How Recordings Are Produced, and What It Means to Your Hi-Fi

[firedog]

https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2021/08/13/how-recordings-are-produced-and-what-it-means-to-your-hi-fi-the-ivory-tower/

 

Interesting article challenging the assumptions of lots off audiophiles.

[Kal Rubinson]

Of course, little of that applies to classical music.  FWIW.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Of course, little of that applies to classical music.  FWIW.

He did mention that classical and jazz recordings are often different.

[Teresa]

44 minutes ago, firedog said:

https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2021/08/13/how-recordings-are-produced-and-what-it-means-to-your-hi-fi-the-ivory-tower/

 

Interesting article challenging the assumptions of lots off audiophiles.

 

Thanks for the article. 😊

 

For me, that further explains why I greatly prefer authentic audiophile recordings over audiophile remastered and non-audiophile recordings.

 

From the article:

 

Quote

To be sure, as an audiophile, I can marvel at a recording that seems to transport me to the recorded musical event. I just don’t think it works for most artists outside of the classical genre or some varieties of jazz. 

 

It's true that the majority of recordings which are audiophile from the microphones to the finished album are mostly Classical and Jazz. Back in 2012 on my blog (pre dementia) I explained What are Audiophile recordings? A quote:

 

Quote

These are recordings engineered with state-of-the-art highly modified equipment using only the best parts, the finest microphones often with tubed modules, heavy audiophile cabling from the microphones to the control room.  The concert hall or room is studied and mapped for correct microphone placement.  They insure the balances and everything else is correct before the start of recording with an aim to make a "photographic" recording using as little mixing and editing as possible since fixing it in-the-mix is what decreases the spontaneity and realism of most major label recordings.

 

All frequency ranges are preserved with no diminishment of the deep bass, critical midrange and the all important high frequencies, thus NO equalization is used or required.  

 

Dave McNair explains his experiments using purist recording techniques on popular music:

 

Quote

Earlier in my career, I experimented a lot with using purist recording techniques on all kinds of pop, rock, and singer-songwriter, jams. Things like very minimal mic’ing, not using any eq or compression, bypassing the pan pots, etc. It always sounded incredible cranked up loud on the studio monitors but when played anywhere else it’d sound like toasted Wonder Bread with no butter.

 

This may explain why so many people feel that authentic audiophile recordings are boring to them. To them as Mr. McNair said they "sound like toasted Wonder Bread with no butter." Does that mean we must choose between sonic realism and making non-audiophile recordings sound good? I come down on the side of audiophile recordings as my favorite artists record for them. 

 

Some excerpts from the Chesky 30th Anniversary Collection program notes:

 

Quote

...David Chesky set out to make “aural photographs” of each session, capturing as much of the sound of being there as the technology allowed, continually pushing it forward. Every note of every session was recorded “live,” there were no overdubs, no fixing it in the mix. What went down at the session, with some of the world’s greatest musicians, was in the CD, LP, or later on, high-resolution digital download.

 

Chesky mostly recorded in great sounding acoustic spaces, namely churches and concert halls...

 

...I knew right then that I wanted to start a label catering to the perspective of one person, providing them with the best seat in the house. To do this it had to be captured with a one point mic. I wanted to capture real musicians, in a real space, and transport them to your home.”...

 

...Everything was recorded direct-to-2-track, eliminating many stages in the process. There was no “post mixdown” process. No equalization or compression were used...

 

I like being transported to the musical event, even if the artists I listen to are lesser known than the artists the masses listen to. My preference for sonic realism was first sparked in 1976 by Harry James & his Big Band direct-to-disc LP The King James Version . 

[Confused]

I think the article is referring to some kind of generalised audiophile, who wants single microphone or otherwise unmolested types of recording.

 

I am very much an audiophile, but it also happens to be the case that the music I like to listen to is pretty much never found in the unmolested "audiophile recording" category. Usually studio recording, maybe sometimes I get a little closer with live recordings.

 

Oddly enough, I get quite a lot of pleasure when listening to picking up little details of the trickery and (artistic) "molestation" that took place in the studio, I am actually listening to the recording studio art referred to in the article, rather than any notion of the "real thing".

 

I have nothing whatsoever against the more purist audiophile type recordings, I own a few, I listen to them occasionally, and very impressive they are too. It is just that I don't like to listen to that kind of music very often.

 

I guess it is the audiophile quest for the "absolute sound" that leads to this kind of thing. It is a genuine and noble quest of course, but I think it gets overly intellectualised by some, and indeed weaponised occasionally in forum discussions.

 

From a practical point of view, I think many of the card carrying audiophiles here are listening to all sorts of things, and as long as that experience is enjoyable, it is all good.

[JoeWhip]

I look at the recording process like painting. You can have a Rembrandt, DaVinci, Van Gogh, Monet or Picasso. Still great art and always a matter of taste. In short, there are more than one way to skin a cat.

[Kal Rubinson]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

He did mention that classical and jazz recordings are often different.

And I, for one, am grateful for that. 

[fas42]

Agree with the chap - what I want, is to be bowled by what I'm listening to; it's a sound world, or landscape, that is uniquely created on each event capture, or fantasy creation - it should always be, "bigger than me". The plus of achieving competent playback is that no matter how 'realistic'; or how layered, a smoke and mirrors production; or, how "damaged" the capture - that it always works as a listening experience.

 

A "skillful lie for the sake of a more emotionally compelling, or tonally expansive presentation" for me will always be a winner - a hyped element of surprise, the evocation of a fictitious majesty, are what gives joy; because it 'tickles' our hearing ... it gets a tick from me ...