Generational reproduction. An audiophile discussion.

treitz3

LessisNevermore wrote: »

Signal path, or signal chain. Not intending to bust your chops on this, just trying to get our lingo on the same page.

No problem. I'm learning, just as I did in the original discussion many, many moons ago. Hopefully this thread will invoke the same passion and learning curve that took place way back then and it will let some folks realize what goes from the performance to the end result as to what hits your ears.

OK, so we have established that we have signal chains/paths and generations. That said, what would be the minimum to achieve the best sonic quality possible given what's already been mentioned in this thread?

heiney9

Listen to Jazz At The Pawnshop for a great minimalist recording.

treitz3

heiney9 wrote: »

Listen to Jazz At The Pawnshop for a great minimalist recording.

Hey Heiney, "Friday Night in San Fransico" by John Mc Laughlin, Al DiMeola and Paco DeLucia also sounds like a minimalist recording. I may be wrong, but it is as if they were there playing in front of me at home. I can tell where they sit [each of them], I can tell where the audience is and I can even tell where the guitar is being plucked and slid upon with each player in his own chair. Awesome. Simply awesome.

GREAT performance to boot. A lot of talent on that stage that night.

LessisNevermore

treitz3 wrote: »

No problem. I'm learning, just as I did in the original discussion many, many moons ago. Hopefully this thread will invoke the same passion and learning curve that took place way back then and it will let some folks realize what goes from the performance to the end result as to what hits your ears.

OK, so we have established that we have signal chains/paths and generations. That said, what would be the minimum to achieve the best sonic quality possible given what's already been mentioned in this thread?

I'm no pro, just a hobbyist-same as in hifi...so I'm learning as well.

As to the minimum number....it depends on what kind of sound you want to achieve, and the quality of the signal chain. Some incredible recordings have been done at a bare minimum, also very much, on the cheap.

I've bought into a minimalist approach to my own recordings, with regard to applied effects. I do like lots of microphones, because you can vary the combination, and end up with many more possible tones to use. As far as effects, I've learned from engineers that I've met/worked with, that the best use of effects, don't draw attention to themselves. But I'm leading off on a tangent here...

heiney9

Hey Heiney, "Friday Night in San Fransico" by John Mc Laughlin, Al DiMeola and Paco DeLucia also sounds like a minimalist recording. I may be wrong, but it is as if they were there playing in front of me at home. I can tell where they sit [each of them], I can tell where the audience is and I can even tell where the guitar is being plucked and slid upon with each player in his own chair. Awesome. Simply awesome.

GREAT performance to boot. A lot of talent on that stage that night.

GREAT, GREAT CD. I've had that cd since cd's were made. I have the remaster now, I should compare the two. One of my desert island cd's for sure.

Another great cd is Al DiMeola - Tour De Force Live. Steve Gadd on drums, Jan Hammer on keyboards.

steveinaz

It seems a pretty simple concept to me, but some apparently are getting wrapped around the axle a bit. Naming conventions and technical terms aside, I think the question is "What is the impact of various stages on the reproduction of audio, from the artist lips, to your ears?"

LessisNevermore

treitz3 wrote: »

Hey Heiney, "Friday Night in San Fransico" by John Mc Laughlin, Al DiMeola and Paco DeLucia also sounds like a minimalist recording. I may be wrong, but it is as if they were there playing in front of me at home. I can tell where they sit [each of them], I can tell where the audience is and I can even tell where the guitar is being plucked and slid upon with each player in his own chair. Awesome. Simply awesome.

GREAT performance to boot. A lot of talent on that stage that night.

Agreed, fantastic recording.

I consider it a minimalist recording, but purists may not. They were separately, close-mic'd, which gave the engineer the ability to 'place' them in space, and likely eq each a bit differently to give each their own 'voice' and avoid any cancellation. I can't find many pictures on the web from this show, to determine other microphones used and their placement. Usually a pair of boundary mics are used to capture the crowd.

A true 'minimalist recording would have been done with one mic.

heiney9

I have a particular favorite amateur recording I got from the Live Music Archive. The artisit is Charlotte Martin - Live at the Magic Stick.

http://www.archive.org/details/cmartin2007-10-08.aud.flac16

Very basic as you can see in the link the recorder lists equipment, etc. This is not the most dynamic recording........but there is an essence and a feel to the space and the music that I find very pleasing.

H9

P.s. Live Music Archive is a free web space dedicated to amateur live recordings of artist's with the artist's full consent. The artist's policy is part of each artist's homepage.

CoolJazz

Tom,

Right or not, here is how I look at it.

Generations is kind of an analog term and used to really mean something!

Now we probably should include as almost the same as the analog generational copy, every A/D and D/A conversion. Different artifacts, but just as relevant!

Transducers are usually very flawed on the overall scheme of things and would include the mic and at the other end, eventually, the speaker. A very big factor in the sonics. A good example is the mic difference demonstration recording on the Stereophile test disk. Huge differences between all very good mics. Don't remember which tesk disk number off the top of my head.

And instead of simply thinking of a "chain", I think of each electronics stage all the way through the elements in the chain as "nodes". So I think of the stages of an amplifier in terms of the gain elements and the supporting parts around them. So in a tube amp with an input gain stage, phase splitter, output stage and then the output transformer, I think of that as four "nodes". It's really three stages plus the transfomer, but by counting it in my mind as a node, I'm recognizing the inherent flaws and putting its importance on par with each of the other gain elements.

So rather than just generational, I think the important elements on what we get out the end of the process as, transducers, A/D & D/A passes, generations, and the number of electronic "nodes".

Of course, one of the biggest influences are purposeful distortions like EQ, electronic manipulation by effects boxes and naturally all AGC and level compression manipulation used. The lack of use of or the minimization of these various steps is why some labels, like Chesky or Opus 3, just simply sound like natural recordings.

Carry on...good discussion!

CoolJazz

Systems

Back in the good old analog days Sheffield Labs did a number of excellent direct to disc recordings (most reissued on CD).The cutterhead was cutting the grooves on the master in realtime.

vc69

LessisNevermore wrote: »

A true 'minimalist recording would have been done with one mic.

I mentioned the Cowboy Junkies - Trinity sessions earlier. One stereo mic. Bare in mind, the individual instruments were amplified and her vocals were mic'd and treated and amplified but the recording was done with one mic. That is the essence of a purist recording to me. Recorded like it would be heard by your ears. It's an amazing recording.

CoolJazz wrote: »

Tom,

Right or not, here is how I look at it.

<snip>

Carry on...good discussion!

CoolJazz

This is very much the way I look at this subject.
But for the purpose of discussion, the terminology is important. Digital copies and digital conversions are certainly different things.

treitz3

vc69 wrote: »

I mentioned the Cowboy Junkies - Trinity sessions earlier. One stereo mic. Bare in mind, the individual instruments were amplified and her vocals were mic'd and treated and amplified but the recording was done with one mic. That is the essence of a purist recording to me.

Wouldn't the essence of a purists recording have two microphones that were recording approximately about 8-9" apart? That would be closer to what a human's hearing would be, one would think. Or would it not work that way?

LessisNevermore

GV#27 wrote: »

Back in the good old analog days Sheffield Labs did a number of excellent direct to disc recordings (most reissued on CD).The cutterhead was cutting the grooves on the master in realtime.

I've had the pleasure of hearing one of these(Lincoln Mayorga)....they are truly incredible.

vc69 wrote: »

I mentioned the Cowboy Junkies - Trinity sessions earlier. One stereo mic. Bare in mind, the individual instruments were amplified and her vocals were mic'd and treated and amplified but the recording was done with one mic. That is the essence of a purist recording to me. Recorded like it would be heard by your ears. It's an amazing recording.....

While not a big fan of the band, I dig nice recordings...I'll try to get a listen.

I think it makes for better engineers, if they start with fewer resources. They have to rely on solid mic selection and placement technique. I think too many of them jump in with all the toys, and get caught up in them too much. (see:AutoTune)

LessisNevermore

treitz3 wrote: »

Wouldn't the essence of a purists recording have two microphones that were recording approximately about 8-9" apart? That would be closer to what a human's hearing would be, one would think. Or would it not work that way?

Too many variables for a strict rule of thumb, IMO. Depends on the size of the room, type of music, mics, etc. There are some very interesting recordings done with techniques similar to what you describe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording
I believe Peter Gabriel used it while recording Up......

mantis

jimmydep wrote: »

Part of this is how we as people listen to our music....at first we had vinyl, where we had a stereo set up in our home, with large speakers and good electronics. The sound engineers who mixed the music were taking this into consideration........

Now the consumer needed to go mobile so next is the 8 track and cassettes, all of the sudden we can take our music with us....car stereo's and boom boxes are now becoming popular, and let's not forget the Sony walkman, it was small, compact, and sounded like crap, but the masses loved them........

Now comes the digital era, magnetic media and vinyl are obsolete, and CD's are in, clean sounding, compact and easy to use and store, the new and improved generation of musical media....the masses fell in love again, no more pops and scratches, no more eaten tapes, the ability to play random tracks or just access a track instantly....Life was grand.......

Present day....the digital music file era, or better known as the "I-pod generation"......here we go, 1000's of mp3 files your entire music collection, on a device no bigger than a credit card. You now can easily connect to your home stereo, computer, car, or boom box. You can share your entire music collection with friends, no need to go to a store for your music, just download the SONG that you like, you don't even need a computer anymore, just a cell phone.

So what's next????? Has the quality of the recordings gotten better through the years, stayed the same, or gotten worse. It certainly has gotten easier to manage our music libraries.

But is all change for the better......


Jimmy

Thats one way to look at it. Good from a certain point of view. I can respect it.

I have seen all sides of reproduction. So I will go down my own road and share.
I have been a musician since I was 9 years old. I grew up in a musican family. Just about everyone plays something. My mom plays piano and sings like Barbara Striesand which is weird when I hear a Barbara song , I can hear my mom singing it. She is her favorite and she sings damn close. My Uncle plays the Drums , my nephew works in a recording studio and Dj's on the side, my other Nephew plays guitar , drums and sings , grandparents both sing and play piano etc etc the list goes on and on.
I have been in bands all my teenage years and put the guitar down for 13 years. A few years back I picked it up again as it has been burning inside me since the day I abandoned it. Today I work in the reproduction side for home theater and 2 channel/ Multichannel / whole house integration .
My latest adventure is being a soundman for my friends band. I'm actually coming into my own with it as I know music inside and out.So starting there in the thread is a pretty good place to add in. The musicain plays/sings, they get picked up by a mic or direct connection to a mixing board. This mixing board has tracks and many adjustements to redirect the sound any way I want. I have 2 to 4 monitors I can use on the floor so the band can hear whats going on. There is stage volume from the instruments themselves. There are many pic's. I'll keep it simple to 10 mic's. They are all on at the same time picking up there area. Drums have several mic's as they need to be of different kinds to pick up the kind of drum/cymbal. All of these mic's come to me and my board and my job is to send them to the main speakers left and right so the crowd and enjoy the music they play. So I have to bring in the drums , all of them. Change levels of all tracks so the drums sound like they do. Then I have to account for the volume they play at on stage and level that so people standing close don't get slammed. Guitars and bass have to be heard clear, bass and the bass drum has to be able to be heard by them selves even when everything is going on. I have to make sure when the singer sings , his voice is heard clear over top of all the instruments, crowd noise etc.
On my Mixing board or PA board , I have to add certain things to the monitors for who is using it , I have to make everyone happy in the band and then watch the reaction of the crowd to see if I have to increase or decrease anything while people move around , come and go.
I have this cool thing called "pan" on my board for each channel. I can move anything anywhere I choose in the "soundstage". So when you are out in the crowd " the sweet spot" I can have the singer dead center , the guitar off to the left , bass off to the right, drums "panning ' from left to right like when he does a "roll" I can make the "roll" move from left to right just as he moves around the drum set. I can put on cymbol in the right another in the left and mix and match as I see fit. I am god here and I make the sound stage exactly how I see fit.
This is what happens in a recording studio. A recording engineer has all these things to do. It's not easy at all. making a good clear recording is very difficult. It's just about the same as live music without the crowd and if you make a mistake you can do it again. Live it's not that simple. A recording studio has controlled acoustics. Clubs are a challenge, some are worse then others. Most suck and you have to deal with what you got. I care deeply how my band sounds so I go the extra mile and make sure when they play, they sound there best , the crowd completely enjoys the show and is not going home feeling like they have been pressurized all night.
Getting all this into your home 2 channel stereo system is not a easy task. You must follow the basic rules to reproduce what was and what now is.

I could go on and on about this topic. So much to talk about.

vc69

treitz3 wrote: »

Wouldn't the essence of a purists recording have two microphones that were recording approximately about 8-9" apart? That would be closer to what a human's hearing would be, one would think. Or would it not work that way?

IIRC, it was recorded with a Calrec stereo mic. Two diaphragms in an xy configuration. Very much like a pair of ears.

Here is a link to the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trinity_Session

It states they "gathered around a microphone". I'm not entirely sure about that but whatever. It is an amazing thing to listen to and is a benchmark for me with regard to that type of recording. The character of the instruments as well as the church were captured beautifully.

Btw... I'm not a huge fan either. This is the only disk I have of them.