bottleneck
talks a load of rubbish
A lot of truth in much of your thread IMO, but much of the above paragraph is debatable IMHO
Scientists vs Audiophiles
- Thread starter michaelab
- Start date
A lot of truth in much of your thread IMO, but much of the above paragraph is debatable IMHO
wadia-miester
Mighty Rearranger
Julian, has made some valid points, I'll add how about the volume changes on a cd half way through the album? , (on some cd's very noticeable)
Or where a band (live recording) had a crap nite, and the engineer has 'spiced' one or 2 versions togetherb (usually very badly).
Compression isn't the only culprit, does anyone admit to owning the Corrs 'best of' (I got it for the young lady
) jeezz it's fooking dire, I mean bad like car only stuff 
Also I'll say this again, Oasis definately maybe, the version I have is truely awful, the recording is shite, and the old my "atc's will play it fine" don't wash either, I've heard the very cd played in a top notch recording/mixing booth and the engineer was whincing
Tenson, I may have this wrong but isn't your father a recording/mastering engineer ?.
I'll go further here, as our job as snake oil makers (crowd pleaser there) we listen to a lot of music during a working week (not just testing), and both Timpy & myself can accurately 'date' (recording year) a cd (ones we've never heard before either) by the style of presentation to within 2/3 years, we often do this when the guys come round for a listen and bring their cd's with them, for example late eighties recordings (mainstream & rock, not so much classical) are instantly recognisable, as are the 'Chord' style hardiness of the mid eighties and early remasters. during the early 90's when digital masterings went 24 bits, the 'overall sound style changed' it got reasonable, right up to todays fad's of recording with valve mixing desks giving bucket loads of Mersey beat sound feed back, to really darkly recorded stuff and ambience overdubs.
yet one of the best recordings I have is a 1989 genuine Capitol master, the lastest Bettles remaster is a stunning job, feeling fresh and new almost.
It can be done, if the record companies so wish, or the mixing engineer is totally wasted or bored shiteless after 13 hours of s club 7, Wm
Or where a band (live recording) had a crap nite, and the engineer has 'spiced' one or 2 versions togetherb (usually very badly).
Compression isn't the only culprit, does anyone admit to owning the Corrs 'best of' (I got it for the young lady
) jeezz it's fooking dire, I mean bad like car only stuff Also I'll say this again, Oasis definately maybe, the version I have is truely awful, the recording is shite, and the old my "atc's will play it fine" don't wash either, I've heard the very cd played in a top notch recording/mixing booth and the engineer was whincing
Tenson, I may have this wrong but isn't your father a recording/mastering engineer ?.
I'll go further here, as our job as snake oil makers (crowd pleaser there) we listen to a lot of music during a working week (not just testing), and both Timpy & myself can accurately 'date' (recording year) a cd (ones we've never heard before either) by the style of presentation to within 2/3 years, we often do this when the guys come round for a listen and bring their cd's with them, for example late eighties recordings (mainstream & rock, not so much classical) are instantly recognisable, as are the 'Chord' style hardiness of the mid eighties and early remasters. during the early 90's when digital masterings went 24 bits, the 'overall sound style changed' it got reasonable, right up to todays fad's of recording with valve mixing desks giving bucket loads of Mersey beat sound feed back, to really darkly recorded stuff and ambience overdubs.
yet one of the best recordings I have is a 1989 genuine Capitol master, the lastest Bettles remaster is a stunning job, feeling fresh and new almost.
It can be done, if the record companies so wish, or the mixing engineer is totally wasted or bored shiteless after 13 hours of s club 7, Wm
Hi Julian,
Those are actually some pretty valid points.
With point 1, I haven't really noticed it with instruments. With vocals I find it happens more between different tracks than moving around in one track. I have always put this down to different EQ being needed to make them cut through the mix when there are different instruments and can't be helped a lot. - Some albums could be better through.
Point 2, again this is a lot to do with the strong use of compression which is pushed very hard by the record company and publishers.
Bad mic placement... maybe! However if you as an engineer if you try to spend an hour or so fine tuning the placement then the artist is just going to walk off. You have maybe 10 min to get each mic placed. Also most singers don't stand perfectly still so...
I agree on sibilance. There should be a greater effort to control this with De-esser's and the like. Pop shields don't help much for this.
4, well would you rather the vocal level was raised to cut though better in the loud chorus or whatever? You complained about the instruments having their level changed in different parts! Listen to live rock music and the vocal will often get drowned out in the loud guitar bits. Do you want realism?
The clipping is really this compression issue again. When the louder parts come, the compression is pushed too hard and the limiter kicks in. What you want is more dynamic range so there is no need for clipping/limiting.
Point 6. If your level actually clips during recording this is bad engineering and there is no excuse. I remember having 'GET THE BEST SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO' drilled into my head!
Voice tweaking! This is called 'Auto-Tune' and it makes me smile when I hear it because I like to know I'm not the only singer bad enough to need it sometimes!
My god, have you heard Avril Lavigne without it? Don't tell me it's a bad thing!!!!
I feel like I just made a load of excuses, but the truth is, as I said, good recording and mixing an extremely hard thing to do! Yes there are a few exceptional recordings, but I don't think this is a reason to say everyone who doesn't do as well does a bad job. I feel all things considered, most recordings are EXTREMELY good.
Thank your stars that there is any effet to make good recordings. It must be less than 95% of people who can tell!
Cheers,
Those are actually some pretty valid points.
With point 1, I haven't really noticed it with instruments. With vocals I find it happens more between different tracks than moving around in one track. I have always put this down to different EQ being needed to make them cut through the mix when there are different instruments and can't be helped a lot. - Some albums could be better through.
Point 2, again this is a lot to do with the strong use of compression which is pushed very hard by the record company and publishers.
Bad mic placement... maybe! However if you as an engineer if you try to spend an hour or so fine tuning the placement then the artist is just going to walk off. You have maybe 10 min to get each mic placed. Also most singers don't stand perfectly still so...
I agree on sibilance. There should be a greater effort to control this with De-esser's and the like. Pop shields don't help much for this.
4, well would you rather the vocal level was raised to cut though better in the loud chorus or whatever? You complained about the instruments having their level changed in different parts! Listen to live rock music and the vocal will often get drowned out in the loud guitar bits. Do you want realism?
The clipping is really this compression issue again. When the louder parts come, the compression is pushed too hard and the limiter kicks in. What you want is more dynamic range so there is no need for clipping/limiting.
Point 6. If your level actually clips during recording this is bad engineering and there is no excuse. I remember having 'GET THE BEST SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO' drilled into my head!
Voice tweaking! This is called 'Auto-Tune' and it makes me smile when I hear it because I like to know I'm not the only singer bad enough to need it sometimes!
My god, have you heard Avril Lavigne without it? Don't tell me it's a bad thing!!!!I feel like I just made a load of excuses, but the truth is, as I said, good recording and mixing an extremely hard thing to do! Yes there are a few exceptional recordings, but I don't think this is a reason to say everyone who doesn't do as well does a bad job. I feel all things considered, most recordings are EXTREMELY good.
Thank your stars that there is any effet to make good recordings. It must be less than 95% of people who can tell!
Cheers,
wadia-miester
Mighty Rearranger
It's an old term used in the Mid west states of yank land in the mid 19th century, but poor unfortunate suckers who got 'horn swoggled
into buying the Magic exilar or life, (a cure all potion) that promised the earth and delivered bugger allTones the Elder has adopted this old saying for purveys of reptile secrections for cable/isolation/cd pens/cable lifters
et all as unmitted gated bullshit, as her and a good few cannot hear any difference with these things plugged/sat on/screwed in/painted on.Hence the term snake oil, although I'll get jumped on by 25 dbt'ers, needing 102 statistions to back up the mathmatics and 17 to measure the length of the statement another 14 to put the blue curtains and the rest to discredit put every possible counter arguement there is. (100 times over)
Simple if it works for you cool if it doesn't then hey cool too
Mid term changers are in the in vouge at the moment too, so as Mike Read used to say " Runnnaaaa aaaa rounnnddd Noooowwwwww"
dat19
blind test terrorist
Well, hold your horses, just because Science doesn't "know everything" does not level the playing field with the Audiophiles. This isn't a rational debate by two sides on a topic, as many Audiophiles like to portray it - rather Science has a great deal of experimental evidence on its side, where the audiophiles have, frankly, nothing.
Psychology is certainly more important to selling people high-end wire and other tosh, than the other fields I mentioned. But it hardly seems necessary too discuss the psychology of things that cannot be heard.
No, this "if a tree falls in the wood and no one hears, did it make a sound" type of stuff seems more like philosophy...
The subject need not be contentious. However, because of the crushing weight of the science, the audiophiles are intent on muddying the waters with crap like "emotional response" and "I heard it and I don't need to prove it" and "the scientists should be finding proof for us", "music is art" (true, however, music reproduction is Science).
Now, in the spirit of FEITCTAJ
Have you given any thought to the fact that perhaps all those recordings that crap to you, sound fine to the rest of us - ie, its you or your system that's the real problem! And Wm, "Cigarettes and Alcohol" sounds better on my ATC 50's than it does on reference 3a de capo's by a long long way - it sounds a lot better loud.. As does Jane's Addiction - True Nature, is a mess, until you wind up the wick - 90dB at the listening positioning (A-weighted too)..
Consider getting your young lady "the corrs - unplugged" (the DVD's kind of cool too - with a different mix..) their "studio" stuff sounds bloody awful in comparison..
Last edited by a moderator:
dat19
blind test terrorist
more on compression
A pro audio article, so at least one of them has a clue
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/8A133F52D0FD71AB86256C2E005DAF1C
If your not a Rush fan, do try to get past the first part
A pro audio article, so at least one of them has a clue
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/8A133F52D0FD71AB86256C2E005DAF1C
If your not a Rush fan, do try to get past the first part
julian2002
Muper Soderator
dat,
or perhaps vice versa still as everyone knows naim kit bowdlerizes the signal anyway so what do i know?
cheers
julian
or perhaps vice versa
still as everyone knows naim kit bowdlerizes the signal anyway so what do i know?cheers
julian
wadia-miester
Mighty Rearranger
Originally posted by dat19
And Wm, "Cigarettes and Alcohol" sounds better on my ATC 50's than it does on reference 3a de capo's by a long long way - it sounds a lot better loud.. As does Jane's Addiction - True Nature, is a mess, until you wind up the wick - 90dB at the listening positioning (A-weighted too)..
Consider getting your young lady "the corrs - unplugged" (the DVD's kind of cool too - with a different mix..) their "studio" stuff sounds bloody awful in comparison..
Andy,
90db in the listening postion is probably a lot less than I normaly listen to, on a good session (really, although Graham N is nearer 102+ at basic realistic levels). It doesn't get any better trust me.
I've listened to the album on atc 70's/Pmc 1's/Dyn's (the big ref s/mounts) with studio gear (Inc dcs studio) and it still sounds bad to me.
I have very resolving a system too, also with the Benchmark (which is showing a good turn now), more people should look into this it's capable of giving a good for not much outlay, however a good transport helps no end.
Its' still pretty much naff (I have an early 1st gen copy)
The young lass does have the corrs unplugged and the live one with Mick Fleetwood, they are miles better agreed.
Oh I keep forgetting to ask Andy, what is your current employment 'tag' in the land of audio terriorism ?
your an inspuration to all hard core sceptics every where
All deliberate except 2 and 7, and 2 especially can often be deliberate.
What you think is bad ebgineering is actualy pampering to the tastes of the vast majority of record buyers.
What you think is bad ebgineering is actualy pampering to the tastes of the vast majority of record buyers.
Originally posted by julian2002
tenson,
this is where things get hazy as i could list a bunch of things i find annoying and you could quite validly counter with, but that could just be how the artist wanted it. however i'll take the bait
1) instruments / vocals wandering in the soundstage. one minute the lead guitar is on the left, then it's in the middle.
2) audiable distortion / clipping on instruments.
3) bad miking / innefective or no spit shields (or whatver they are called) leading to poping and sibilence.
4) instruments drowning out vocals or vice versa.
5) bad quality samples. not strictly an engineering problem i guess but anoying when you can hear them.
6) instruments that change volume noticably when things get going, rather than set the level for the whole track so that when that awsome guitar break happens that pegs the vu's in the red it doesn;t distort. the lazy shod meister just tweaks the level down a bit for that part...arrrrghh.
7) bad mixing of different takes into the final mix.
i think that's about it although voice tweaking when it's done to improve a crap singers voice also rankles but it's hardly the engineers fault pre se.
cheers
julian
Yup.
Punch, cut-through, whatever. We are brought up to equate distortion with increased loudness.
Distortion generates harmonics. Hey, it's why people like the osund of valve amps. Distortion sounds 'nice' in the right context.
dat19
blind test terrorist
Naim into purification... I don't think so, PRaTification is more like it. Although with the latest Salisbury excess - a $22K pre-amp and a $20K power amp - the PRaTification is being applied to the customers and not the music
dat19
blind test terrorist
agent provocateur
your an inspuration to all hard core sceptics every where
It's not the sceptics that need inspiration, it's the "believers"
julian2002
Muper Soderator
still nice to see your prejudices showing....
cheers
julian
wadia-miester
Mighty Rearranger
Originally posted by dat19
agent provocateur
It's not the sceptics that need inspiration, it's the "believers"
Andy, Agreed "Agent Provocateur" cracking Album
I count amongst my clients a fair few studio guys', who may well be uninspirational
dat19
blind test terrorist
Well, before you get to carried away asserting I have preconceived opinions, here's the fact of that matter, I lived with the CD player shown in the picture for 6 months, so I have a good idea of what naim kit is capable of... (source first etc)
julian2002
Muper Soderator
dat,
i'm surprised at you, spending all that money on racking! surely supports are part of the audiophool voodoo myth too
cheers
julian
i'm surprised at you, spending all that money on racking! surely supports are part of the audiophool voodoo myth too
cheers
julian
dat19
blind test terrorist
Originally posted by julian2002
dat,
i'm surprised at you, spending all that money on racking! surely supports are part of the audiophool voodoo myth too
Well, at least you can't say I didn't try it
FWIW, Hutter isn't bad furniture and compared to good furniture it is reasonably priced. Of course, I sold it at the same time as the CDS2 (I got both the Hutter and cds2 for a very attractive price..)If the "search engine" at the naim forum lived up to its name, you could find my previous assertion that the CDS2 worked just the same on the stand below (the infamous, and cheap, Ikea Corras).
