[rtaylor76]

Can mono recordings be said to have a soundstage? Or any imaging potential? Obviously hd800 is used for stereo recordings, but except for their detail retrieval, I'm not sure what the point is of using them on hissy mono records.

Yes. It just will be a deep soundstage, not very wide. Good soundstage on mono recordings will just have many layers and each instrument will not step or get in the way of each other. Listen to some of the old mono Frank Sinatra recordings with a good setup and you will understand.

 

[GearMe]

I didn't dare to react to baldr's post, but my brain froze for a second when I read it.
acoustic or digital, the guy mastering the album listens to it on speakers(or at times headphones). so of course this guy knows what everything sounds like, it sounds however he wants. ideally if we wish to know what anything should sound like, we must all listen to the album with his equipment in his room when he's finished the album, and not pretend that we know because we've heard the band live or because we played the guitar. that's irrelevant, the product we have as reference for fidelity is the final master, not the live performance.

You forgot a couple links in mastering engineer's audio chain...his ears and his brain.

Unless, of course, everyone's ears hear exactly like his and their brains interpret the sounds exactly like his as well!


So to my way of thinking, the science (i.e. measurement/fidelity) aspect of this really only helps to establish a sort of baseline which a lot of high-quality gear these days can achieve or surpass. In many objectivists' minds that serves to reaffirm that any equipment over pick your price-point/measurements/etc. is a waste of money. In many subjectivists' minds, there are a variety of valid reasons to spend more money whether it's better sound/equipment quality/brand/self-esteem/etc.

I take a blended approach that serves my preferences well; meaning that I'll pay a slight premium (i.e. $600 vs $200) for design concepts/customer support/etc. that make sense to me. Currently for me, Schiit is a leader in this market largely because of their overall approach...

Oh yeah, and I also like the way my music sounds through their stuff. Is it MultiBit or is it Memorex?

 

[ThePianoMan]

Well done mono can sometimes sound better than bad stereo. The Beatles for example is very fatiguing to listen to on headphones because of the weird phasing stuff they did with stereo. And some old mono just sits right in the center, boring on speakers, actually quite pleasant on headphones (illusion of imaging)

 

[castleofargh]

 

I didn't dare to react to baldr's post, but my brain froze for a second when I read it.
acoustic or digital, the guy mastering the album listens to it on speakers(or at times headphones). so of course this guy knows what everything sounds like, it sounds however he wants. ideally if we wish to know what anything should sound like, we must all listen to the album with his equipment in his room when he's finished the album, and not pretend that we know because we've heard the band live or because we played the guitar. that's irrelevant, the product we have as reference for fidelity is the final master, not the live performance.

You forgot a couple links in mastering engineer's audio chain...his ears and his brain.

Unless, of course, everyone's ears hear exactly like his and their brains interpret the sounds exactly like his as well!

So to my way of thinking, the science (i.e. measurement/fidelity) aspect of this really only helps to establish a sort of baseline which a lot of high-quality gear these days can achieve or surpass. In many objectivists' minds that serves to reaffirm that any equipment over pick your price-point/measurements/etc. is a waste of money. In many subjectivists' minds, there are a variety of valid reasons to spend more money whether it's better sound/equipment quality/brand/self-esteem/etc.

I take a blended approach that serves my preferences well; meaning that I'll pay a slight premium (i.e. $600 vs $200) for design concepts/customer support/etc. that make sense to me. Currently for me, Schiit is a leader in this market largely because of their overall approach...

Oh yeah, and I also like the way my music sounds through their stuff. Is it MultiBit or is it Memorex?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Jones Bob]

Well done mono can sometimes sound better than bad stereo. The Beatles for example is very fatiguing to listen to on headphones because of the weird phasing stuff they did with stereo. And some old mono just sits right in the center, boring on speakers, actually quite pleasant on headphones (illusion of imaging)

Mono works best with one speaker. Over 2 speakers, interaural crosstalk will mess with the perceived frequency and phase response.

78s played over a tube amp and single ALTEC VOTT can reveal incredible presence and depth in the reproduced sound.

 

[Baldr]

Well done mono can sometimes sound better than bad stereo. The Beatles for example is very fatiguing to listen to on headphones because of the weird phasing stuff they did with stereo. And some old mono just sits right in the center, boring on speakers, actually quite pleasant on headphones (illusion of imaging)

I am fairly certain that the Beatles records through at least the white album were originally recorded in mono.  This makes stereo reproduction flaked, formed, and speculatively regenerated.

 

[ThePianoMan]

I am fairly certain that the Beatles records through at least the white album were originally recorded in mono.  This makes stereo reproduction flaked, formed, and speculatively regenerated.

I believe you're correct Mike. I guess I should clarify I meant that the old Beatles records that have been re-mangled into stereo often don't sound so great, and sometimes the simple mono is A-ok even if it doesn't really image at all. None of the garbage phase artifacts of the early digital remasters.

The Beatles used high quality mica, generally top-notch studios, and good engineers/producers. The fidelity of the recordings is on the whole really great.

 

[kstuart]

 

Well done mono can sometimes sound better than bad stereo. The Beatles for example is very fatiguing to listen to on headphones because of the weird phasing stuff they did with stereo. And some old mono just sits right in the center, boring on speakers, actually quite pleasant on headphones (illusion of imaging)

I am fairly certain that the Beatles records through at least the white album were originally recorded in mono.  This makes stereo reproduction flaked, formed, and speculatively regenerated.

No, the Beatles records prior to the White Album were mixed in Mono.  The mid-60's ones prior to the White Album were also mixed in stereo by George Martin after the mono mix was done.
 
The White Album was the one where the Beatles themselves acknowledged stereo, and they did both Stereo and Mono mixes intentionally - except for Revolution 9 which was only done in Stereo (and folded down for Mono).   The mono mix was not released in the US.
 
After the White Album, all the Beatles albums were only released in stereo.
 
For those who don't know, the 2009 remasters are widely considered to be definitive - very carefully and thoughtfully done over a very long period of time.

 

[JohnBal]

 
No, the Beatles records prior to the White Album were mixed in Mono.  The mid-60's ones prior to the White Album were also mixed in stereo by George Martin after the mono mix was done.
 
The White Album was the one where the Beatles themselves acknowledged stereo, and they did both Stereo and Mono mixes intentionally - except for Revolution 9 which was only done in Stereo (and folded down for Mono).   The mono mix was not released in the US.
 
After the White Album, all the Beatles albums were only released in stereo.
 
For those who don't know, the 2009 remasters are widely considered to be definitive - very carefully and thoughtfully done over a very long period of time.

+1

 

[kstuart]

More info:
 
"The first two Beatles albums, Please Please Me and With The Beatles, were recorded on the BTR two track machines; with the introduction of four-track machines in 1963 (the first 4-track Beatles recording was "I Want to Hold Your Hand") there came a change in the way recordings were made—tracks could be built up layer by layer, encouraging experimentation in the multitrack recording process.
In 1968 eight-track recorders became available, but Abbey Road was somewhat slow in adopting the new technology and a number of Beatles tracks (including "Hey Jude") were recorded in other studios in London to get access to the new eight-track recorders."
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_recording_technology

 

[US Blues]

A bit more on the introduction and use of multitrack recorders (and a tip of the hat to the title of this thread):
 
In late 1968 the first Ampex 16 track machines appeared at a couple of Bay Area studios. Naturally, the freaks dragged one to the Winterland Theater for the 1968 New Year's Eve show, but the recording was unusable. Undeterred, the Grateful Dead used the same machine in January and February of 1969 to record the first live album made with a 16 track machine- "Live Dead."

 

[bosiemoncrieff]

Who's your favorite Brünnhilde?
 
Nilsson gets a lot of well-deserved attention, but I'm curious if there are any unknown gems that I haven't heard of. You can find my like two year old review of the discography here, but I don't look past the end of Nilsson's career. Flagstad is famous, though by 1950 she was at the very end of her career and ducked all of the high Cs. By my count we have more records of Astrid Varnay than anyone else, including Nilsson. They are what might be called the Big 3. 
 
Closer to my heart are two exceedingly moving singing actresses. Martha Mödl, a mezzo with a very high extension, sings most famously in Furtwängler's 1953 Rome cycle, but also in Keilberth's 1953 Bayreuth cycle (Krauss leads Varnay that year in one of the other cycles—it was "the" year for the Ring, just as '52 was "the" year for Tristan). In '54 she sings Sieglinde to Varnay's Brunnhilde (and Nilsson's Ortlinde!), and by '55 her voice is grasping at high Cs that don't want to appear.You can check out her Immolation scene changes between 1953, 1955 and 1966.
 
My vote for finest Brünnhilde (and soprano) of all time, though, is Frida Leider. The loss of all but a handful of Furtwangler's performances in Covent Garden and Bayreuth in 1937 are the largest loss in the history of Wagner recording, not least for her Siegfrieds, Melchior and Lorenz. But her voice is this magical thing capable of extraordinary lightness and delicacy as well as gleaming power. If Nilsson is a stout, Leider is champagne. Here are variously her hojotojo, her 1933 Met liebestod, dich teure halle, and best of all her immolation scene.

 

[judmarc]

   
 
 
Mahler was my gateway to classical music.  Whereas I believe I am being objective, my Mahler preferences may be inspired at least partially by sentiment.  I've had difficulty appreciating the Second Viennese School.  I used to believe it was best played to drive out unwanted company, even given my hard science academic background.  I then was born again thanks to Moses und Aaron.  As a result of our exchange, I have been listening to the Furtwangler/Flagstad/Suthaus Tristan und Isolde and am re-amazed.  Next up is my favorite forest bird, Dawn Upshaw in Gorecki's 3rd. 
 
I will soon again listen to Meistersinger and listen for the theme you mention.

 
I think I have Gorecki's 3rd around here - must dig it out.
 
For Mahler fans: https://www.digitalconcerthall.com/en/live

 

[johnjen]

Ok so here is a serious question that as far as I can tell has no single answer, at least it seems like it has either, one really basic answer, or is so complex it has to have 'several'.
 
And I figure that there are at least a 'few' musicolologists all hooked into this thread, so here goes…
 
Question;
Where does the music reside?
 
And granted I don't ask this question very much, mostly because I doubt anyone other than true musicolologists would have ever even cogitated this in any way shape or form…
 
But really, where does it reside?
 
JJ

 

[castleofargh]

  Ok so here is a serious question that as far as I can tell has no single answer, at least it seems like it has either, one really basic answer, or is so complex it has to have 'several'.
 
And I figure that there are at least a 'few' musicolologists all hooked into this thread, so here goes…
 
Question;
Where does the music reside?
 
And granted I don't ask this question very much, mostly because I doubt anyone other than true musicolologists would have ever even cogitated this in any way shape or form…
 
But really, where does it reside?
 
JJ

I imagine you're looking for more than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music , so care to elaborate what exactly is your question? the science behind sound? the taste for a given type of sound(dissonance, it has been found, can depend on cultural background), some kind of belief that music has a soul or more than what can be measured as often believed on headfi(and is false of course)? how many notes start forming a music(I guess asking the copyright laws would kind of work on that one ^_^)? it could go in any direction.