kepler

However I might want recorded music to sound, there is a new generation of consumers with a different aesthetic than mine. Every poor schmuck running a recording studio will have to keep up with all the latest idiocies from the recorded sound that sells. Slapping on heavy compression and various other "enhancements" makes a nobody sound like a somebody. And it's the nobodies who pay the bills for the poor schmucks.<br /> <br /> Ear fatigue ? No, culture fatigue.

I would add this: the quality varies enormously from one recording to another. The SACD versions of older analog masters can be stunning in the reproduction of a true instrumental timbre. But sometimes there can be an odd, surrealist sheen on newly recorded DSD masters that end up as SACD product. I think it comes down to the original recording session and subsequent mastering.

As someone who spent many years recording on tape in a studio, in the end, I go with my ears. Two things are apparent to me. Sampling a pre-existing analogue recording at a higher rate than 44.1 results in a far better sound through its better "representation" of the wave form 20k and below. Recording today at a high sampling rate with a chain that allows high-res (mic, mic pre, converters, signal path, and speakers) sounds a whole lot better than 44.1. Those highs don't have to be there. But properly recorded, I hear the difference in many A-B tests. I don't think this much matters for most pop recordings, but for Jazz and Classical, it's a new ball game.

@artk Clearly, not everyone hears the difference. No doubt. And there are also some people who claim to hear it, but really don't. I'm not one of them. I most definitely hear the difference. After several years of comparing the same recording of a SACD with its CD version (often on the same disc), I hear the difference quite distinctly. I can usually tell whether the original recording was a high-sampled PCM recording or a DSD --each has a particular sound. I'm not pushing either. What always matters most is the quality of the original recording, the mic's, the pre-amps, the mic placement, the mastering, etc. I think that people who can't hear the difference just don't have the ears. No surprise that some recording engineers can't hear it --they've lost the high frequencies in their hearing from too many hours of listening at too loud volumes. Additionally, a producer/engineer of classical music is more likely to hear the difference, the esthetic, procedures and goals so completely in another world than pop music recordings.

"In the meantime, the real problem is that virtually all the high res classical releases are third rate performances from third rate performers." Yikes. Why don't you make a list of these third raters and post it. "Nearly all" is going to make it a rather long list. I'll settle for 100.

Great speaker.

Miska and Ted, i start off agreeing with Miska, and also most of what Ted is saying because he's close to admitting that listening at higher frequencies adds "something." The debate about what we hear above 20k isn't quite settled. Not for me certainly. Frequencies above what we "hear" are heard in other ways, especially as higher overtones which help us recognize timbre. Moreover, and especially in classical music in which the space of the recording should be captured (in pop it's most often defeated as an overall concern), the mixture of these high frequencies interact and create psycho-acoustic responses. I'm not a tech-head so I can't explain it in physics, but going by ears in a recording studio, and combining with judgement of other musician/producers, there is most certainly a difference when recording and listening to higher frequencies. It's a debate that doesn't affect pop music. And since classical music represents such a small part of recordings, there may not be much wind to work it out. But it's important. From the mastering side, it's commonplace to make different mp3 and 44.1 versions (yes, there's an argument here, too) --but suddenly there is the question of how to "master" a 24/96 version, the word "master" taking on several meanings here. Is the master" just a two-track mix down of the original recording master ? Should it be eq'd, limited, whatever. Hard to say because the consumer is just starting to have access to the hi-res gear. The input from audiophiles will be important, in my view, for creating better downloads. The average listener doesn't have the system or the ears to help out.Indeed, mass consumption is dragging quality down, obviously. Ted is certainly right that the quality of the recorded sound trumps everything else. I chose my speakers without knowing their specs, but having worked with them for a few weeks in a studio. Later I noticed that they have a 40k response. While it's not fully understood in technical terms, perhaps, there's something important going on, and in my view, will alter drastically the audio industry. An interesting read is this engineer's assessment of a new mic that records up to 100k http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/report/reports.cfm?top=1&id=12

I wonder if readers here have thought about how hi-res downloads might affect speaker specs (and really all specs in any listening chain). I'd be interested in comments and thoughts on this questions.

Manfred Eicher has never been interested in the latest technology. In fact, it's fair to describe him in the studio as almost anti-technology. He has a particular piano sound in his ears, somewhat old fashioned these days -- for example, his classical piano sound has far too much reverb in imitation of the Jazz sound. Many ECM recordings go heavy on reverb, even after he has chosen a good recording space. He has never had much interest in surround releases. Put another way, his "sound" is quite old fashioned, his transition from the warmth of analog to digital accomplished with a lot of reverb to find that warmth. ECM will have a hard time in this new age of recording with Manfred's ears.

One approach to the subject of this thread is, indeed, to gauge a particular recording as a final product. Another approach might be to "fix" it by essentially remastering it in a program such as Logic or Pro Tools and low-priced mastering plug-ins --now easy to use. As long as you are going to these admirable lengths to analyze a recording, might as well tidy up some of them. Plenty of good recordings are lost to poor mastering. "Remastering" would also give a version that works for your room, speakers, what-have-you.

Cookie, Would that thou wouldst mention the names. I'm skeptical on your statement.