Article: Realism vs Accuracy For Audiophiles | Part 1: Soundstage

[firedog]

I've often thought that the idea that our systems should reproduce a real live performance is nuts. First, a lot of live music doesn't "sound" very good. It sounds "live" but hall/room acoustics aren't always the best. And most (non classical) perfomances seem to be miked and amplified, so what you are hearing live is altered by the sound guy's idea of how it should sound. You aren't actually hearing the performance directly, but an altered version of it from most seats. And live you don't get the precise sound locationing or stereo imaging that our systems often give us.

In addition, rooms the size of those in our homes are never going to sound like a performance in either a club, a large hall, or even in a large room in some great home or castle. What we want our recordings and systems to do is to give us a realistic illusion of what we imagine a listener would have heard,  to trick us into thinking that the original must have sounded like that - even though it probably didn't. 

[firedog]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Along the same lines, I highly recommend a program on the Channel Classics label (a hybrid multichannel SACD, no less) with Paolo Giacometti playing an identical all-Ravel program on two pianos, a modern Steinway and a restored 1888 Érard - the brand that Ravel used at home when composing. The differences in the performer's approach to the same music on the two instruments—tempo, pedaling, dynamics, etc—is very interesting.

 

[The title of the 2-SACD set is Compared. The catalog number is CCS SA 31612]

Nice recommendation, Andrew, thanks. The performances do sound really different. Not hard to hear it at all.

[firedog]

19 hours ago, bluesman said:

You’re very welcome! 
 

The first two Beatles albums were made on 2 track tape machines - so the sonic image was both captured (rather than engineered) and fairly accurate.  “I Want to Hold Your Hand” was the first Beatles music recorded on a 4 track machine, and they used “sound on sound” to overdub multiple parts.  So from that point on, their sonic image was engineered.  “Dear Prudence” was probably their first recording on an 8 track machine, and from there the tracks multiplied year by year.

 

Martin’s remixes and remasters are pretty good, in my opinion.  I can’t quibble with his concepts - they’re as valid as the originals were.  Once you start recording with separate mics on separate channels for individual instruments and voices, there is no image until the engineer creates it.

On Sgt. Pepper, his professed goal was to take the sound of the original mono, and somehow translate that sound to modern stereo. I think he did a good job. It's clearly stereo and modern, yet does have some of the spatial concepts and feel of the original mono. 

[firedog]

3 hours ago, bluesman said:

 

For the 50th anniversary remix, Martin started with digital rips of the original tapes.  He believed that the original mono mix sounded better because, even 8 years after the first stereo records became widely available, Sgt Pepper was “ designed for mono” as an album.  He believed that the original stereo mix was given short shrift because of the industry focus on mono, which seems very odd to me.  He seems to base this opinion on the fact that the mono mix took 3 weeks and the stereo mix was done in 3 days.  
 

I can’t help but wonder if they didn’t spend the first 3 weeks determining gain, pan, balance, EQ etc for every note of every track - there was no automation for this, so they had to do it all manually in real time while playing back the source tapes and re-recording the result.  Once they had the roadmap, which could easily take 2 to 3 weeks, they undoubtedly used most or all of it for both mono and stereo mixes.  Giles was 19 when Sgt P was made - I suspect he’s not quite right in some of his recollections.

Those aren't recollections, but Martin wasn't wrong. The Beatles, and their engineers, such as Geoff Emerick, said stereo was an afterthought for them till the White Album. The reason was the English market, that was still mono based. The Beatles based their marketing and recording around the UK market. May sound strange to Americans, but that was their orientation. In fact, Penny Lane and Strawberry fields were originally recorded for Pepper, but were released as a separate single because management felt the Beatles needed another single on the UK market (which was still singles based). The Beatles' approach in the UK was not to repeat songs released previously as singles on albums - they felt that was bad value for their British fans, so those two songs were left off of Pepper. In the UK, stereo was considered too high end and audiophile for them to worry about at the time. 

 

The Beatles were tailoring the sound for their fans, who they thought were still mostly mono listeners. Much of British Rock at the time was the same. That's why Giles said he was trying to get a "stereo version of the original mono" mix for the 50th anniversary remix.

The Beatles conceived of the sound of the album in mono, were actively involved in the details of the mix, and once the mono was done - they left. The Abbey Road crew did the stereo on their own, without input from the Beatles, and the Beatles didn't listen to it or approve it before it was finalized. This is all pretty well documented in interviews and books by the principals. In fact, Emerick says they played around with the stereo mix and did some stuff (extra use of automated double tracking, etc.) that the Beatles probably wouldn't have liked. There are a lot of discrepancies between the two mixes.  That's why a lot of Beatles afficianados (and people such as Geoff Emerick and Ken Scott) always considered the mono version the "authentic" one. 

Giles, BTW, wasn't even born when Sgt. Pepper was made. Not sure where you got the 19.

[firedog]

double post

[firedog]

20 minutes ago, bluesman said:

I'm not so sure they wouldn't have liked it.  As I recall (and the age 19 thing proves that we may not be able to rely completely on my recollection...) ADT was invented at the Beatles' request the year before Sgt Pepper, and was used extensively on Revolver.

I was paraphrasing what Geoff Emerick said in his book when writing about the Pepper mixes. He didn't seem to think much of the stereo mix he and the others made. 

 

BTW, most Beatles albums are a good example of recordings made with zero intention of "sounding like a real performance". Most of the albums are total studio creations, and the Beatles and George Martin were consciously and intentionally trying to create some sort of aural tapestry that couldn't exist outside the studio and didn't at all sound like a live band performance. 

[firedog]

https://www.stereo.net.au/reviews/review-yamaha-ns-5000-flagship-loudspeakers

New NS 5000, modern update of NS 1000

[firedog]

14 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Hey!  We have one from their conservatory-series as well., bought in the late 90s when a music store my brother was working in was getting out of selling pianos.  Wonderful instrument.

 

Bill

My Mom had a baby grand  that we tried to sell after she passed. There was no market. Basically had to give it away so as not to pay a piano mover.

[firedog]

2 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Wow.  That is unfortunate.  I would have wished there was a musician who would have been thrilled to get it.  In that case I probably would have moved it for them.  Would have been a wonderful gift.  Though perhaps there are less people now who would love to get it.

 

Bill

My understanding is that the market is now very limited. Many fewer people play than once upon a time (fewer taking lessons), electric pianos are now very good and way more convenient, and grands, baby grands,and even uprights are just too big for most people. There's still a small market for really top end instruments, but if you just have a "good" used one - there are a lot of them available from estate sales, etc. and they just aren't worth much.

[firedog]

5 hours ago, bluesman said:

The problem is that unless it is stated in liner notes etc, you simply don't know exactly what the performers, producers, engineers et al wanted you to hear. 

This reminded me to the McCartney album "Press to Play", where in the vinyl version he included a detailed map/diagram of the mix of each song and where he wanted each instrument was placed in the soundstage - this is apparently what he gave to the mixing crew to help them along.