[gregorio]

  would you kindly point out the objective criteria that make your "close to an ideal perception of a performance" more lifelike and spatially accurate than the "sound waves from the best seat in the house"?

 
I'm not sure what you mean by "objective criteria", at least as it would apply to creating a better subjective recording? When we're at a live performance of say an orchestra, what we perceive is based on a whole bunch of biases. Even if we're sitting in the best seat in the house we do not accurately perceive the "sound waves from the best seat in the house". Using your example of spacial accuracy for example, the brain will tend to reduce the perceived amount of reverb and concentrate more on the direct sound of what you're looking at (the orchestra). Likewise, if we look at a particular musician in the orchestra, our brain will tend to focus more on the sound of that musician and in effect raise the perceived level of that musician relative to the other musicians. The brain will also tend to significantly reduce the volume of background noise (inc. audience noise), unless there's a noise which is not part of the brain's already accepted/masked pattern of background noise, a fact which is also of particular significance in film sound.
 
When listening to an audio recording we obviously don't have those visual cues of the live performance and therefore our perception is always going to be different, even if the recording were a perfectly accurate capture of the sound waves at that seating position. There are additional biases at a live performance which affect our perception, biases which have nothing to do with audio and can therefore never be captured by an audio recording, the excitement and expectation bias of a live performance should be obvious examples. It should be obvious to anyone that audio formats beyond human hearing are not the answer, nor is an old, fringe stereo mic technique.
 

  Well, that tack of creating as close to an ideal perception of a performance than just capturing the actual sound waves from the best seat in the house involves compromise(s) - more ( usually much more ) than 2 mikes, mixing desk, processing, plugins, etc, etc - which is as perfect recipe for the disaster as one might possibly think of. It will invariably impair the personal decisions how it should sound - by whoever is doing it; at best, it would be a "fake according to ...." and not the reproduction of the real thing.

 
Yes, it does involve compromises, it virtually always does, the question is; which provides the least compromises? Virtually no commercial recordings of large acoustic ensembles use just a stereo pair any more, because the compromises are too great! I understand that complex multi-mic'ing arrays, mixing desks and processing is apparently beyond your knowledge/ability and would therefore be "as perfect a recipe for disaster" as you personally can think of. However, there's quite a few educated, skilled and experienced pro recording engineers out there who aren't so scared/ignorant of the standard tools of the trade.
 
Yes, I'm aware of the "fake according to ..." crowd. Fortunately they are a fringe minority with no influence and pretty much everyone in the industry just ignores them as a bunch of nutters, the only exceptions being those few in the industry specifically trying to exploit those nutters. What's more fake than using imperfect headphones/speakers in a completely different environment to reproduce sound waves which no one at the performance perceived anyway?
 

 
It takes a fair use of one*s "processor" between the ears - provided the said processor is not brainwashed/brain dead from the results of the modern mainstream education - even after rebooting it several times.

 
Agreed. Although there is something even worse than a brainwashed victim of mainstream audio education, a brainwashed audiophile! At least the victim of education should have a basic understanding of the science, even though they often can't apply it creatively. The audiophile on the other hand doesn't even have that, as demonstrated by statements which apparently seem perfectly logical to them but completely insane to anyone with even a high school education!
 
G

 

[analogsurviver]

   
Thanks for your explanation, I stand corrected. They still sound amazingly lifelike and spatially convincing to me, and less clinical than e.g. the Chesky recordings I've heard (admittedly though, that's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison). The Mozart Requiem in particular is easily among my favorite recordings of this piece.

I agree with your observation regarding Chesky recordings , which were/are mainly recorded and produced by Bob Katz. 
 
You can believe me I did not like the fact that the  technically even far better recording of Pergolesi*s Stabat Mater from the same venue as used for Mozart/Czerny Requiem will never see the light of day in its entirety - because of the playing. Not a single bit ... 
 
I am looking forward to forthcoming recordings with the new lineup of VAL - both under "studio" conditions in our best concert hall, the big hall of Cankarjev Dom 
http://www.cd-cc.si/en/
 

 
with a stellar piano accompanist who is a professor at Mozarteum and one of the top tenors of our days as soloist - as well as live concert in the church of St.Jacob (a couple of days later ) - where the Requiem has been recorded live.
 
It is nice to be again recording two of my former CD customers : the conductor and the solo tenor.  We are remaining in close relationship from the day they first put a foot in "my" shop. 

 

[analogsurviver]

   
I'm not sure what you mean by "objective criteria", at least as it would apply to creating a better subjective recording? When we're at a live performance of say an orchestra, what we perceive is based on a whole bunch of biases. Even if we're sitting in the best seat in the house we do not accurately perceive the "sound waves from the best seat in the house". Using your example of spacial accuracy for example, the brain will tend to reduce the perceived amount of reverb and concentrate more on the direct sound of what you're looking at (the orchestra). Likewise, if we look at a particular musician in the orchestra, our brain will tend to focus more on the sound of that musician and in effect raise the perceived level of that musician relative to the other musicians. The brain will also tend to significantly reduce the volume of background noise (inc. audience noise), unless there's a noise which is not part of the brain's already accepted/masked pattern of background noise, a fact which is also of particular significance in film sound.
 
When listening to an audio recording we obviously don't have those visual cues of the live performance and therefore our perception is always going to be different, even if the recording were a perfectly accurate capture of the sound waves at that seating position. There are additional biases at a live performance which affect our perception, biases which have nothing to do with audio and can therefore never be captured by an audio recording, the excitement and expectation bias of a live performance should be obvious examples. It should be obvious to anyone that audio formats beyond human hearing are not the answer, nor is an old, fringe stereo mic technique.
 
 
Yes, it does involve compromises, it virtually always does, the question is; which provides the least compromises? Virtually no commercial recordings of large acoustic ensembles use just a stereo pair any more, because the compromises are too great! I understand that complex multi-mic'ing arrays, mixing desks and processing is apparently beyond your knowledge/ability and would therefore be "as perfect a recipe for disaster" as you personally can think of. However, there's quite a few educated, skilled and experienced pro recording engineers out there who aren't so scared/ignorant of the standard tools of the trade.
 
Yes, I'm aware of the "fake according to ..." crowd. Fortunately they are a fringe minority with no influence and pretty much everyone in the industry just ignores them as a bunch of nutters, the only exceptions being those few in the industry specifically trying to exploit those nutters. What's more fake than using imperfect headphones/speakers in a completely different environment to reproduce sound waves which no one at the performance perceived anyway?
 
 
Agreed. Although there is something even worse than a brainwashed victim of mainstream audio education, a brainwashed audiophile! At least the victim of education should have a basic understanding of the science, even though they often can't apply it creatively. The audiophile on the other hand doesn't even have that, as demonstrated by statements which apparently seem perfectly logical to them but completely insane to anyone with even a high school education!
 
G

I am aware there is quite a few educated, skilled and experienced pro recording engineers out there - but who said the standard tools of the trade were the best ? Or the thinking one is forced to use in order to be able to use those standard tools of the trade ? 
 
If I listen to practically all and any commercially available recordings, I can hear those "standard tools of the trade" - and not in a positive way. What is more, I would practically never use any of those - because not only they are useless,  but put more correctly, in 99.9% of cases they are detrimental to quality sound. It is true that I do not have practically any knowledge of complex multi mike arrays - because I have yet to hear a convincing naturally sounding recording done this way. Sorry, if something does not sound right - and I mean fundamentally un-right or wrong - I have little interest of investigating an obviously inherently flawed approach; let alone studying it and throwing money and time into this bottomless pit. 
 
All of the above can be recorded with two microphones - and reproduced on quality 2-channel system. But you have to throw the "business as usual, using standard tools of the trade" book away - as far as you possibly can.
 
Often good conceptcs did not come trough because of the poor execution of the idea back then when they originated - usually because the technology has not been at an acceptably (enough ) high level at the time. Which certainly does not dismiss them in theory - or practically in real life using present day techniques and materials.
 
Most educated/skilled/experienced pro sound engineers would never gather the courage to modify and/or develop their recording rig from ground up - and try as you might, using stock equipment will produce good, acceptable results - but it will never provide for the truly outstandingly great ones. None of the top recording engineers I have heard (of) use off the shelf commercially available equipment in stock form.
 
The degree of attention to the minutest detail I use in modifying equipment made by others - or designing my own -  goes way beyond the comprehension of most pro engineers. No school available can teach them experience I gathered in the last 4 decades of tinkering with audio - with constant reference to the real thing, sound heard live.

 

[StanD]

  I am aware there is quite a few educated, skilled and experienced pro recording engineers out there - but who said the standard tools of the trade were the best ? Or the thinking one is forced to use in order to be able to use those standard tools of the trade ? 
 
If I listen to practically all and any commercially available recordings, I can hear those "standard tools of the trade" - and not in a positive way. What is more, I would practically never use any of those - because not only they are useless,  but put more correctly, in 99.9% of cases they are detrimental to quality sound. It is true that I do not have practically any knowledge of complex multi mike arrays - because I have yet to hear a convincing naturally sounding recording done this way. Sorry, if something does not sound right - and I mean fundamentally un-right or wrong - I have little interest of investigating an obviously inherently flawed approach; let alone studying it and throwing money and time into this bottomless pit. 
 
All of the above can be recorded with two microphones - and reproduced on quality 2-channel system. But you have to throw the "business as usual, using standard tools of the trade" book away - as far as you possibly can.
 
Often good conceptcs did not come trough because of the poor execution of the idea back then when they originated - usually because the technology has not been at an acceptably (enough ) high level at the time. Which certainly does not dismiss them in theory - or practically in real life using present day techniques and materials.
 
Most educated/skilled/experienced pro sound engineers would never gather the courage to modify and/or develop their recording rig from ground up - and try as you might, using stock equipment will produce good, acceptable results - but it will never provide for the truly outstandingly great ones. None of the top recording engineers I have heard (of) use off the shelf commercially available equipment in stock form.
 
The degree of attention to the minutest detail I use in modifying equipment made by others - or designing my own -  goes way beyond the comprehension of most pro engineers. No school available can teach them experience I gathered in the last 4 decades of tinkering with audio - with constant reference to the real thing, sound heard live.

A Recording Engineer, top or otherwise, is not an EE, thus is not going to have the skills necessary to properly modify electronic equipment. It is more likely that he or she will end up worse off.

 

[gregorio]

  [1] ... but who said the standard tools of the trade were the best ?
[2] Or the thinking one is forced to use in order to be able to use those standard tools of the trade ? 
 
[3] If I listen to practically all and any commercially available recordings, I can hear those "standard tools of the trade" - and not in a positive way.
[4] What is more, I would practically never use any of those - because not only they are useless,  but put more correctly, in 99.9% of cases they are detrimental to quality sound.
[5] It is true that I do not have practically any knowledge of complex multi mike arrays - because I have yet to hear a convincing naturally sounding recording done this way.
[6] Sorry, if something does not sound right - and I mean fundamentally un-right or wrong - I have little interest of investigating an obviously inherently flawed approach; let alone studying it and throwing money and time into this bottomless pit. 
 
[7] All of the above can be recorded with two microphones - and reproduced on quality 2-channel system. But you have to throw the "business as usual, using standard tools of the trade" book away - as far as you possibly can.
 
[8] The degree of attention to the minutest detail I use in modifying equipment made by others - or designing my own -  goes way beyond the comprehension of most pro engineers.

 
1. Everyone who uses them, everyone who employ those who use them and everyone who buys the products made by those who use them. You obviously don't know how standard tools of the trade become "standard".
2. Only someone who is brainwashed would think others are forced into a way of thinking.
3. Of course you can hear them and of course they're not positive, your an audiophile, you couldn't possibly say any different and still be an audiophile!
4. Yep, that's what all us real pros do for a living, waste our time using useless tools, deliberately trying to degrade sound quality.
5. Convincing to an audiophile, no problem: Say it was recorded with the world's most expensive tube/interconnects/power cords/DAC, that the resolution up to 50MHz is femtotastic, distort the signal some and add some more pseudo-science BS .
6. Yep, the trouble with brainwashed audiophiles (or pretty much anyone brainwashed) is that they don't realise they're brainwashed and are therefore not interested in educating themselves out of being brainwashed.
7. Huh, stereo mic'ing was business as usual for many years but that book was thrown away and superseded decades ago, you seem to be arguing against yourself!
8. Not only the comprehension of most pro engineers but the comprehension of pretty much any sane person with a modicum of sound science understanding!
 
We're not going to get anywhere, the recording you posted (where you only had 10 mins to position a mic) I think sounds atrocious, I would have been too ashamed to even let my closest confidant hear it, let alone post it on a public forum. But you're an audiophile, to you it sounds great, better even than one of the most respected audio engineers on the planet, who you disparage. You marvel at your ultrasonic content that us mere humans can't even hear, let alone appreciate, while being oblivious to horrendous noises us humans find unacceptable. You are never going to be convinced by the likes of me or by science, facts, the industry or even common sense, there are enough similarly brainwashed audiophiles to maintain your unwavering belief in your superhuman abilities. Why bother investigating or studying the science and how recording is done professionally when you're superhuman and therefore the science doesn't apply to you anyway? But then why come to the science forum, surely it's beneath you? And why do so many of your posts sound like nothing more than you advertising yourself, surely your time would be better spent marketing to gullible audiophiles rather than to us on this forum?
 
G

 

[castleofargh]

headfi has rules, if you find that posts are getting out of hand, please flag them and pufffff better than Copperfield:
  <----- summoning the high quality modo buddy Vulcan 300  "good for you Gash, no one has a friend like that".
 
I know it's hard, but guys, try to defeat the argument and not the people. analogsurviver did drag us into his life and that was IMO a mistake because now everything is related to his life and job in some ways. but let's stay civil. I'm such a passive modo but I'm starting to consider just removing the last few days of this topic and be done with it. "the voices, the voices made me do it!!!".

 

[Brooko]

[Mod Comment]
 
I'm going to go one further than Castle.  If you can't keep these threads civil - then I'll simply start removing people.  And I'll do it by the rules.  EG you make a personal attack - you get evicted.  That goes for everyone. And Analogue Survivor - do you really need to be here?  I would suggest that your presence here borders on trolling.  Posting what you're posting in a thread where objectivists gather is simply non constructive.  If you want to carry on this type of discussion - start your own thread.  For now - you are being evicted from this thread.
 
No more personal attacks OK guys.  You know the rules.

 

[StanD]

Now that order has been restored, someone should pick a new topic for discussion.
Or how about why is a 16 bit R2R ladder DAC thought to be better than a Delta Sigma DAC? I think I may have brought up in this thread that many of those singing praise to R2R (Multi-Bit) previously thought their favorite D/S DAC was the bee's knees (cat's meow) and now it can't touch the new kid on the block.

 

[Argyris]

Could it possibly be the vinyl factor? The idea that an older technology has some intangible quality about it that makes it "better" than later technology. If so, then I wonder what other blasts from the past we'll be seeing resurrected and praised.
 
Or maybe it's the Apple effect, since Schiit has used this technology and bragged about it in their flagship DAC, so now it's suddenly the "in" thing.
 
Maybe next somebody will make a high-end DAC from discrete resistors instead of a chip, claiming that it's "warmer" or more "organic" or "fruitier" or whatever than the Analog Devices AD5791 Schiit is using.
 
Speaking of which, I found the AD5791 on Mouser. Anybody able to explain why the three different versions of it cost vastly different amounts? The spec sheets and associated links look identical across all three.

 

[cel4145]

Now that order has been restored, someone should pick a new topic for discussion.
Or how about why is a 16 bit R2R ladder DAC thought to be better than a Delta Sigma DAC? I think I may have brought up in this thread that many of those singing praise to R2R (Multi-Bit) previously thought their favorite D/S DAC was the bee's knees (cat's meow) and now it can't touch the new kid on the block.

The most obvious answer seems the most likely: because the marketing prose told them it was better.

 

[StanD]

I remember reading some posts by some guys with some vintage R2R DACs claiming they were, in magical audiophile terms, far better than any of the current D/S DACs. Sometimes stuff like this takes on a life of its own and spins out of control. Suddenly people are searching for used vintage R2R DACs and having out of body experiences with their new found treasures.
Once there is a demand, some companies will make the product, engage in marketing spin and charge appropriately. Schiit has produced a number of products, including upgrade plugin boards in a variety of product classes at uncommonly low prices, so at least they aren't into gouging their customers' wallets. Even so I am not temped to upgrade my Bifrost Uber to R2R or the newer D/S plugin board. I will also assert that my other D/S DACs are not in any danger.

 

[Ruben123]

But is there a difference between the DACs? I don't care I'd it measures better, if it sounds the same why would anybody care? Never heard that one shouldn't buy old CD players or so. Only the very old ones maybe but even then I'm not sure. They are tested right?

 

[james444]

... but I'm starting to consider just removing the last few days of this topic and be done with it. "the voices, the voices made me do it!!!".

...  I would suggest that your presence here borders on trolling.  ...  If you want to carry on this type of discussion - start your own thread.

 
There's already such a thread and you could just move the last few days over there. Oh, and possibly read this post (if time permits). Thanks!

 

 

[cel4145]

I remember reading some posts by some guys with some vintage R2R DACs claiming they were, in magical audiophile terms, far better than any of the current D/S DACs. Sometimes stuff like this takes on a life of its own and spins out of control. Suddenly people are searching for used vintage R2R DACs and having out of body experiences with their new found treasures.
Once there is a demand, some companies will make the product, engage in marketing spin and charge appropriately. Schiit has produced a number of products, including upgrade plugin boards in a variety of product classes at uncommonly low prices, so at least they aren't into gouging their customers' wallets. Even so I am not temped to upgrade my Bifrost Uber to R2R or the newer D/S plugin board. I will also assert that my other D/S DACs are not in any danger.

That would make sense, too. Schiit saw an opportunity to make a new/old type of DAC that almost no one has. And now that it sells for more on the website, everyone believes it to be better.

 

[StanD]

That would make sense, too. Schiit saw an opportunity to make a new/old type of DAC that almost no one has. And now that it sells for more on the website, everyone believes it to be better.

I still can't get over that the same people that were excited about 24 and even 32 bits are now so enthusiastic about 16 bit with just 96 dBV of resolution. Many of the same people want Amps with enormous amounts of power that far exceed their headphone's requirements and pine for vast amounts of headroom that can never be achieved. Yet they are thrilled to go to 16 bit R2R DACs.
When I've tried to explain this conundrum, it for the most part, if you can pardon the expression, it falls upon deaf ears.
I wonder how much dBSPL one could realize if they could fully harness 32 bits with Amps and speakers to go to the max? Could one level a city block with such a rig?