What does it mean?

[The Devil]

...which Chesky decided wasn't good enough for them, so they put up a huge mic boom to capture a 'natural-sounding', er, sound.

You know it makes sense!

 

[Saab]

If the Chesky remark, which I made elsewhere, is aimed at me, then yes. I don't quite know what they've done to the sound, but it sounds like "very expensive and mildly screwed-up hi-fi system" rather than "live music".

Analoguekid left me a Chesky ultimate hi-fi test disc, or somesuch. If you were to base your buying decisions on results from this disc, God help you. Better to use real music, i.e. an 'ordinary' CD with something acoustic thereon.

yes,it was aimed at you,but not aggressively I hope

so bad recordings do exist then,regardless of what equipment is used,its just a crap cd? or does that cd neend a better system than yours? better being a meaninless word,admittedly

 

[michaelab]

Have you been in John's chapel? It's not terribly big (in the scheme of things) and does have a reasonably clear acoustic IIRC.

Yes, I have, many times. My parents (who live in Cambridge) used to drag me along to evensong in either John's or King's on a regular basis when I was a kid . The recording I have made there sounds absolutely nothing like John's.

...which Chesky decided wasn't good enough for them, so they put up a huge mic boom to capture a 'natural-sounding', er, sound.

Actually Bub, the Chesky recording wasn't made in John's it was made in a much larger church . The point of the tall boom was (according to Chesky) to have the mic as far from any reflective surfaces as possible and just record the sound in the church as naturally as possible. I would say they succeeded.

Michael.

 

[michaelab]

That would seem to defeat the object, in this particular instance.

My point was, that if it sounds good on those other systems then, by Bub's implication, they are also "farked".

I was waiting for Bub to remind us all that the explanation for that being his is the only system that isn't "farked" and that this is of course entirely due to the nature of his equipment supports

Michael.

 

[penance]

Micheal
I think we are all starting to realise that Bub is farked, and hence the need to ignore his inane willy waving


PS - he may venture to public willy waving, for wich he will be locked up and we can feel safe that no one will have a system better than ours.

 

[Bradders]

To attemp to prove a point on this recording issue (& maybe get off the subject of stands/willy waving), why don't we post a list of 3 albums we'd class as 'great' recordings and then 3 albums we'd class as 'terrible' recordings - my bet is there would be some cross pollination of these lists.

 

[Paul Ranson]

Perhaps Chesky recordings are designed to make bad systems sound impressive?

I've only heard their HFN freebie sampler, which isn't a particularly good advertisement for (IMO) Chesky's ability to produce 'hifi' in the purest sense of the term recordings.

The last time I saw Bub he played me Naxos recording of Bach Oboe Concertos here which I think helps makes the point. The music and playing are great, the 'recording quality' gets out of the way.

Paul

 

[The Devil]

Hi Paul, glad you liked that one. Paul Duerden introduced me to it. He has far better taste than I.

The point of the tall boom was (according to Chesky) to have the mic as far from any reflective surfaces as possible and just record the sound in the church as naturally as possible. I would say they succeeded.

My point was that this is anything but "natural" unless you are a bird or a bat or a moth, hovering in free space 35 feet up. These creatures cannot afford a good hi-fi, and they often wire theirs up incorrectly, I find.

Those of us with our feet on the ground will obviously hear something quite different than our winged brethren. Chesky possibly didn't think of that.

The result is that the recording sounds 'disembodied', and frankly, odd.

 

[michaelab]

James, it sounds a hell of a lot more like being in a cathedral than the other recording I have of the same piece in which probably each singer in the choir virtually had their own mic, along with the organ and then that was mixed beyond all recognition.

IMO when recording a live event, anything more than 2 mics is too many. Without getting into binaural recordings (which can be breathtakingly realistic, what ever happened to them?) a crossed pair is about as close to capturing what a human sitting at that position would hear as it's possible to get. Set them up, record to DSD master, send to CD/SACD pressing plant - why complicate things?

Paul - IMO good recordings will sound better than bad ones on any system.

Michael.

 

[The Devil]

Hi Michael. Owning a worse recording than the Chesky is unfortunate. There are probably better ones out there.

I think the cheesy American guy really puts me off, telling you what to listen for, damn cheek. Mind you, the English guy on the other hi-fi nerdathon CD which was left at mine (HFN??) is even worse. His accent is laughable. It's this sort of thing that gets hi-fi a bad name.

I think the best way to assess a system is to play a familiar, clearly-recorded piece with acoustic instruments. But what do I know?

 

[michaelab]

I think the best way to assess a system is to play a familiar, clearly-recorded piece with acoustic instruments.

I would certainly agree with that. I'd also agree that the cheesy American voice introducing the Chesky test tracks is rather off-putting but I still think the music tracks are very well recorded and sound excellent. However, I've never used it to make any of my kit decisions.

Michael.