View Full Version : Most difficult musical instrument for Hi Fi Systems to reproduce ?
Light Dependant Resistor
17-09-2020, 11:59
IMO its the piano, there is a lot to understand about audio systems, if the piano as a specific instrument is listened to.
The piano of course disguises to a degree what is causing it to do what it does, as it is percussive.
What instrument would you say is the most difficult, for HiFi Systems ?
anthonyTD
17-09-2020, 12:03
Pipe organ!
IMO its the piano, there is a lot to understand about audio systems, if the piano as a specific instrument is listened to.
The piano of course disguises to a degree what is causing it to do what it does, as it is percussive.
What instrument would you say is the most difficult, for HiFi Systems ?
Light Dependant Resistor
17-09-2020, 12:10
Pipe organ!
Interesting choice ! Hymns Organs spheres by Keith Jarrett explores that instruments boundaries - have you heard that piece ?
anthonyTD
17-09-2020, 12:31
No, i havent heard that piece Chris.
Pipe organ is a very difficult instrument for a hi-fi system to reproduce for one paticular reason and that is; its capability to reproduce very low frequency with such power, and virocity!
Interesting choice ! Hymns Organs spheres by Keith Jarrett explores that instruments boundaries - have you heard that piece ?
Sherwood
17-09-2020, 12:44
Without question: the human voice!
Without question: the human voice!Nah it's not full range enough and therefore not a real challenge.
To be really challenging it needs to be very full range.
Stand next to a real drum kit and then go and listen to most hi-fi systems do it. The dynamics on real drums are absolutely incredible. And they're very full range.
Note most hi-fi systems can sound good just playing drums but they are nowhere near the real thing.
Sherwood
17-09-2020, 13:09
It is not just about dynamic range with the human voice. It is about micro detail, timbre and that "x-factor". We all know what a human voice sounds like and (for me certainly) are very sensitive to when it sounds "off".
Following on from the Pipe organ ....i'm going to add Bagpipes which to my ears sound completely different in real life to any recorded music i've heard
mightymonoped
17-09-2020, 14:10
It is not just about dynamic range with the human voice. It is about micro detail, timbre and that "x-factor". We all know what a human voice sounds like and (for me certainly) are very sensitive to when it sounds "off".
+1 on this
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is not just about dynamic range with the human voice. It is about micro detail, timbre and that "x-factor". We all know what a human voice sounds like and (for me certainly) are very sensitive to when it sounds "off".Yeah I take that point, but I still think what I said.
My 1963 Scott 350 valve tuner does voices through my speakers better than any other source I have ever owned. It's crazy good, if larger than life through some large planars.
Voices through stereo speakers always sound wrong, though. Easy to understand why.
It is not just about dynamic range with the human voice. It is about micro detail, timbre and that "x-factor". We all know what a human voice sounds like and (for me certainly) are very sensitive to when it sounds "off".
I agree, +2. Though I would also agree that the realistic portrayal of a jazz drum kit is a very demanding test.
I’ve always felt a full drum kit and cymbals are near impossible to reproduce, I used to share flat with band. It’s the ability to simultaneously combine force and finesse with multiple textures, tempos and tones that few systems can mimic. Up close the volume and dynamics are scary, it’s why drummers are notoriously deaf.
I often tune speakers using under milk wood with Richard burton As voice is so rich and diction so perfect.
Mikeandvan
17-09-2020, 20:23
Gabba hardcore.
Landloper
17-09-2020, 21:13
IMO its the piano, there is a lot to understand about audio systems, if the piano as a specific instrument is listened to.
The piano of course disguises to a degree what is causing it to do what it does, as it is percussive.
What instrument would you say is the most difficult, for HiFi Systems ?
Good call for a thread.
I listen to recorded opera, lieder, and chamber music, and also have spent some time in the concert halls listening to the same stuff live. There's a fairly wide gulf between the two, usually in favour of real over electronically reproduced sound (though not inevitably so). In my opinion the human voice is the hardest to reproduce properly. This has been my conviction for the last couple of decades and I've spent a fair amount of money trying to progress up the hi-fi ladder pursuing a balanced set-up that did some justice to the artists and composers I was interested in. For me much of my thinking about hi-fi has been how rto educe the simulacrum effect that listening music through hi-fi seems to involve, but especially where works have one or more vocal parts. It seems to me that technology still has some way to go. Of course, those canny enough to have made better choices in what equipment they have bought, and those fortunate enough to have been able to afford more capable gear, might have more encouraging exeriences to relate.
Piano and human voice, but it is a real problem to get well recorded voice. Our survival has depended on thousands of years of detecting subtle tonal variations of voice, and so we are very well attuned to it.
It is also far easier to reproduce voice in band limited speakers like the LS 3/5a, and harder on full range ones.
Due to our need to identify the size and distance of predators and prey we are particularly sensitive to phase variations.
Light Dependant Resistor
18-09-2020, 06:06
Due to our need to identify the size and distance of predators and prey we are particularly sensitive to phase variations.
Very true, hence the whole audio path should not alter phase. We should examine minimizing phase variation where- ever possible.
Loudspeakers, and amplifiers used to drive them are often thought of straight away as changing phase due to inability of the voltage amplifier model, vs the better method of current driving of loudspeakers , but other equipment contributes as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_characteristics_of_dynamic_loudspeakers https://www.current-drive.info/
walpurgis
18-09-2020, 07:09
Piano and human voice, but it is a real problem to get well recorded voice. Our survival has depended on thousands of years of detecting subtle tonal variations of voice, and so we are very well attuned to it.
It is also far easier to reproduce voice in band limited speakers like the LS 3/5a, and harder on full range ones.
Yes, I agree with all the above. Piano in particular shows up all sorts of equipment shortcomings.
Due to our need to identify the size and distance of predators and prey we are particularly sensitive to phase variations.
That's highly debatable. 99% of recordings are not phase-accurate and most speakers are not phase accurate and most rooms have reflections that will put sounds out of phase. If it was really an issue then almost all systems would sound rubbish.
The question should not be what is the most difficult instrument to reproduce as that is not the starting point, it should be what instrument is the most difficult to record. You've already lost some of what makes the instrument sound real at the microphone as microphones are not perfect.
Amusingly Peter Walker stated that all loudspeakers sound terrible, but his no more so than the others. (paraphrasing).
dave2010
18-09-2020, 10:04
That's highly debatable. 99% of recordings are not phase-accurate and most speakers are not phase accurate and most rooms have reflections that will put sounds out of phase. If it was really an issue then almost all systems would sound rubbish.
Regarding tone - yes phase does seem to be relatively unimportant.
I believe, if I remember correctly, that for audio if an FFT is done, the phase component can be discarded completely, before doing the inverse operation, without affecting the sound significantly. The converse is approximately true for image FFTs.
However, phase coherence in a multi-channel system is important for spatial localisation.
anthonyTD
18-09-2020, 10:29
I stand by my original choice, i have heard a few systems that do good to seriously good vocals, and Piano, but have never heard a single system that could do a real pipe organ justice!
The title states "Most difficult instrument for HI-FI systems to reproduce" my next choices would be; a full orchestra on song [due to its incredible dynamic range] followed by a real drum set!
The sheer power needed alone to reproduce the instruments i have chosen with any credibility would be far more than most home HI-FI Systems could muster.
Just my ramblings, and all IMHO.
Regarding tone - yes phase does seem to be relatively unimportant.
I believe, if I remember correctly, that for audio if an FFT is done, the phase component can be discarded completely, before doing the inverse operation, without affecting the sound significantly. The converse is approximately true for image FFTs.
However, phase coherence in a multi-channel system is important for spatial localisation.
With 'tone' this is going to be frequency - response dependant. The flatter the FR of the speaker, the more accurate the tone will be to the recording of the instrument, or voice (not the real sound of the instrument or voice as the recording process itself means we are already one step away from that).
With multi channel I see what you are driving it but I'm not sure how that can be accomplished, wouldn't a multi-channel system suffer the same phase issues as 2 channel - i.e room reflections and loudspeakers and recordings that are not phase-coherent?
Beobloke
18-09-2020, 11:45
I would agree that piano is tricky, as are violins, however I have heard both convincingly reproduced on more than one occasion.
I have never heard any hi-fi system ever really convincingly reproduce a drum kit. My speakers do get very close, but hearing a busking band in Winchester shopping precinct last year made me realise that even they're still not quite there.
I recorded this in Munich whilst the hi-fi show was on.
In the flesh this just blew my mind.
It blew my mind from half a mile away. Once in front of the stage it became apparent that everything at the Munich hi-fi show was a total joke.
It was so obvious that nothing at Munich was capable of getting even vaguely close.
Anyone who thinks a domestic hi-fi can get close to this is hugely mistaken.
Unfortunately the video won't get you there either.
https://youtu.be/4q2pPjvK3KM
AJSki2fly
18-09-2020, 14:06
I recorded this in Munich whilst the hi-fi show was on.
In the flesh this just blew my mind.
It blew my mind from half a mile away. Once in front of the stage it became apparent that everything at the Munich hi-fi show was a total joke.
It was so obvious that nothing at Munich was capable of getting even vaguely close.
Anyone who thinks a domestic hi-fi can get close to this is hugely mistaken.
Unfortunately the video won't get you there either.
https://youtu.be/4q2pPjvK3KM
Completely agree!
When you think about it expecting a few moving cones in boxes, electrostatic ribbons in panels, or flat panel speakers controlled by a electrical coils and magnets to re-create the transient response of myriads of instruments, natural, electric, & electronic along with the infinite variations in human voice is really expecting quite a lot, even with the perfect recording medium, replay mechanism, amplifiers, cable etc.:lol:
Lawrence001
18-09-2020, 15:05
Completely agree!
When you think about it expecting a few moving cones in boxes, electrostatic ribbons in panels, or flat panel speakers controlled by a electrical coils and magnets to re-create the transient response of myriads of instruments, natural, electric, & electronic along with the infinite variations in human voice is really expecting quite a lot, even with the perfect recording medium, replay mechanism, amplifiers, cable etc.[emoji38]I think this. Much of it must be about the behaviour of materials at vibration. Consider a reed in a saxophone combined with the effect of the brass horn, compared with the gut or metal violin string amplified by the wooden structure, or the sinew of the human voice box. Asking a plastic or paper cone to simulate this must involve considerable compromises. It's about finding the material that can get as close to possible to the instruments you listen to.
I can see why some of the high end reviewers ignore rock and dance. How can you define how close the speakers get to the "real" sound when it can only exist amplified and played through speakers anyway. However, as much of what I listen to is that, then it's important to me that it's listenable!
Sent from my HRY-LX1 using Tapatalk
My system pretending. Recorded on a OnePlus 6 mid range phone. A YT video of a YT video.
It is a mess in there going to tidy the equipment up with some bespoke carpentry at some stage. Not long moved in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=137&v=2g1pH9k_ecM&feature=emb_logo
grand piano and violin at high register and church organ at low. trumpet/cornet too at times
Landloper
18-09-2020, 17:55
Any one here ever put either a record on or a CD and thought, F++k me! Where did that orchestra/band/singer come from?. I've never mistaken a recording for the real thing. I think perhaps our forefathers were better off in one respect: because they did not have the means to capture music as it was played and to replay that captured music when and where they chose, many more of them learned to play instruments, so that the popular pieces of their day could be realised through piano transcriptions (for example). None of them ever wondered whether the piano being played sounded like a real piano. That's not to ignore the huge benefit we all enjoy in being able to access recorded music at will, but oddly it is at the same time a profoundly anti-musical development. Hence this thread.
Recently I helped my neighbour fix his fence, and he was banging in nails a foot away from my head. I realised that even my advanced dynamic speakers could not do that.
Also, walking on the cliffs with another friend, we stopped and listened to the birds, no tweeter comes near that, not even my up to 50k Heils.
Completely agree!
When you think about it expecting a few moving cones in boxes, electrostatic ribbons in panels, or flat panel speakers controlled by a electrical coils and magnets to re-create the transient response of myriads of instruments, natural, electric, & electronic along with the infinite variations in human voice is really expecting quite a lot, even with the perfect recording medium, replay mechanism, amplifiers, cable etc.[emoji38]Excellent post.
AJSki2fly
19-09-2020, 05:45
Excellent post.
Thanks, I try my best[emoji3]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Light Dependant Resistor
19-09-2020, 06:52
Any one here ever put either a record on or a CD and thought, F++k me! Where did that orchestra/band/singer come from?. I've never mistaken a recording for the real thing..
Happens quite a bit, wherever such sounds appear in recordings. As policy, I do not contribute to my own product discussed thread, but it is mentioned by others here too.
https://www.stereo.net.au/forums/topic/301377-2020-stereocoffee-ldr-passive-preamp-redesign/page/5/#comments " it's a really black canvas until an instrument suddenly jump out out of nowhere it is quite an experience."
Comparing real to recorded sound is like watching 'Where Eagles Dare' and comparing that experience to actually infiltrating a top secret Nazi headquarters. It's never going to come close but more importantly, it's not meant to!
Who records the drum part, puts it in the mix, plays it back and says, 'Nah this is no good, doesn't sound like the drum kit is in the room.' No-one. All that gating you get on the drum sound in 1980s recordings, how does that compare to a live drum kit sound? They are trying to make a recording that sounds good when you play it back on your hi-fi in your living room, not replicate a live event.
anthonyTD
19-09-2020, 09:07
:)
Any one here ever put either a record on or a CD and thought, F++k me! Where did that orchestra/band/singer come from?. I've never mistaken a recording for the real thing. I think perhaps our forefathers were better off in one respect: because they did not have the means to capture music as it was played and to replay that captured music when and where they chose, many more of them learned to play instruments, so that the popular pieces of their day could be realised through piano transcriptions (for example). None of them ever wondered whether the piano being played sounded like a real piano. That's not to ignore the huge benefit we all enjoy in being able to access recorded music at will, but oddly it is at the same time a profoundly anti-musical development. Hence this thread.
Piano, organ, cymbals, violin, and natural vocals.
Light Dependant Resistor
20-09-2020, 04:32
Comparing real to recorded sound is like watching 'Where Eagles Dare' and comparing that experience to actually infiltrating a top secret Nazi headquarters. It's never going to come close but more importantly, it's not meant to!
Who records the drum part, puts it in the mix, plays it back and says, 'Nah this is no good, doesn't sound like the drum kit is in the room.' No-one. All that gating you get on the drum sound in 1980s recordings, how does that compare to a live drum kit sound? They are trying to make a recording that sounds good when you play it back on your hi-fi in your living room, not replicate a live event.
Frank Zappa examples 2 weeks to develop The Black page showing many decisions about what was right vs not so right , he then rearranged into part 2, which is a little bit different to your reply " doesn't sound like the drum kit in the room" but never the less shows some music composers went to enormous lengths to develop pieces for drum kits. The Live in New York drum sound cannot be mistaken for anything but a live drum kit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Page
Likewise Creams "Toad" and Deep Purples "The Mule" from Live in Japan
""The Black Page #1" is a piece by American composer Frank Zappa known for being extraordinarily difficult to play. Originally written for the drum kit and melodic percussion (as "The Black Page Drum Solo"), the piece was later rearranged in several versions, including the disco "easy teenage New York version" (commonly referred to as "The Black Page #2") and a so-called "new-age version", among others.
Drummer Terry Bozzio said of the piece:
He wrote it, because we had done this 40-piece orchestra gig together and he was always hearing the studio musicians in LA, that he was musing on that, talking about the fear of going into sessions some morning and being faced with "the black page". So he decided to write his "Black Page". Then he gave it to me, and I could play parts of it right away. But it wasn't a pressure thing, it just sat on my music stand and for about 15 minutes every day for 2 weeks, before we would rehearse, I would work on it. And after 2 weeks I had it together and I played it for him. And he said, "Great!", took it home, wrote the melody and the chord changes, brought it back in. And we all started playing it.[1]
"The Black Page Drum Solo/Black Page #1"
One of Zappa's complex, percussion-based compositions featured on Zappa in New York.
On the double live album Zappa in New York (recorded 12/1976, released 3/1978), Zappa noted the "statistical density" of the piece.[2] It is written in common time with extensive use of tuplets, including tuplets inside tuplets. At several points there is a crotchet triplet (sixth notes) in which each beat is counted with its own tuplet of 5, 5 and 6; at another is a minim triplet (third notes) in which the second beat is a quintuplet (actually a tuplet of 7), and the third beat is divided into tuplets of 4 and 5. The song ends with a crotchet triplet composed of tuplets of 5, 5, and 6, followed by two tuplets of 11 in the space of one.[citation needed]
Zappa would re-arrange the song into "The Black Page #2" shortly after his band's mastery of the piece. This second version has a disco beat, but nevertheless retains nearly every metric complexity from #1. One notable difference in this version is that the final set of tuplets feature a rhythmic change and are repeated three times to conclude the song. The 1991 live album Make a Jazz Noise Here includes a so-called "new age version", which incorporates lounge and reggae music. The 1994 album You Can't Do That on Stage Anymore, Vol. 4 featured a version from 1984 that had a ska motif. Both of these versions included guitar solos from Zappa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e1shNfBjQU
Not sure how this relates to what I wrote Chris. I wasn't talking about recordings of live events.
anthonyTD
21-09-2020, 11:11
:scratch:
Frank Zappa examples 2 weeks to develop The Black page showing many decisions about what was right vs not so right , he then rearranged into part 2, which is a little bit different to your reply " doesn't sound like the drum kit in the room" but never the less shows some music composers went to enormous lengths to develop pieces for drum kits. The Live in New York drum sound cannot be mistaken for anything but a live drum kit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Page
Likewise Creams "Toad" and Deep Purples "The Mule" from Live in Japan
""The Black Page #1" is a piece by American composer Frank Zappa known for being extraordinarily difficult to play. Originally written for the drum kit and melodic percussion (as "The Black Page Drum Solo"), the piece was later rearranged in several versions, including the disco "easy teenage New York version" (commonly referred to as "The Black Page #2") and a so-called "new-age version", among others.
Drummer Terry Bozzio said of the piece:
He wrote it, because we had done this 40-piece orchestra gig together and he was always hearing the studio musicians in LA, that he was musing on that, talking about the fear of going into sessions some morning and being faced with "the black page". So he decided to write his "Black Page". Then he gave it to me, and I could play parts of it right away. But it wasn't a pressure thing, it just sat on my music stand and for about 15 minutes every day for 2 weeks, before we would rehearse, I would work on it. And after 2 weeks I had it together and I played it for him. And he said, "Great!", took it home, wrote the melody and the chord changes, brought it back in. And we all started playing it.[1]
"The Black Page Drum Solo/Black Page #1"
One of Zappa's complex, percussion-based compositions featured on Zappa in New York.
On the double live album Zappa in New York (recorded 12/1976, released 3/1978), Zappa noted the "statistical density" of the piece.[2] It is written in common time with extensive use of tuplets, including tuplets inside tuplets. At several points there is a crotchet triplet (sixth notes) in which each beat is counted with its own tuplet of 5, 5 and 6; at another is a minim triplet (third notes) in which the second beat is a quintuplet (actually a tuplet of 7), and the third beat is divided into tuplets of 4 and 5. The song ends with a crotchet triplet composed of tuplets of 5, 5, and 6, followed by two tuplets of 11 in the space of one.[citation needed]
Zappa would re-arrange the song into "The Black Page #2" shortly after his band's mastery of the piece. This second version has a disco beat, but nevertheless retains nearly every metric complexity from #1. One notable difference in this version is that the final set of tuplets feature a rhythmic change and are repeated three times to conclude the song. The 1991 live album Make a Jazz Noise Here includes a so-called "new age version", which incorporates lounge and reggae music. The 1994 album You Can't Do That on Stage Anymore, Vol. 4 featured a version from 1984 that had a ska motif. Both of these versions included guitar solos from Zappa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e1shNfBjQU
WullieD20
21-09-2020, 12:40
:scratch:
Aye, me too!
I was beginning to think that a few posts had lost the jist of the original question (which was pretty fundamental), by relating the 'difficulty' of reproducing an instrument on your system to the PSL's of 'live' instruments, whether individually or grouped together in any way.
It's fairly obvious that a domestic hi-fi system will have difficulty in producing the sound level of some instruments, and certainly groups or orchestras, especially if electrified, but I don't believe that was what the question was about?
Frank Zappa was notorious in his constant dabbling with splicing guitar solos (his) from one live recording into that of another live performance, if he thought the first was better than the second, but the performance on the second by the backing musicians was superior.
What he didn't appreciate was that the phase relationship between the two performances, and the consequence on the stereo soundstage, was different: simply splicing a guitar solo from one performance into a second just sounds wrong and artificial.
But I love it when he does that. And chucks in the drums from a completely different tune. If it's weird then that's how he wanted it. Nothing is on a Zappa record by accident.
But Zappa hated mistakes - I've seen him 'wince' when he has heard one of his fellow musicians play a 'duff' note. He was a perfectionist - but what was perfection to him was not to others, as I have mentioned. His 'splices' sound like splices: different miking, different acoustic and soundstage positioing.
It is as if someone has pasted a new photograph of a performer over the same in an older photograph that was taken in a different location.
Pigmy Pony
22-09-2020, 06:46
But I love it when he does that. And chucks in the drums from a completely different tune. If it's weird then that's how he wanted it. Nothing is on a Zappa record by accident.
I once got a boulder burn on a Zappa record, by accident :D Only kidding, I would never do that, strictly T shirts only :)
Pigmy Pony
22-09-2020, 06:52
But Zappa hated mistakes - I've seen him 'wince' when he has heard one of his fellow musicians play a 'duff' note. He was a perfectionist - but what was perfection to him was not to others, as I have mentioned. His 'splices' sound like splices: different miking, different acoustic and soundstage positioing.
It is as if someone has pasted a new photograph of a performer over the same in an older photograph that was taken in a different location.
Or a foreign film dubbed into English. I imagine Zappa would have been well aware of this, but didn't care - quality of the performances trumped everything.
But Zappa hated mistakes - I've seen him 'wince' when he has heard one of his fellow musicians play a 'duff' note. He was a perfectionist - but what was perfection to him was not to others, as I have mentioned. His 'splices' sound like splices: different miking, different acoustic and soundstage positioing.
It is as if someone has pasted a new photograph of a performer over the same in an older photograph that was taken in a different location.
Anything the artist does is artistically valid. I just don't get the point you are making with this. It's like audiophiles banging on about recording quality. Would we really want every recording to be shiny and polished, to be as accurate as possible to real instruments in a real acoustic just so it 'sounds' better on our systems? Not me. The purpose of recorded music is not to make hi-fi systems sound good. Cart before the horse.
AJSki2fly
22-09-2020, 07:35
Anything the artist does is artistically valid. I just don't get the point you are making with this. It's like audiophiles banging on about recording quality. Would we really want every recording to be shiny and polished, to be as accurate as possible to real instruments in a real acoustic just so it 'sounds' better on our systems? Not me. The purpose of recorded music is not to make hi-fi systems sound good. Cart before the horse.
Hi Martin,
As you say music can’t make our systems sound better, unless it is engineered to do so. However some musicians do go to great lengths to get as close as possible to the original so the listener gets as good as possible listening experience. For example Ruggiero Ricci did a stunning recording of Paganini pieces in a studio with high end equipment that was recorded live and direct cut, the result is stunning. Alan Parsons as producer, engineer and musician has said he has always striven to get how it sounds and how the artist wants it sound to the listener on the end result. There are many others who have similar high standards.
So I think there are musicians who just put it out as it is, and you either get it, like it or don’t and then there are those that refine and polish it up to hope that it gets a better response, and as in my previous examples artists who want the listener to get the most they can from what they put out.
Sadly though with modern recording techniques a lot of crap is done to make music sound more commercial and airwave friendly, although aspects of that has probably always been done.
Hi Martin,
As you say music can’t make our systems sound better, unless it is engineered to do so. However some musicians do go to great lengths to get as close as possible to the original so the listener gets as good as possible listening experience.
I think they all do this but aiming for the most accurate and unadulterated recording is just one approach. Many/most artists apply all sorts of studio techniques to get the sound they want us to hear, and that can take the recording a long way from 'accuracy to real instruments'. But all approaches are valid.
I have the remixed and re-mastered version (SACD) of 'Let It Bleed'. I also have the original CD release. The remix/remastered version sounds 'better'. But I prefer to listen to the original.
AJSki2fly
22-09-2020, 08:25
I think they all do this but aiming for the most accurate and unadulterated recording is just one approach. Many/most artists apply all sorts of studio techniques to get the sound they want us to hear, and that can take the recording a long way from 'accuracy to real instruments'. But all approaches are valid.
I have the remixed and re-mastered version (SACD) of 'Let It Bleed'. I also have the original CD release. The remix/remastered version sounds 'better'. But I prefer to listen to the original.
Yep, I have several versions of Led Zep II and I think the original sounds sonically better or shall we say more enjoyable, even though the later remix CD seems to have more clarity/detail. I do have a few others though where the re-master is an improvement in experience, to my ears anyway.
The artist's intent is to express his feelings, emotions, and insights using the natural aspects of our musical tonal system, and words, often poetic.
Surely the artist relys on the monitors in the studio to determine whether the results are expressing his intent, and this may be, but often is not, an accurate representation of alive event.
We then attempt to reproduce this sound with our obsession with varying degrees of success.
Often remasters are done by people who have not experienced the original era in which the music was created, and that is an important part of any creation, the context. They may be told to remaster it to make it cleaner, brighter, or louder on average in order to get the attention of potential listeners who are fans of the original, but often the ethos can be lost.
There are certain bits of music which are created entirely to show off Hi-Fi systems, but I think this is declining in favour of the remaster process which of course results in re-buying and greater profits for the record companies.
AJSki2fly
22-09-2020, 09:09
The artist's intent is to express his feelings, emotions, and insights using the natural aspects of our musical tonal system, and words, often poetic.
Surely the artist relys on the monitors in the studio to determine whether the results are expressing his intent, and this may be, but often is not, an accurate representation of alive event.
We then attempt to reproduce this sound with our obsession with varying degrees of success.
Often remasters are done by people who have not experienced the original era in which the music was created, and that is an important part of any creation, the context. They may be told to remaster it to make it cleaner, brighter, or louder on average in order to get the attention of potential listeners who are fans of the original, but often the ethos can be lost.
There are certain bits of music which are created entirely to show off Hi-Fi systems, but I think this is declining in favour of the remaster process which of course results in re-buying and greater profits for the record companies.
All true, IMO[emoji846]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yep, I have several versions of Led Zep II and I think the original sounds sonically better or shall we say more enjoyable, even though the later remix CD seems to have more clarity/detail. I do have a few others though where the re-master is an improvement in experience, to my ears anyway.
Sonically the new one is clearly better. But I don't want that, I want to listen to the original album that they made, not some improved re-imagining even if it does sound better.
The flaws are an intrinsic part of the original work of art that was submitted for public consumption. Correcting them devalues the whole experience for me.
StingRay
22-09-2020, 11:25
Anything the artist does is artistically valid. I just don't get the point you are making with this. It's like audiophiles banging on about recording quality. Would we really want every recording to be shiny and polished, to be as accurate as possible to real instruments in a real acoustic just so it 'sounds' better on our systems? Not me. The purpose of recorded music is not to make hi-fi systems sound good. Cart before the horse.
Do we want everything compressed down to a few db just so it may sound ok in the car or on cheap earbuds? If you compress the sound down it won't be realistic at all.
Do we want everything compressed down to a few db just so it may sound ok in the car or on cheap earbuds? If you compress the sound down it won't be realistic at all.
if the original release was compressed to death then yes, that's what I want as that's intrinsic to the art. I don't care about 'realism' in the slightest. I accept whatever the artist produces. maybe the saxophone (for example) sounds real, maybe it has had a million studio effects applied to it. Doesn't matter to me. My interest starts at playback, not recording.
More often though you find it is the remaster that has more compression. Even if it is on SACD or some other so-called 'hi res format', which makes no sense.
AJSki2fly
22-09-2020, 16:15
if the original release was compressed to death then yes, that's what I want as that's intrinsic to the art. I don't care about 'realism' in the slightest. I accept whatever the artist produces. maybe the saxophone (for example) sounds real, maybe it has had a million studio effects applied to it. Doesn't matter to me. My interest starts at playback, not recording.
More often though you find it is the remaster that has more compression. Even if it is on SACD or some other so-called 'hi res format', which makes no sense.
Yep, hate it with compression!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Anything the artist does is artistically valid. I just don't get the point you are making with this. It's like audiophiles banging on about recording quality. Would we really want every recording to be shiny and polished, to be as accurate as possible to real instruments in a real acoustic just so it 'sounds' better on our systems? Not me. The purpose of recorded music is not to make hi-fi systems sound good. Cart before the horse.
I simply find these 'splices' jarring and out of place, and that for me detracts from my enjoyment. It has nothing at all to do with recording quality.
The flaws are an intrinsic part of the original work of art that was submitted for public consumption. Correcting them devalues the whole experience for me.
I take it you enjoy the Kingsway Hall 'rumble', due to the London Underground Piccadilly line running underneath? I find the Decca recordings where it appears to be unlistenable.
I take it you enjoy the Kingsway Hall 'rumble', due to the London Underground Piccadilly line running underneath? I find the Decca recordings where it appears to be unlistenable.
I only know it by reputation, I never listen to any classical.
There's the aeroplane at the start of 'Black Country Woman, but I quite like that.
paulf-2007
24-09-2020, 07:32
I think this. Much of it must be about the behaviour of materials at vibration. Consider a reed in a saxophone combined with the effect of the brass horn, compared with the gut or metal violin string amplified by the wooden structure, or the sinew of the human voice box. Asking a plastic or paper cone to simulate this must involve considerable compromises. It's about finding the material that can get as close to possible to the instruments you listen to.
I can see why some of the high end reviewers ignore rock and dance. How can you define how close the speakers get to the "real" sound when it can only exist amplified and played through speakers anyway. However, as much of what I listen to is that, then it's important to me that it's listenable!
Sent from my HRY-LX1 using Tapatalki was thinking along the same lines. Any instrument that is amplified can be replicated by a decent enough set up. Accoustic is a different thing and if it bothers you that much give up and take up cross stitching
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.