Popular Post AudioDoctor Posted August 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted August 20, 2018 4 hours ago, Jud said: Why convene on even one? What if someone started a thread and no one else came? I do that all the time. wgscott and Jud 1 1 No electron left behind. Link to comment
fas42 Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 7 hours ago, Richard Dale said: http://www.audioxpress.com/article/Interview-with-Nelson-Pass But at no point can I find him saying something like 'he is not interested in high fidelity'. When he says 'Whatever the deal is, ultra low distortion doesn’t seem to have much to do with it.', I take 'Whatever the deal is..' to mean 'Whatever high fidelity is as perceived by the human brain..'. High fidelity is reproducing the content of the recording such that it delivers the impact of the performance if it were experienced in the space where the recording was made; and that one is completely unaware of the mechanism producing this experience. "Ultra low disortion" is just a numbers game, and has as much meaning as saying one car can reach a certain speed slightly sooner than another - and therefore is a superior vehicle, in every way. One could say that you haven't heard the true piano sound until you are made aware of every mechanical noise it emits while working - thanks George , every creak or squeak; the body noises the player makes ... ummm, how many ways can you say, fetish ... . Some might want to listen to music as if it were an IQ test - others just listen for, err, pleasure ... Link to comment
fas42 Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 Just saying, have heard a few rigs with big Pass amplfiers - and I haven't fallen off my chair. Same ol' problems - most likely a good place to start from to evolve the sound to a good standard; but just buying a name item doesn't provide aspirin relief to listening unpleasantness. Link to comment
Popular Post kumakuma Posted August 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted August 20, 2018 1 hour ago, fas42 said: High fidelity is reproducing the content of the recording such that it delivers the impact of the performance if it were experienced in the space where the recording was made; and that one is completely unaware of the mechanism producing this experience. "Ultra low disortion" is just a numbers game, and has as much meaning as saying one car can reach a certain speed slightly sooner than another - and therefore is a superior vehicle, in every way. I disagree. High fidelity refers to whether or not playback is faithful to the recording. Whether or not the recording is faithful to the performance is a completely differently issue and is not something we have any control over. mansr and semente 2 Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
Popular Post gmgraves Posted August 21, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted August 21, 2018 1 hour ago, kumakuma said: I disagree. High fidelity refers to whether or not playback is faithful to the recording. Whether or not the recording is faithful to the performance is a completely differently issue and is not something we have any control over. I think that in it's original conceptualization, Frank is right. High-Fidelity meant a large degree of faithfulness to the original performance. And in the early days of the LP and Hi-Fi, when the recordings were mono, they were made with one omni-directional microphone and they used one that was a flat in frequency response as the technology of the time could get it (Schoeps/Telefunken M201 and Neumann U47 usually). The idea was simply to make a "documentary" recording of the work at hand. No attempt was made for the engineers and producers to be "creative". It was a straight-forward business. Get the performance on tape and then cut it to lacquer and then press records. After stereo recording started, in the mid-1950's, a number of different avenues of approach became available to the people making the recording and the idea of "creative control" occurred to them. At that point, the emphasis shifted from faithfulness to the performance to faithfulness to the recording. As Kumakuma said, at that point, the consumer had little control over what the recording engineers' thoughts about what was "proper" recorded sound. When stereo was applied to what was then called "top 40" performers, the rule book went out the window altogether. The entire emphasis changed from making an accurate document of a performance, to creating on tape that which often did not even exist in real time and space. Below, the 'head' of the strange looking Schoeps/Telefunken M201 microphone used by C. R. Fine of Mercury Records for practically all of the mono "Living Presence" recordings, and at first two of which, then three of these were used for all of the later stereo recordings. semente and kumakuma 1 1 George Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 recording vs. performance ... if it goes all the way back to the performance, then we are talking about "end to end" - otherwise, not! some want you to believe that end over end is end to end - NYET! Link to comment
fas42 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 3 hours ago, kumakuma said: I disagree. High fidelity refers to whether or not playback is faithful to the recording. Whether or not the recording is faithful to the performance is a completely differently issue and is not something we have any control over. I'm quite certain that my methods are faithful to the recording - because as one progresses, on very different setups, the sound of a particular album converges to a single point - that of the intrinsic nature of the musical event, and how it was recorded. Something like a particular string quartet playing, and the hall or space you heard them in - as a comparable, live example. This happens every time - and now and again one digs deeper into a particular recordings, has even more insight into the subtleties of the capture. But the intrinsic, overall sense of the particular set of tracks, the gestalt, always remains the same. I had an interesting example of this, by coincidence the Beethoven violin and piano piece on my YouTube page, with the friend down the road. He has the LP of this, and one time when I turned up he played it - and the tonality was "all wrong" - I shook my head. We did a major round on investigating, and sure enough, there was a solid problem with the mechanical setup of TT - can't remember what it was; but sorted it ... ah! Here we go, the familiar feel, vibe of the the duo playing was nicely in place - the core of what it should sound like was restored. Link to comment
Ben-M Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 9 hours ago, AudioDoctor said: Thank you, I was surprised as well. Maybe I am not as funny as I think I am, or you and I are the smart people here that get my humor... Well, I'm still thinking it was a win and enjoying them. I can't believe this thread still has posts. Link to comment
esldude Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 7 hours ago, gmgraves said: I think that in it's original conceptualization, Frank is right. High-Fidelity meant a large degree of faithfulness to the original performance. And in the early days of the LP and Hi-Fi, when the recordings were mono, they were made with one omni-directional microphone and they used one that was a flat in frequency response as the technology of the time could get it (Schoeps/Telefunken M201 and Neumann U47 usually). The idea was simply to make a "documentary" recording of the work at hand. No attempt was made for the engineers and producers to be "creative". It was a straight-forward business. Get the performance on tape and then cut it to lacquer and then press records. After stereo recording started, in the mid-1950's, a number of different avenues of approach became available to the people making the recording and the idea of "creative control" occurred to them. At that point, the emphasis shifted from faithfulness to the performance to faithfulness to the recording. As Kumakuma said, at that point, the consumer had little control over what the recording engineers' thoughts about what was "proper" recorded sound. When stereo was applied to what was then called "top 40" performers, the rule book went out the window altogether. The entire emphasis changed from making an accurate document of a performance, to creating on tape that which often did not even exist in real time and space. Below, the 'head' of the strange looking Schoeps/Telefunken M201 microphone used by C. R. Fine of Mercury Records for practically all of the mono "Living Presence" recordings, and at first two of which, then three of these were used for all of the later stereo recordings. I once had pristine copies of nearly all the Mercury Living Presence Monos. Never heard LP with more dynamics than that. Thrilling to the point you never missed stereo. semente 1 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
Popular Post gmgraves Posted August 21, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted August 21, 2018 11 hours ago, esldude said: I once had pristine copies of nearly all the Mercury Living Presence Monos. Never heard LP with more dynamics than that. Thrilling to the point you never missed stereo. I agree. In fact it always struck me that Mercury's mono recordings were actually better than their stereo efforts. That omnidirectional Telefunken M201 mike they used was perfect for mono, but two (or even three) spaced omnis don't do very good stereo (IMHO). The signals from the mikes is not phase coherent, and image specificity suffers from that. While the stereo Merc's DO image and do so better than most "stereo" releases of classical music they are nowhere near as good as they could have been. When I asked Bob Fine why he didn't use some type of true stereo miking, he cited two reasons: 1) He already had several M201s and 2) he favored the ultra-flat frequency response of the Telefunken/Schoeps omni-directional over the "fall-off" at the edges that characterized cardioids at the time. I countered that I found that the two fall-off zones overlaid each other where the two mike patterns crossed one another, and that if one moved the microphones back a bit, the edges of the cardioid patterns would be at the edges of the proscenium where, ostensibly, there wouldn't be any musicians. He answer to that was "perhaps." semente and esldude 2 George Link to comment
R1200CL Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 On 8/20/2018 at 7:00 PM, Jud said: Why convene on even one? What if someone started a thread and no one else came? I have done that ? Probably to advanced topic or question ? semente 1 Link to comment
mordante Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 Maybe OT Do people really care where their audio or any other product is made? My Audio gear comes mainly from Europe mostly because US audio is very expensive due to transport, Dutch VAT, dollar euro conversion, I don't know. If I like product and I can afford it and want to buy it I'll buy it regardless where it is made, it could be made in North Korea, Israel or Iran. It's all the same to me. There are some products I prefer to buy from local sources, but that is mainly foodstuffs or products from small (family) businesses. semente 1 [br] Link to comment
Summit Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 5 hours ago, mordante said: Maybe OT Do people really care where their audio or any other product is made? My Audio gear comes mainly from Europe mostly because US audio is very expensive due to transport, Dutch VAT, dollar euro conversion, I don't know. If I like product and I can afford it and want to buy it I'll buy it regardless where it is made, it could be made in North Korea, Israel or Iran. It's all the same to me. There are some products I prefer to buy from local sources, but that is mainly foodstuffs or products from small (family) businesses. I’m quite sure that some people are concern where the hifi gear is made. I don’t, but like you I prefer to buy food that is locally produced if I can. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now