or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › How is "tube sound" even audible in modern headphone amps?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How is "tube sound" even audible in modern headphone amps? - Page 8

post #106 of 380
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

Funny because out of curiosity I bought this "remastered" Led Zep album (II).

 

I've stopped chasing remastered versions long time ago. In most cases (except made by Steve Hoffman/DCC and some others) they're much worse than originals. So either original pressings (if they're good) or vinyl rips for me...

post #107 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post

Funny because out of curiosity I bought this "remastered" Led Zep album (II).

I find the original to sound alot better. Grittier, and just as detailed. This new one clearly saw some Protools use, bloomy DSPs all over the place, guitars lost their grit, bass is more prominent but unrealistic, Plant's voice is recessed. Another waste of money. Seems to me they took the old master, added effects here and there, and that was it.

Many people love two the best. For me anyway it has always been Led Zeppelin's first record. I've been listening to it from 1973 until now. At 11 years old I did not know who Zeppelin was but the tape found me.

I have listened to all three 24 bit / 96 kHz remasters and the sound is very different on the first album. I think the first album was a more conventional studio experience. Even though Jimmy Page was a notable celebrity guitar player from the Yard Birds they seemed to get more experimental with their sound on two and three. Going so far as to borrow the Rolling Stones mobile recording truck to record a large portion of three. I feel they were given more creative freedom once they became a phenomena. The first album is down to earth and just has a better and more consistent sound to me than two and three. Two and three have a very free drug fueled sound where one is maybe a more working mans record with the sound to go with it.

Everyone has their favorite Zep record and it's tied in with life experiences. At that time our ears were fresh and Zeppelin tapped into some primal emotion that we hence chased after in audio for the next 40 years. The remasters are different and some folks don't like their memories of the past messed with.
post #108 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post


Many people love two the best. For me anyway it has always been Led Zeppelin's first record. I've been listening to it from 1973 until now. At 11 years old I did not know who Zeppelin was but the tape found me.

I have listened to all three 24 bit / 96 kHz remasters and the sound is very different on the first album. I think the first album was a more conventional studio experience. Even though Jimmy Page was a notable celebrity guitar player from the Yard Birds they seemed to get more experimental with their sound on two and three. Going so far as to borrow the Rolling Stones mobile recording truck to record a large portion of three. I feel they were given more creative freedom once they became a phenomena. The first album is down to earth and just has a better and more consistent sound to me than two and three. Two and three have a very free drug fueled sound where one is maybe a more working mans record with the sound to go with it.

Everyone has their favorite Zep record and it's tied in with life experiences. At that time our ears were fresh and Zeppelin tapped into some primal emotion that we hence chased after in audio for the next 40 years. The remasters are different and some folks don't like their memories of the past messed with.

 

I don't see what any of this has to do with comparing the different masters for led zep II... For the record, my fav led zep album is also, and by far, led zep I. III is a distant second, then Coda, then II, then Houses of the Holy.


Edited by elmoe - 6/16/14 at 7:11am
post #109 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post

I don't see what any of this has to do with comparing the different masters for led zep II... For the record, my fav led zep album is also, and by far, led zep I. III is a distant second, then Coda, then II, then Houses of the Holy.


I just think of this new series one came out the best. I didn't really like the process on how it was done on two and three. I don't write much about what I think Jimmy Page did only because I don't know for sure. I agree that he may have come close to not just remastering but fully remixing the stuff.

What I was trying to write in response to your post is that I think the process outcome was very dependent on what the original tapes were like. So after hearing all three I just think the process worked well on one. Most of the time maybe 90% of the time the original vinyl or first CD is the best way to go. Especially if the stuff was made before the loudness and compression wars started.

One was just charming to me because I could hear stuff I never heard before.
post #110 of 380

If I had to choose only one Zep album to listen to for the rest of my life, I'd probably opt for seppeku because I would simply miss the other albums too much to go on living. I might be exaggerating a little, but only a little.

 

Cheers

post #111 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post

I believe you blame science for human parameters.
the lack of consistency has nothing to do with science, same for realism.
the guy in the studio will probably use several mics for one instrument and decide how to mix them all together by himself.
the imaging is also made up from scratch(except for some binaural albums).
you can't ask something built only to add gain, to magically recreate something that was never there to Begin with. an amp is an amp.
when you look at a picture, it would look a good deal more realistic if the light bulb in the room was in the same axis as the sun when the shot was made. nobody bothers with that, and in a studio they will use several light sources making realism impossible when looking at the shot. it's just not made with that purpose because realism would result in a big deal less information for us(too much contrast,burned parts or disgraceful shadows, weird shapes ...). same for audio, a real live performance actually doesn't sound very good to me. the dynamic is huge, the voice goes from not heard to loud, at some points an instrument will trample the others. we can be fans of live performances as a spectacle, but I for one don't look forward to hear that on my albums at home.
-because I would need to listen too loud to get the most of each songs.
-because a studio recording will usually save bad singers (did you try madonna live?).
-because the public cheers bother me
-because I mostly use headphones and any soundstage done in the master will be stretched and ruined to 180°(crossfeed doesn't totally make up for that).

and even if you take a binaural head, recording the entire band at once, the space will be good(if your own head is the same size as the dummy) but then each instrument could probably be recorded better with several mics or at least closer ones(trebles lost in the air).

most of those stuff will not progress much with time or science, because any 3D system will work perfectly only at a given position for 1 given human. if our heads are larger or smaller, it will not be perfect and thus, not natural. and also because it is not the first purpose of most studios to make binaural sound, most don't even try and focus on other factors. nothing to do with science in my opinion. (maybe we should go to the opera with 2mics in our ears and pray that our neighbors will keep quiet ^_^)
I would love to have a few albums recorded like that, but surely not most of them.

I think we accept that 2 bands will never play the same song exactly the same because they are artists(and not machines). the sound engineers IMO should count as members of that band. some are better than others, some have their own style, some have no creativity, and we don't have to love them all.


I have been thinking about the reality sounding of live recordings and our attempt at recreating it, Not just live but also studio recording emulating a live band. Really most early records were just a live recording in a way. They had a studio and put mics in before the invention of multi-track. Later artistic ideas were fleshed out with multiple takes and finally tones not even imaginable were created with tape manipulation and effects.

But getting back to recreating a believable live recreation with home audio.......


It may be close to impossible. Somehow we still can not make visual media totally believable either. And I like how you would rather listen to a live recording that diminishes the effects of audience sounds. So in essence it's a painting of the show not a photograph.

The scientific attitude is that anything maybe can be possible. This idea was and is, that a subject can be studied, understood and then conquered. That must have been the scientific attitude to put a man in space, then on the moon. But we still can't recreate so many living things and these live entities may have parallels to the live sonic event we hoped to synthesize in the home.
post #112 of 380
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post

But getting back to recreating a believable live recreation with home audio.......

 

Listening to a good binaural recording with my HD650 is pretty darn close, to be honest.

post #113 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by ab initio View Post

If I had to choose only one Zep album to listen to for the rest of my life, I'd probably opt for seppeku because I would simply miss the other albums too much to go on living. I might be exaggerating a little, but only a little.

Cheers


http://www.lezzeppelin.com. This is the only Zeppelin that makes me want to do myself in.


Quote:
Originally Posted by madwolfa View Post

Listening to a good binaural recording with my HD650 is pretty darn close, to be honest.

That's cool!
post #114 of 380

 deleted


Edited by mironathetin - 6/21/14 at 6:19am
post #115 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by mironathetin View Post
 

 deleted

It must have been a good one. :D

post #116 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post

http://www.lezzeppelin.com. This is the only Zeppelin that makes me want to do myself in.

Oh boy. Im not sure if i should follow the link!

Cheers
post #117 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post

But getting back to recreating a believable live recreation with home audio....... It may be close to impossible.

 

It's a lot easier than it used to be. The main problem is the directionality of sound. Headphones creating a space between your ears, or two channel speaker setups that create a horizontal line of sound in front of you don't give the scale or directionality that realistic imaging requires. Multichannel sound and DSPs to synthesize real sound fields are a huge leap forward in realism.

post #118 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

 

It's a lot easier than it used to be. The main problem is the directionality of sound. Headphones creating a space between your ears, or two channel speaker setups that create a horizontal line of sound in front of you don't give the scale or directionality that realistic imaging requires. Multichannel sound and DSPs to synthesize real sound fields are a huge leap forward in realism.

I haven't heard a synthesizer or stereo expander that I really liked. I think they mess up the FR too much. So far, I'll settle on using a good pair of open back cans and call it a day.

post #119 of 380

Multichannel DSPs are an entirely different kind of animal than a 2 channel processor for headphones, like cross feed. DSPs control the sound field left to right and front to back to create a dimensional soundstage that extends into the room and room ambience that extends behind you... not  just a single line of sound from left to right. DSPs can actually correct for certain problems in room acoustics.

 

As for response curves... You need to EQ each channel in a 5:1 system separately anyway, so you just EQ with the DSP on. The change in response is actually because of the way the room reacts to the sound field, it isn't really caused by the DSP itself.

 

5:1 is to stereo as stereo is to mono. It's a huge leap forward in realism. On my system, switching from 2 channel to 5:1 is a HUGE improvement. It isn't subtle at all. It's like the difference between headphones and a live performance in a small concert hall or club. The DSP actually makes the room sound bigger than it is, and the scale of the soundstage in front is brought up to human scale, not a small soundstage 8 feet wide.


Edited by bigshot - 6/21/14 at 1:23pm
post #120 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Multichannel DSPs are an entirely different kind of animal than a 2 channel processor for headphones, like cross feed. DSPs control the sound field left to right and front to back to create a dimensional soundstage that extends into the room and room ambience that extends behind you... not  just a single line of sound from left to right. DSPs can actually correct for certain problems in room acoustics.

 

As for response curves... You need to EQ each channel in a 5:1 system separately anyway, so you just EQ with the DSP on. The change in response is actually because of the way the room reacts to the sound field, it isn't really caused by the DSP itself.

 

5:1 is to stereo as stereo is to mono. It's a huge leap forward in realism. On my system, switching from 2 channel to 5:1 is a HUGE improvement. It isn't subtle at all. It's like the difference between headphones and a live performance in a small concert hall or club.

Are we were discusing home audio in context of headphones or speakers?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › How is "tube sound" even audible in modern headphone amps?