on Rick Rubin. I am glad to hear that @gmgravesfeels similarly to me re. Chandos recordings. They get rave reviews, but they consistently disappoint. I thought I was nuts. I was so excited to hear their recording of Ravel's "Daphnis et Chloe." Great performance but less engaging to me with the murkiness. Bill Summit 1 Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 20 minutes ago, Allan F said: IOW, IMO, you have it backwards. That is what I was going to say. Bill Allan F 1 Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Popular Post Bill Brown Posted May 16, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 16, 2020 I have really enjoyed this thread. Lots of interesting ideas exchanged, to be considered, etc. I caught up this morning and thought of several things: - I have been searching hard for the Leinsdorf Ravel. I don't stream (in the boonies, contrary to @The Computer Audiophile's impressions of our country's bandwidth mine sucks ), just download when able, so I looked through the ~ 50 albums of his on Qobuz, clicking through the pages in eager anticipation. Not there :(. Will keep looking. - @SJK demonstrated one of the the things I have found. Many times I have loved a piece of music so much that I have wanted to share it ("check this out, you won't believe it"). It is so tempting, and shows how important music is to us. Most of the time, though, they don't get it. I have had to accept that it is ok. So many differences in taste and interest. On a side note, with an apology in advance to the females that may be present, I have found that the women in my life have expressed much more interest early in relationships than later..... Many times I have read rave reviews of a piece by people I admire and sought out the musical recommendations, only to find that I admire and respect it but don't love it (as an example with Kiko, aside from a couple of tracks). I have a French brother-in-law on my wife's side who is a brilliant musician, picks up an instrument and learns it, a skill I certainly don't have. I share something with him and he doesn't get it; he shares a technically stunning artist who I don't think has anything to say and express polite admiration, never to listen again. I can't stand sentimentality for sentimentality's state or technical wizardry with nothing to say either. - I believe strongly that almost all of the music that is most important to me, speaks the most deeply, was the hardest to penetrate, perhaps even off-putting initially (lots of Trane). Inevitably I hear a snippet, then return, then return again, and finally "get it," "hear it." I think in art that that which initially impresses, that doesn't require depth of study, is eventually found to be fairly superficial. - One of the things I realized with bebop is that yes, the originators were initially trying to do things technically that others wouldn't be able to, and changing the harmonic approach. With Charlie Parker, though, what I realized eventually is that he is actually playing an intoxicating array of amazing, very melodic elements. There is a recording where he references Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. Dude was a genius. I'll stop my long-windedness and apologize that I wandered away from the original topic. Bill Teresa and Audiophile Neuroscience 1 1 Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Popular Post Bill Brown Posted May 16, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 16, 2020 Oh, and yes, the entrance to several genres (especially jazz) is made easier through experiencing it live. It makes sense much more quickly. Bill Audiophile Neuroscience and Teresa 1 1 Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 Beautifully said, George. And fantastic examples given- all of which are in my library Bill Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 6 hours ago, fas42 said: the current lousy attitudes to recording; piss poor PA sound abounds We finally agree on something! fas42 1 Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 21 hours ago, gmgraves said: I do disagree when you say that the better the system, the better all recordings sound. a better system makes the awfulness of a bad recording seem even more awful. In the poor system, the difference between a good recording and a bad one is lost in the poor resolution and the high distortion of the indifferent playback system. Agree and disagree. Sometimes a higher-quality system allows the flaws to be laid bare such that they can be ignored (ticks and pops are an example- often they are located separately at the speakers, the music we are after separate). For instance, I get more realism on my "good" system with the Hot Fives and Sevens. But yes, sometimes the lack of clarity, presence of euphony can make a poor recording more listenable- car radio with pop as an example. Bill Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 With Frank's discussion re. the Edifier speakers I have a theory I didn't write about yesterday (please note I am not discussing his electronics stuff). It is possible that there is a preference for slight anomalies in speakers that are preferred by some listeners. This has been demonstrated as far back as the BBC, more recently Toole and Olive, and JA can describe probable perceptions based on his speaker measurements. It is very disconcerting (at least to me) how very subtle changes in FR can lead to profound differences in perception. Bill Confused 1 Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 11 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: I totally fully agree with the law of diminishing returns. Amen Teresa 1 Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted July 18, 2020 Share Posted July 18, 2020 Caught up this morning. Surprised several of you cats are sticking with this. I did a lot of "fast scrolling"....... Bill kumakuma 1 Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Bill Brown Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 I remember reviews of the Cello Palette EQ. It was designed, I think, for a way to correct album-to-album FR problems and be as simple and straightforward as possible. I suspect it would become fairly intuitive with use. I can't think of a way to do it as easily in real time with a plug-in, though it is certainly possible. The idea of remastering something has intrigued me. On my to-do list is to make some subtle corrections to a cool Isaac Hayes tune ("Hung Up On My Baby"), and then save with some EQ. Spotting smaller frequency anomalies is pretty difficult without training (I am not great at it but can get by with some tricks I learned on mastering forums) as opposed to the more coarse adjustments with broad, low Q changes like the old "bass" and "treble" controls on preamps/receivers. Bill Audiophile Neuroscience 1 Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now