[Rally555]

Hey Frank, on the mono issues what is really nice.  When I record two track stereo on the Nagra IVS I use a QGB reel adaptor which accepts 10 inch reels.  I record at Nagra Master 15 speed.  I still hear a little tape hiss but the frequency response is very nice.  But when I record on the Nagra IV mono I record at 7 1/2 speed and the frequency response unbelievable hardly any tape hiss.  Sound is incredible!  Again I'm looking forward to next semester using the Nagra IV mono.  I'm going to start a new library of mono recordings.  Old school.  Long live analog!

 

[Frank I]

 
Quote:

Your post was difficult to read, so I'm going to answer what I can.  I've heard Floyd, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Coltrane, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix, Rush, Parliament, and The Who, and out of all of these artists, none do not suffer from the lack of soundstage or generally poor (in comparison to modern recording) recording quality.  The vinyl versions may sound better because of the warmth and dynamics associated, but there is no reason that digital recordings cannot do the exact same thing.  Digital does not suffer from any of the issues that analog did.  Here's a better formulated response to the whole 'digital is crap' thing: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf
 
 

You stated that the 60 and 70 recordings wer bad and that they were mono. It was incorrect and If you want more check out all the recordings on prestige in Jazz and we can debate this forever. Digital has come a long way and in many ways the dynamic range is so much better but listen to early digital and sy it was good it was bad. But not to derail there were few mono in the 60's and 70's most were stereo and many were well recorded. Now back to the LCD2 thread. the LCD2 will let you know whats good or bad and I never said digital was crap so I responded to your mono and poor recordings and crossfeed which IMO is flat out wrong.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

No headphone can do all genres perfectly.  Every genre requires a headphone to have a certain tonal balance for it to excel in producing the music.  My D7000s, although likely far less accurate than a pair of HD800s, are also likely far better suited for heavy metal or rock.
 
 

 
I don't have this experience at all.  I don't want my guitar any airier, bassier, thumpier, lumpier, dryer, heavier, thicker or hairier than I do my cellos, my vocals, my drums, or any other musical apparatus. 
 
Headphone jumping between genres comes from colorations in the headphone's sound signature that "enhance" (as I was saying in my post above about "hyper-reality") certain characteristics of genres like the airiness of acoustic guitar or the thump of techno.  These colorations only work with certain genres and not for others.  A neutral headphone sounds good with all genres, but since it does not have this enhancing quality it may loose out to other headphones with specific genres if you are looking for that enhanced, hyper-real sound.  (IMO)  I'm not saying the LCD-2 is perfect.  It seems to me that the JH13 must be close to a neutral reference because everyone seems to love them. 
 
 
Quote:

Just to clarify - soundstage isn't the issue that I'm talking about. I'm talking about the subtractive nature of the LCD-2 where it doesn't convey the full detail of acoustic instruments. This is evident to me when compared to ALL top headphones that I own (T1, HE-6, HD800, SR-007), not just one.
 

The fact that you only have this problem with acoustic music is a bit curious to me.  If it was something the LCD-2 was doing, I think it would be audible on all genres.  I mean a headphone can't possibly do something only with specific instruments unless it's just certain frequency ranges.  But rock music contains all the same frequency range as acoustic.  Maybe you just don't like the LCD-2 in general though, and that's cool.

 

[Phasey]

Quote:

The LCD2 will let you hear differences in the recordings as all reference can do well. For me its all about quality recordings and I can listen to poor qualitry on any reference can but one thing the LCD2 did was hide sibilance i still cant figure out how that was done.

  Maybe by rolling off the high end?
 
 

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

I just thought we all need to read this one more time.

 

 

[Wedge]

Digital isn't crap, but purely from an engineering standpoint digital can only be discretized analog.  So from a technical point of view a recording done in both analog and digital, the digital can only be a sampling of what the analog is, with that said has some technological improvements been made, sure they have.  Is analog crap, by all means no, hiss, cracks, pops, its a downside to analog sure, but with all things that are technical, there are trade offs.  Discreet samples on one hand, analog hiss, cracks, pops on the other.  If you are comparing two recordings that aren't really equal than the comparison isn't fair, generalized statements aren't really fair at the level that most people here are listening at.

 

[Frank I]

Quote:

  Maybe by rolling off the high end?
 
 

Maybe someone can understand that but if they are studio monitors should they not portray what is exactly on the recording instead of hiding the recording issue as I know albums I had that were poor recordings and sibilant sounded great and only on the LCD2. Neat trick they accomplished.
 

 

[Skylab]

And again, the LCD-2 do NOT roll off the highs. They are shelved down versus the mids/bass, but they are NOT rolled off.

 

[Phasey]

Quote:

And again, the LCD-2 do NOT roll off the highs. They are shelved down versus the mids/bass, but they are NOT rolled off.

Shelved, yes...I meant shelved highs.  Sorry, my bad.

 

[googleli]

When it comes to comparison with live music you need speakers, not headphones.

 

[Permagrin]

When it comes to comparison with live music you need speakers, not headphones.

And mic'ed solely from the 'listener's' position right? Makes sense.

 

[Rally555]

Not necessarily.  When I do my live recordings, I'm using my DT 48 stereo headphones to monitor.  After the concert I'll playback through my monitor speakers which sounds very nice.  But I have to tell you when I playback through my DT 48 headphones I'm hearing detailed sound like the students tapping the notes on their instruments as well as inhale and exhale noise.  The sound pickup is that detailed.  I'm very new at this Headfi site I wasn't meaning to chime in but you had to bring up analog and digital issues.  So I had to participate too.  

 

[Permagrin]

Not necessarily.  When I do my live recordings, I'm using my DT 48 stereo headphones to monitor.  After the concert I'll playback through my monitor speakers which sounds very nice.  But I have to tell you when I playback through my DT 48 headphones I'm hearing detailed sound like the students tapping the notes on their instruments as well as inhale and exhale noise.  The sound pickup is that detailed.  I'm very new at this Headfi site I wasn't meaning to chime in but you had to bring up analog and digital issues.  So I had to participate too.  

Hmm, I'm not familiar with those monitors, but obviously the speakers aren't as resolving as you should notice everything as with the headphones, all things considered.

 

[sferic]

"Live Music" vs "Recorded Music"... I've been to many (too many) live music shows where the half-deaf sound board guy totally ruined the experience. And a very few where it's great. That's rare and requires great music, great musicians, a great physical space, and a great position within that physical space.
 
A well-recorded live performance has emotion, wonder, humanity, and presence that a multi-tracked, processed recording can't have. And a well-recorded multi-tracked, processed recording has detail, intimacy, slam, and a kind of perfection that a live performance can't have.
 
But... this argument reminds me of my childhood in the 60's, when they brought in this crazy thing called a "Moog" and the teacher said, many people say, what it produces it not considered music by many professionals.
 
I'm tempted to argue that for most of us now, recorded music IS live music. At the very least, it's an art form unto itself. P Glass has always credited his engineers as musicians, and the good ones are. Their instruments may not have strings, drums, or mouthpieces, but a great sound engineer does as much to bring us close to the neurons in the composer's brain as a great pianist in a great hall.
 
I'd argue that if you can bring the composer/artists thoughts, feelings, intentions, in a live performance, in a physical venue - you've done your job well. If you do it thru technology and recording - you've done your job well.
 
There is some incredible music, that simply can't be performed live and in a physical space. What's wrong with that? Why confine art within the limitations of the past?
 
What I think we all agree on, is we don't like it when musical reproduction equipment tries to make everything you hear sound like the flavor of the month. The best reproducing equipment lets it be, what it was meant to be.
 
 

 

[visualguy]

 
Quote:

The fact that you only have this problem with acoustic music is a bit curious to me.  If it was something the LCD-2 was doing, I think it would be audible on all genres.  I mean a headphone can't possibly do something only with specific instruments unless it's just certain frequency ranges.  But rock music contains all the same frequency range as acoustic.  Maybe you just don't like the LCD-2 in general though, and that's cool.

I'm sure this issue applies not just to acoustic instruments - for example, the disappearing sibilance that Frank mentioned is another manifestation of the same subtractive quality of the LCD-2. You just don't hear the full detail of the recording. I was focusing on acoustic instruments because they have very rich and complex details to their sound, so they are vulnerable to the glossing effect of the LCD-2.