opinions sought on speaker cables ... MIT Vs. Nordost

[crisnee]

Nope, but I did get the "capital letters at the start of a sentence, not after commas" down though...

 

Is this better?

 

Paul,

You turkey! And I mean that in the kindest way imaginable.

 

The headphones are the Fostex T50rp and you should be able to get them for around $75-$80. However, if you really get serious about buying them, PM me. I made some very simple minor modifications to them, which I think at least made a difference in comfort, if not SQ. I'm slightly hesitant about SQ, because I can't compare them to the original.

 

Are you saying the wall Maggies don't need a wall to sound their best? They just work there as well as anywhere else? Could I hang the wall Maggies from the ceiling? I have subs so....

 

-Chris

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

I would personally do something about the cables, but yeah- people have done that. Like this: http://www.integracoustics.com/MUG/MUG/tweaks/mikec/mmg.html

 

I will shoot you a note about the headphone, and look them up on Amazon. Thanks!

 

 

Paul

 

 

[wdw]

Wdw

 

[crisnee]

Jud,

 

Thanks so much for taking the time and your detailed suggestions. It's the detail that makes your post particularly interesting and useful.

 

It makes very good sense of course, even if the examples you give are limited in scope. After all you probably don't want to spend you're whole evening or whatever writing about this, especially for only $29.95. However if a few more outstanding examples happen to pop into your mind, please feel free to share.

 

I'm an advocate of particular detail when it comes to reviews of equipment's SQ, as opposed to "it's so much more musical," etc. The latter sounds like a cop out, not to mention that it could be caused by mood, psychological reasons, and so on. On the other hand, when you can clearly hear that a level of reverb has gone missing on a particular track when using component A, it seems more believable, and is verifiable.

 

Barry, if you have any suggestions as to good recordings (easily attainable or common, preferably) for this purpose, please do so.

 

I'm very grateful to you guys for this, particularly since I haven't thought along these lines for said purposes.

 

-Chris

 

Edit: The one problem I see with this method is that one still needs a reference point of a sort; of course if all recordings of a genre sound pretty much the same then... no, or even if certain aspects of that genre all sound similar i.e. huge sound stage or flabby bass then again Jud, your method should help, but if one is dealing with fairly subtle differences one again doesn't know what the intentions of the producer were. And for this discussion I'm assuming fairly subtle differences.

 

That's what makes the details of your method so vital. Someone who owns a neutral system describes what specific aspects of certain recordings, (widely available preferably) should sound like.

 

 

 

 

[crisnee]

Jud,

 

More about your suggestions re neutral SQ test.

 

After listening to all the tracks I've come to the conclusion that your examples are not subtle enough for "audiophile" purposes. Here's why.

 

First, I only own one of the examples, Raising Sand. So, I thought for a lark I'd check MOG. They had everything. So I lined up the tracks and listened via the Windows Desktop App at +320 kb (I don't know what the + signifies). I mention the Win App in particular because it sounds much better than the Firefox browser version.

 

All the voice differences were very apparent and I would describe them as you did for the most part, except "Yesterday's Blues" which I would describe as "too much reverb for the type of music" more like early rock'n roll, re "Be Bop a Lula." I think these kind of differences would be apparent on even very basic sound systems, probably even boomboxes.

 

As to the bass, none of it sounded muddy to me, but then I was listening at a fairly low level as it was 3:30 in the morning. The Burnetts were definitely more forward and louder in the mix and the "Will it Grow" bass was in the back ground, at a very unobtrusive level.

 

And remember this is streaming mp3 (although high bitrate). Although an interesting listening exercise, I think all decent audio systems, never mind high end systems, would get most of this right. So I think, a similar idea to yours but with more subtle listening points is needed.

 

To me an interesting thing to work with would be piano. I find pianos sound infinitely different in recordings and to me anyway, never quite right, or perhaps "real" is a better choice of words.

 

As I type this I have one of the Stereophile Robert Silverman albums playing which is as real as any piano I've heard for most of the recording, but it even at certain instances seems to go off a little.

 

Any suggestions for particularly great sounding piano recordings?

 

-Chris

 

EDIT: It occurs to me that for piano to sound real you have to listen to it at exactly the level at which it's being played. Something to do with the fact that a piano is a parlor instrument, and for many of us is often heard in the house. Just a thought, does this make sense?

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Chris,

 

**"...if you have any suggestions as to good recordings (easily attainable or common, preferably) for this purpose, please do so..."**

 

I find that using high quality recordings with which I'm familiar helps a lot.

Some of the references I use in hardware or software evaluation are:

 

John Rutter - Requiem (recorded by Keith Johnson for Reference Recordings)

Stravinsky - The Rite of Spring (conducted by Eije Ouje, recorded by Keith Johnson for Reference Recordings)

All of Mark Knopfler's solo albums, particularly "Get Lucky" and "Kill To Get Crimson".

All of the recordings on Soundkeeper Recordings (done by yours truly, who got to stand at the position of the microphone array and compare the sound there with what came from the microphones)

 

Into this mix, I always throw in something that is not particularly well recorded (or something in between in sonic quality) but contains music I love.

 

One area I find to be one of the first to "give away" a component is the upper midrange/lower treble. To my ears, this has become a "fashionable" part of the frequency spectrum in the past couple of years. There have always been recording/mixing and mastering engineers who "work" this part of the spectrum -many seem to have their favorite specific areas of it- but in recent years, I've heard some hardware that appears to be designed with a similar frame of mind. Again, different designers tend to hear "benefit" in different specific areas of this range. I hear this in many modern speakers and quite prominently in many current (highly touted) DACs. Many listeners (and reviewers) seem to feel they're hearing added detail from devices like this (yet no such "detail" exists in the source material).

 

Hearing this, is something that will quickly turn me off to a component. It manifests itself as a common "character" in the treble, even as you switch from a Reference Recording to a Telarc to a Soundkeeper to one of Mark Knopfler's records to AC/DC. As with anything else, this could take a little practice to hear but once you hear it, it becomes easy to zone in on when gear under audition is doing this.

 

With certain speakers, I find it tends to occur a little bit lower in frequency than it does with certain DACs; upper midrange/lower treble in the former and more toward lower treble in the latter. With some DACs, there is, to my ears, a certain "zing" (for lack of a better term) in a narrow part of the treble. With other DACs, it manifests as more of a "ssing". I'm sorry but this is much more easily heard than described; if we were in the same room, I could play an example of the sound (or re-create a simile with the studio tools) and you'd know what I mean. Words are a difficult and inadequate way of communicating an experience.

 

The common-to-everything treble character is a giveaway.

Remember, this is a matter of degree; any system will reveal that a Mark Knopfler recording and an AC/DC recording don't sound the same. But a lesser system will give them a lot more in common than a better system will.

 

Of course, there are other audible cues beside this upper midrange/lower treble hype that I wrote of above. I spent time on this one because I think it is among the easiest characteristics for many folks to hear as they develop an ear for similarities and differences as the links in the playback chain are changed.

(Less obvious are similarities in the mid and low bass, which I find a great deal of gear does. That is, it doesn't reveal how different recordings sound very different in this area - but again, I believe this will be less obvious to many folks, listening through a great many speakers. It was one of the first things that dropped my jaw about Metric Halo's ULN-8, which differentiates low end like nothing I've heard before. Well, actually, I have heard it before - in real life. ;-})

 

 

 

**"...It occurs to me that for piano to sound real you have to listen to it at exactly the level at which it's being played..."**

 

I find this to be true of any instrument or voice. More than half a century ago, Peter Walker said every recording has a single correct playback level. My experience tells me he was exactly right.

 

That said, this is easiest to do with recordings designed to sound realistic. With a typical multimic studio production, the relative volume of different instruments is arbitrary and so when the volume of one is correct, another might be wrong. With these, I tend to use the lead vocal as the reference and set the volume so the vocalist sounds as convincing as possible.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[rlnt500]

Chris,

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I did set the system up when I got home and got the exact same results. I've been using Vandersteen for years and their very detailed and a good speaker to evaluate components. With the Arcam, thats why I bought the silver cable to begin with. I don't usually like to buy expensive cables; I find it much better to match you components properly and just use cables to transfer signal and not as tone controls. But the silver with the Arcam, though, makes a very big difference and I felt worth the price. That leaves the Naim. I'm not saying its a bad sounding unit, it just didn't have the resolving power that some other equipment does. Also, take into account that it is their entry level piece and may not represent the product line as a whole. Actually, I just remembered that I have listend to some of Naim's higher end equipment with my 2 pairs of Audioquest cables and the better equipment brought out the differences between the 2 very easily.

 

The whole point of that story, though, was not to do a cable test. I used it to show that there may be other reasons that explain why some people claim to not hear differences between cables and some other types of audio equipment. My argument was, even though on paper, my system in CO looks like a good solid entry level high end audio system, it came up short in an area I would never have expected. So now, when I read comments that I would usually disagree with, I try to look a little deeper at some of the circumstances surrounding the comment and not be so fast to "attack". My experiance with the Naim system suggests that there may be no fault at all with the other person's ears or judgement. Their system may, in fact, not have the kind of resolution needed to hear some of the differences others can easily hear; and they are being completely genuine with their comments.

 

[Jud]

"Yesterday's Blues" which I would describe as "too much reverb for the type of music" more like early rock'n roll, re "Be Bop a Lula." I think these kind of differences would be apparent on even very basic sound systems, probably even boomboxes.

 

Yes, I think you could hear the reverb on "Yesterday's Blues" on a car radio driving down the highway in a convertible with the top down. :-) It wasn't the reverb itself I was pointing out so much as what it's intended to correct: The fact that the vocals were recorded in at least a small "dry" room, perhaps even a plywood booth. Can you hear that beneath the reverb on the Burnett-produced Dylan and Bingham tracks?

 

I agree this is not particularly subtle, especially on the Bingham. But this is not so much about "Can you hear it?" as it is about the *degree* of difference between tracks that you hear with one component/cable vs. another. OK, on one system you can hear Bingham's voice has no natural echo beneath the reverb. Does another system make you wanna run out and demand Burnett release poor Bingham from prison, while it still renders his voice naturally on the Ford-produced track?

 

One more reverb/low-level detail track for you, this one about guitars, before I go searching for piano tracks:

 

On the song "Down Along the Dixie Line" from The Harrow and the Harvest, Gillian Welch and her accompanist David Rawlings play guitars. Rawlings plays a 1935 Epiphone Olympic archtop. Welch plays a 1956 Gibson J-50. (Have a look at photo second from bottom in this article: http://www.strictlybluegrass.com/2006/editorial/Saturday.shtml .) Which guitar is playing on which channel?

 

[crisnee]

Thanks Barry, for all the input.

 

And yes it is so difficult to describe sounds (subtler ones in particular) in a way that makes sense to the ear.

 

And yes, of course it makes sense that all instruments to sound real, need to be heard at their "real" level. Although I didn't say so, I think it may seem more important with the piano because:

 

1. It's an orchestra onto itself.

2. It's probably the most recorded solo instrument.

3. It's an instrument one is likely to have heard live repeatedly

4.And it seems it may be difficult to record it at full dynamic range and difficult for many systems to play it back at a real level if it was recorded at full dynamic range.

 

And speaking of instruments sounding real, i.e. live in your living room. That's really not something I'm after in most cases, even if it were possible. I think Mapleshade recordings sometimes come close to that sort of sound in their small ensemble jazz cds, and I find it unpleasant to listen to. I really don't want to be in my living room with a sax, trumpet and trombone going at it. Not that anyone asked of course. That just came to mind, so I transmitted it. Think of me as Mozart of CA.

 

-Chris

 

 

 

[crisnee]

@rlint500,

 

You were clear and I got your point; and it was a good one to boot. My question was separate. I was just curious if you'd gone the full route that I delineated, as it might have been revealing.

 

-Chris

 

 

 

[crisnee]

Jud,

Yeah, I didn't really think you meant that about the reverb, but....

 

Listening the way you describe is great for doing comparisons, but the problem is, you still don't know the bottom line sound the engineer/producer was going for. And to determine if one's system is neutral, that is what one needs to know.

 

For instance you hear that Bingham was recorded in a little room and reverb was added to make it seem otherwise. But you don't KNOW that he was. Maybe he was recorded outside with no nearby surfaces and reverb was added for some presence (I'm just making this up of course). So your system would be giving you some subtly false info. You'd be hearing great detail, but not necessarily correct detail.

 

So, I guess I just don't see how one can determine neutrality of a system other than by the long and winding road--Yeah Beatles, that Barrows delineated earlier, or by having very clear bottom line recordings to go by, described in detail (very difficult to do, as Barry and I talked about in the above posts) by the producer or someone who knows the recording inside out.

 

Nevertheless, this is interesting and if you come up with anything else, great!

 

As to the guitar question. Wouldn't I have to know what the guitars sounded like to determine which is which?

 

I just took a look at the photo. Am I missing something? How am I supposed to listen to the track? Anyway, It wouldn't be a fair test, I play guitars and would probably know by the technique and style they used, even if I couldn't distinguish the sound of the guitars.

 

-Chris

 

 

[crisnee]

One more thing about this neutral issue.

 

Maybe there are two factors to be considered that we may be mixing together. Neutrality vs. Resolution.

 

I think what Jud is talking about might at least in part be resolution. Resolution and neutrality may even overlap.

 

To me, sort of off the top of my head, something can be neutral, and not perfectly resolving. In other words you might not hear the last little bit of resonance of the fading tone of the piano in a non perfectly resolving system, while in a perfectly resolving but non neutral system you would hear the last bit of resonance but it would be imperfectly presented--improperly frequency balanced, for instance.

 

I bring up this nit picky thing because I think we assume if a system is neutral we're home free, but that may not be the case if resolution and neutrality are not the same.

 

And that brings up the "It's very detailed but fatiguing" bit. I think this may be the poster for resolving but not neutral. Perhaps this has been clear to everyone all along and I'm just stating the obvious. But I just came to this because I think this exercise (the Jud tracks) is not so much an exercise in discerning neutrality as in what is more resolving.

 

And speaking of nothing in particular, I just listened to "Yesterday's Blues" again, and it sounds like it was recorded in an over sized 50 gallon drum. As to the two Dylan tracks, I don't think I would know they were both by the same voice if they weren't tagged, but as to "Nothin' but..." sounding like it was recorded in a small room, I can't tell.

 

-Chris

 

[bdiament]

Hi Chris,

 

**"...And it seems it may be difficult to record it at full dynamic range..."**

 

Actually, I think it is quite easy to do so. I wonder why folks are led to believe things like this.

 

When the microphones are not placed inside the piano, as they typically are for most pop recordings, when proper mics are placed where the full sound of the piano has been allowed to develop and when the recording engineer doesn't feel it necessary to do anything but capture that sound, it is a breeze to capture the full dynamics of the piano (or any other instrument).

 

Reproducing full dynamics will depend on the system, how it is set up and how it is used. But recording full dynamics is not difficult at all.

 

I agree about having the artists and instruments "in your room" too. There are ways to record to give this impression. I much prefer the "you are there" to the "they are here" approach. I'd rather be "transported" to an acoustic that is ideal for whatever type of music I'm listening to. There are ways to do this in recording too - prime among them is to actually record in such an acoustic and use microphone techniques that capture this.

 

"Confluence" features a 1908 Steinway captured in a small auditorium built that same year. The soon to be released "Americas" features a jazz quartet where the piano player (on the same piano in the same room) makes use of those dynamics of which we speak.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

 

[Jud]

I bring up this nit picky thing because I think we assume if a system is neutral we're home free, but that may not be the case if resolution and neutrality are not the same.

 

They're not quite. If a system is neutral but not resolving, it is likely that it makes what I would call "errors of omission rather than errors of commission," which for me is much easier to listen to than the reverse.

 

And that brings up the "It's very detailed but fatiguing" bit. I think this may be the poster for resolving but not neutral. Perhaps this has been clear to everyone all along and I'm just stating the obvious. But I just came to this because I think this exercise (the Jud tracks) is not so much an exercise in discerning neutrality as in what is more resolving.

 

Both, actually. Think about "detailed but fatiguing." Such a system actually *cannot* be neutral, because if it was giving you real detail it would not be so aggravating to listen to that you would feel fatigued. It is giving you artificial detail, perhaps by overemphasis on one part of the frequency range, or its corollary, such a muddled or lacking presentation in one part of the range that another seems quite detailed in comparison. Thus you might hear the pluck of acoustic guitar strings but the tone of the guitar itself wouldn't have the "body" it should. In order to truly be resolving, a system must be neutral. Not every system (in fact, likely a fairly small percentage) will be ultimately resolving, but at least by being neutral it can give you a fighting chance at enjoying the music and hearing it something like the way it was intended.

 

as to "Nothin' but..." sounding like it was recorded in a small room, I can't tell.

 

OK, well there you go. It's there, and you might hear it if you ripped the CD. That's why I gave the egregious example of "Yesterday's Blues," because it shows you what to listen for in "Nothin' but...," but on a more subtle level.

 

The guitars in "Down Along the Dixie Line" - There's a reason I linked to the picture. I came at this the opposite way, not understanding what I was hearing, so I researched what guitars were being played and understood immediately when I saw photos. No understanding of technique is necessary (I have none). What's the immediately apparent visual difference between Rawlings' and Welch's guitars? What sort of difference in sound do you think this might produce? (Sorry to be all "Ooh, can you guess?" about this - if you would like to continue to play along, great, if not, let me know and I'll tell you the answer.)

 

And finally, the point where we started: How does all this let you know about your system if you weren't there at the session and don't know exactly how it was recorded and what the artist and producer were driving at?

 

There are two places the sound of a track can come from: what was in the recording, and your components. To the extent it comes from the components, those remain the same from track to track, so the *sound* will tend to remain the same from track to track. To the extent the system gets out of the way and the sound comes from the recording, it will differ from track to track (as you said, even with the Dylan tracks, where the production difference isn't quite as extreme, you might not know it's the same vocalist on both). Think of your "detailed but fatiguing" example. You will hear this artificial detail, this emphasis, on *every* track you listen to. No wonder it's fatiguing! On the other hand, if you hear detail on one track and not on another, then that difference has to come from the recordings, just like the differences you heard in the voices of the same vocalists recorded by two different producers.

 

In fact, now that I think of it, the Rawlings and Welch guitars are a pretty good illustration of whether the detail you're hearing is real or artificial. If you think you're hearing a lot of detail but both guitars sound fairly similar, then the artificial detail your components are providing is masking the *real* details that make the two guitars sound different.

 

[bdiament]

Hi Chris,

 

I would disagree with the suggestion that something that is "very detailed but fatiguing" represents something that is "resolving but not neutral".

 

That is, I agree with the "not neutral" part but the detail in real life is never fatiguing. If listening to a device is fatiguing, I think the term "detailed" is quite frequently applied mistakenly.

 

By way of example, I'm thinking of certain DACs that many reviewers have praised for their "detail". If the detail is not contained in the source material, it can be easily demonstrated to be nothing other than good old harmonic distortion - i.e., spurious harmonics, generated within the circuitry of the DAC.

 

This type of component is very pertinent to the discussion when we're talking about listening to differences between recordings. By the way, rather than the reverb on that record and the piano sound on this one, I think it easiest (and posted about this earlier in this thread) to focus on certain aspects of tonality - and doing this in the treble range might be the best place for folks to start getting experience at this.

 

This type of component will, among other things, diminish the differences in the treble sound on every recording played through it. There will be commonalities in the treble as one goes from recording to recording. Cymbals on one record will sound, in many ways, very much like cymbals on another record. (While real cymbals may sound similar, in my experience, recordings of those cymbals don't, simply because of the variety of rooms in which those cymbals might be, how they're mounted, how they're hit, what type of mic is used, where the mic is placed, how it is recorded, what is recorded along with it, what level it is recorded at, etc. etc.)

 

Again, real life is full of detail and not a trace of fatigue. Fatigue, in my view, belongs only to gear or sometimes how it is set up.

 

Conversely, I'd say if a system is neutral, it must by definition, be resolving. I would agree however, that there are degrees of both.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

[crisnee]

"That is, I agree with the "not neutral" part but the detail in real life is never fatiguing. If listening to a device is fatiguing, I think the term "detailed" is quite frequently applied mistakenly."

 

Barry, Exactly. As a matter of fact, initially that's what I was going to say. Real "detail" should not be in the least bit fatiguing, just the opposite. Perhaps I thought it out too much, and that's where I came up with apparent detail, which is false detail in the end.

 

The initial reason for my thoughts about "detail being fatiguing," was that I felt detail was getting a bad rap, as it so often seems to go with "fatiguing" when people mention it. That just didn't make intuitive sense to me.

 

On a side note, I've been doing some ear training exercises having to do with recording and I found it interesting that driving a signal into clipping--very slightly, can make certain sounds seem more palatable (not more real) possibly because that's what we get much of the time.

 

-Chris

 

 

 

[crisnee]

"If a system is neutral but not resolving, it is likely that it makes what I would call "errors of omission rather than errors of commission," which for me is much easier to listen to than the reverse."

 

I think in those terms too and in my longwinded way that's what I was trying to say. In fact I was going to use the omission/commission terms and then again I thought too much. But nevertheless, without going into too much detailed thought I feel the same way. The best example I can think of would be that if I were to have a standing wave from say 70hz - 80hz or a total suck out for the same freq., give me the latter every time, or even 2 for 1.

 

"There's a reason I linked to the picture. I came at this the opposite way, not understanding what I was hearing,"

 

So, what were you hearing that you didn't understand?

 

I'm going to look at the photo again, it's pretty small so I didn't get a real good look see. I don't have the album (if there even is an album) so I obviously can't listen to the tracks.

 

But from the unclear picture, it would seem to me that the Welch guitar would sound more boomy and big, relative big bass, a typical bluegrass guitar, probably playing more full strummed chords, although not necessarily, could be picking and chords. The other would probably sound more bluesy, twangy, if strummed it would sound thinner and sharper, possibly a bit boxy. That's just a quick guess.

 

Interesting stuff and I don't mind the "ooh guess this" stuff or however you put it. I used to do it to my ex-wife all the time, hmmm.

 

-Chris

 

[crisnee]

".And it seems it may be difficult to record it at full dynamic range...

Actually, I think it is quite easy to do so. I wonder why folks are led to believe things like this."

 

Hi Barry,

 

I thought of that all by myself. Maybe it's not a matter of being able to, but of choosing to, or not to.

 

How wide is the piano's dynamic range from a whisper 'pppp' to the ultimate thunderous 'ffff' (I give the rare fourth 'p' and 'f'). And is it usually recorded in its full dynamic range (I'm not talking pop)? As it doesn't seem to me like it is.

 

What is this "Confluence" and "Americas" you speak of. You mention them as if everyone is aware of them. Should I be?

 

-Chris

 

[Jud]

So, what were you hearing that you didn't understand?

 

I heard one guitar with a classic acoustic sound, full with "body" - the notes reverberating in the guitar body. But the other guitar had very little of that resonant sound. It didn't sound electric, either, so I was puzzled. Was the recording or my system not giving me the real sound of this instrument? But then why was I hearing a classic acoustic guitar sound from the other guitar?

 

I'm going to look at the photo again, it's pretty small so I didn't get a real good look see. I don't have the album (if there even is an album) so I obviously can't listen to the tracks.

 

If you did buy it, there's a fair chance you'd like it. But then I would say that, wouldn't I? ;-)

 

But from the unclear picture, it would seem to me that the Welch guitar would sound more boomy and big, relative big bass, a typical bluegrass guitar, probably playing more full strummed chords, although not necessarily, could be picking and chords. The other would probably sound more bluesy, twangy, if strummed it would sound thinner and sharper, possibly a bit boxy. That's just a quick guess.

 

Of the adjectives you've guessed for Rawlings' guitar, I'd say thinner and sharper are the two I'd pick. Bluesy, probably not, since the blues masters have tended to favor classic-looking acoustics and later electrics. Twangy, nope - another player might get that sound, but Rawlings' style is pretty understated. (Both players tend more to picking than strumming, but this is not at all bluegrass-style pyrotechnics.) What I hear is relatively little contribution from the guitar's sound box - enough to give the notes sustain if wanted, but not the resonant, reverberant sound I'm accustomed to hearing from most other acoustics. And of course the reason is those two f-holes on Rawlings' archtop, rather than the more usual single large round sound hole of Welch's Gibson. As soon as I saw pictures, I thought, "Of course - what I'm hearing is how a guitar that looks this way would sound."

 

Back once again to our recent theme - a system with artificial detail would tend to emphasize the string plucks and higher notes on both Rawlings' guitar and Welch's, making them sound more alike than they really are. So though such a system may sound more detailed, you're in fact hearing less.

 

[bdiament]

Hi Chris,

 

**"....On a side note, I've been doing some ear training exercises having to do with recording and I found it interesting that driving a signal into clipping--very slightly, can make certain sounds seem more palatable (not more real) possibly because that's what we get much of the time..."**

 

We talked about "enhanced detail" or "detail" that is fatiguing, which are both euphemisms for spurious harmonic distortion engendered by some gear.

 

A somewhat more benign version of this occurs when an analog signal is gently driven into clipping. What you are hearing is a rise in low order harmonic distortion (primarily second order harmonic). With some music, this can tend to "fatten" the sound and many will find it pleasant. This is not unlike my impression of what many SET amplifiers do.

 

Incidentally, something related happens with digital recording too -- not when overloaded but, in my experience, when peak levels approach 0 dBFS (in fact, when peak levels exceed -6 dBFS). To be clear, I'm not referring to changing the gain on an already recorded digital recording; I'm referring to that initial pass through the A-D converters. The main difference is the distortion with A-D converters is not so benign as second harmonic and tends to be higher, i.e., harsher order. For this reason, I never allow levels at a recording session to exceed -6. (In fact, with 24-bit recording, I'd find -20 a preferable mximum peak than -2.)

 

The Metric Halo converters I use has an optional "Character" setting that can be used during recording or playback. One of the settings does a wonderful job emulating the soft saturation you describe. It isn't something I use for my own recordings but it is there for folks who'd want to record or play back with that sort of sound.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Chris,

 

**"...And is it usually recorded in its full dynamic range (I'm not talking pop)? As it doesn't seem to me like it is..."**

 

It depends on the recording, the producer and the engineers who work on it, from the microphones to the finished masters.

 

 

**"...What is this "Confluence" and "Americas" you speak of. You mention them as if everyone is aware of them..."**

 

Sorry. I thought most folks would know as a result of my signature (below).

 

These are albums I produced, recorded and mastered for my own label. They are recorded direct to stereo with a single matched pair of mics. There are no overdubs, no mixing and no further processing is applied. So the piano - a 1908 Steinway grand - was captured naturally and left completely unprocessed. There is no dynamic alteration. "Confluence" is a pop/rock recording and "Americas" (not yet released) is a recording of a jazz quartet.

 

In keeping with the original theme of this thread, I use my Nordost Valkyrja cables for the microphone connection at the recording sessions.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[crisnee]

"as to "Nothin' but..." sounding like it was recorded in a small room, I can't tell.

 

OK, well there you go. It's there, and you might hear it if you ripped the CD. That's why I gave the egregious example of "Yesterday's Blues," because it shows you what to listen for in "Nothin' but...," but on a more subtle level."

 

Here's the problem with this sort of thing. I might hear exactly the same thing you do, but not realize the "construction" of the sound. In other words, I may not know exactly what "a guy recorded in a small room with reverb/delay added to conceal the fact" sounds like, because I've not studied recording, sound characteristics of a small room compared to medium size room, or the various types of reverb. Not knowing that, or being able to recognize that doesn't mean I don't hear exactly what you do, it just means I don't have the knowledge available to label it as such. By the way, do you know Dylan was recorded in a small room, or is that just how you decided to label what you hear? (That sounds snarky, but that's not how I mean it.)

 

The fact that the voices are so different (due at least in part to production) that they may as well come from different singers, tells me that I am able to discern significant differences because of said production, but in the end doesn't tell me if we hear the same thing.

 

-Chris

 

[crisnee]

"Sorry. I thought most folks would know as a result of my signature (below)."

 

I rarely pay attention to signatures, although in your case I know and have been to your website. It occurred to me that they might be your recordings, but then I thought why wouldn't he just say "in my recording of..." A little natural promo is not a bad thing.

 

And speaking of nothing in particular, you use Magnepan speakers don't you? I think I remember you mentioning that. I mention this, because I've always coveted them, but due to financial insufficiencies... is that a word?

 

Anyway, I just came upon a super deal on two week old (used) MG 12's, that I could not resist, and am waiting ever so impatiently for them to arrive. If it turns out that I don't like them--not likely, I'll be able to sell them for more than I bought them for, and if I keep them, I'll sell everything else.

 

-Chris

 

 

[crisnee]

"This type of component will, among other things, diminish the differences in the treble sound on every recording played through it. There will be commonalities in the treble as one goes from recording to recording. Cymbals on one record will sound, in many ways, very much like cymbals on another record. (While real cymbals may sound similar, in my experience, recordings of those cymbals don't, simply because of the variety of rooms in which those cymbals might be, how they're mounted, how they're hit, what type of mic is used, where the mic is placed, how it is recorded, what is recorded along with it, what level it is recorded at, etc. etc.)"

 

This is very interesting to me. In rock, and I mean loud electric rock, not necessarily heavy metal, but just run of the mill loud rock, I think cymbals do often sound very similar. The better recorded ones in this group have a little "space" around them and some "gleam" and shimmer. But mostly it doesn't seem like much importance has been assigned them by the recording engineer.

 

And had I not heard cymbals in other contexts and in good recordings I might wonder whether my system was the problem. But on some jazz recordings--I'm thinking of one in particular at the moment "Changes" by a Keith Jarrett Trio, the variety of cymbal and percussive sounds is wonderfully large. In fact I've listened to one of the tracks from that cd several times recently just to revel in all the percussive sounds.

 

-Chris

 

[bdiament]

Hi Chris,

 

Yes, I've used Magnepan 1.5s and 3.6s before and now use 3.7s as my monitors. (The Maggies are run full range and are supplemented by a pair of subs, crossed over at 30 Hz to cover from there down.)

 

The studio/listening room is wired throughout with Nordost cables, by the way. Maggies deserve them and clearly reveal what precedes them in the chain.

 

Congratulations on your MG12s. Remember to give them lots of space all around them, use them with commensurate associated gear and also remember to let them play for a good while before making any assessments. Even though these are used, in my experience, once disconnected and moved, some burn-in (short compared to ~400 hours needed for new ones) will get them up to their usual stride.

 

And know that "my recordings of" ( ;-}) the Soundkeeper releases were all monitored using Maggies. (At recording sessions, I carry headphones but use them only to confirm that I've connected my microphones properly. Once confirmed and outside of an occasional playback check, I'm "monitoring" the actual event.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com