Describe differences in LP playback vs CD playback

[jandl100]

Haha... Ok, so what made you revise that particular, to be polite, 'error of judgement'? You seemed so adamant at the time using one was necessary to make things, erm, [insert irony smiley here] 'more real'!

Do you remember the 'little chats' we had about it in the past?

Marco.

Yes, of course I remember!
And no, not an error of judgement by me.
Just a failure to comprehend on your part.

Whole long running AOS threads were devoted to it.
Pointless to go over that ground again as to whether the recording process is sacrosanct or if the music is more important.
We will just have to agree to disagree - ne'er the twain shall meet.

EDIT!
-- Ooo, I've just seen a whole bundle of posts since my last one (I've been out cycling on this lovely spring day)

Ne'er the twain shall meet!¬!!!

[Barry]

But they may not be in a room. Have any of you guys seen a recording studio or know how one works? They usually have people in separate booths all in headphones playing their individual parts which are then manipulated via a large mixing console. You are very rarely hearing a band playing in their room!

I don't want the Berlin Philharmonic sounding as though they are all squeezed into my listening room!

[Macca]

Yes, but you're talking shite!!



The fact is, they ALL do it, to varying degrees, by very nature of their design.



Yes, but that's when it's still part of the the recording process. It's not up to us (as supposed hi-fi enthusiasts, keen to faithfully reproduce what's there and nothing more) to 'equalise' the sound again at our end... Certainly not if you consider yourself as a 'purist'!!!!

You need to learn to admit when you're just plain wrong, Martin, instead of impossibly defending a factually wrong position, for the sake of arguing and not wanting to 'lose face', as it's a very bad habit of yours. It's beginning to creep into many discussions you're involved in.

Others have noticed it too, trust me, and mate, it's not an endearing trait.....

Marco.

It isn't a wrong or right situation it is a matter of opinion. And I give shit who is 'endeared' to me or not. Anyone who is a bit pissed off that I have shot their argument down can fuck off and grow up a bit as far as I am concerned.

[Jimbo]

I don't want the Berlin Philharmonic sounding as though they are all squeezed into my listening room!

Not sure what your getting at there Barry?

[Marco]

It isn't a wrong or right situation it is a matter of opinion.

In this instance, I'm afraid it isn't. Anyone who claims to champion a purist approach of faithfully reproducing the sound that the left the studio, cannot sensibly simultaneously advocate using a graphic equaliser, which tailors the sound, thus achieves precisely the opposite.

That's a fact, I'm afraid, whether you like it or not, and so continuing to deny it just makes you look silly.

Marco.

[jandl100]

In this instance, I'm afraid it isn't. Anyone who claims to champion a purist approach of faithfully reproducing the sound that the left the studio, cannot sensibly simultaneously advocate using a graphic equaliser, which tailors the sound, thus achieves precisely the opposite.

That's a fact, I'm afraid, whether you like it or not, and so continuing to deny it just makes you look silly.

Marco.

Ah, but therein lies your error.

To paraphrase your statement ... "faithfully reproducing the sound that the left the studio" ... I would amend to "faithfully reproducing the sound that was heard in the studio"

Most recordings, especially more modern ones, are pretty damn good. They don't need fooling around with.
(Remember here, that as a classical listener I have an "Abso!ute Sound" to compare with - that's where they got the name of the mag from, right!).
But many older / non-western recordings that capture fantastic performances are a right dogs dinner tonally - muffled, screechy, both.
A bit of equalising can turn an unlistenable mess into an acceptably listenable experience, which is actually much closer to the sound you would have heard in the concert hall.

That's it. Simple enough. And well worth doing, imo.

[Barry]

But they may not be in a room. Have any of you guys seen a recording studio or know how one works? They usually have people in separate booths all in headphones playing their individual parts which are then manipulated via a large mixing console. You are very rarely hearing a band playing in their room!

If I am listen to a recording of, say, the Berlin Philharmonic I want to hear the venue in which it was recorded, regardless of if that is a recording studio or a concert hall. I certainly don't want it to sound as though they are all squeezed into my listening room.

It was the late Peter Walker of Quad who said that "somewhere around and beyond the plane of your speakers, the walls of your listening room should 'disappear' and effectively be replaced by those of the recording venue."

That is what I meant by "precisely": I don't want things to sound as if the performers are playing in my room. I want to be transported to the venue where the recording was made and hear them there.

[Marco]

Ah, but therein lies your error.

To paraphrase your statement ... "faithfully reproducing the sound that the left the studio" ... I would amend to "faithfully reproducing the sound that was heard in the studio"

Fair enough, Jerry, but we're arguing over semantics. You know full well the point I'm making.

A bit of equalising can turn an unlistenable mess into an acceptably listenable experience, which is actually much closer to the sound you would have heard in the concert hall.

That's it. Simple enough. And well worth doing, imo.

That's all fair enough, and I have no argument about that, if that's what you want to do and consider improves matters and your enjoyment of the music.

However, you cannot, on one hand, champion faithfulness to the recording, and on the other, advocate the use of a graphic equaliser, which fundamentally changes it. It's as simple as that.

It's a total dichotomy, and the person guilty of stating it should have the gumption to admit that.

Marco.

[jandl100]

Fair enough, Jerry, but we're arguing over semantics. You know full well the point I'm making.



That's all fair enough, and I have no argument about that, if that's what you want to do and consider improves matters and your enjoyment of the music.

However, you cannot, on one hand, champion faithfulness to the recording, and on the other, advocate the use of a graphic equaliser, which fundamentally changes it. It's as simple as that.

It's a total dichotomy, and the person guilty of that should have the gumption to admit it.

Marco.

Errr... but I think I have made it quite plain that I don't "champion faithfulness to the recording" - my loyalty is to the music and the musicians, not the recording engineers and the processes they used.
As I said, though, most recordings are good enough and are best left untampered with. But some recordings simply do not do any sort of justice to the recorded event.

I am not, though, advocating changing the recordings themselves - I agree they should remain sacrosanct - but once input into your audio system I think the worst "recording culprits" are fair game to be made more listenable and accurate.

[Marco]

Lol... Other than the issue of semantics, I wasn't referring to you!!

Marco.