What makes or breaks a recording?
Jul 18, 2003 at 8:52 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 28

j-curve

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Posts
489
Likes
11
My first poll... hope I pressed all the right buttons.

Multiple selections are permitted. You could tick every option (I'd like to
smily_headphones1.gif
) but that wouldn't mean much. Draw a line in the sand somewhere. I think I can get mine down to 6 or 7 essentials.

Why the poll? I've noticed that the factors which impress me most have changed slightly since getting into headphones, so I want to know if others are listening for the same things.

This poll was designed with classical in mind but hopefully the wording is non-genre-specific. [Get it? HA-hA-ha...
rolleyes.gif
redface.gif
]

For the above, let "Instruments" include voices.
 
Jul 19, 2003 at 9:10 PM Post #4 of 28
zoboomofo, dynamic range and frequency response probably belong under "Transparency" (of the recording process).

Quote:

wallijonn: the producer, mixer and recording studio.


Fair enough, but what are the audible effects of these? Say, for example, the label on a CD had the wrong information. How would you know? Would the differences you hear fall under the existing categories, or do we need more?
 
Jul 19, 2003 at 9:20 PM Post #5 of 28
OK, I just voted, but I could only get it down to 8 ticks.

With 7 voters so far and 28 ticks total, that's an average of only 4 ticks each! Some of you guys must be easy to please... or am I just too picky?
 
Jul 25, 2003 at 11:26 PM Post #9 of 28
I voted "other."

I thought that most of this stuff is equally important. Any serious shortcoming in one of those catergories can break a recording.

The music itself is equally important to the eventual fidelity of the finished product: If the music sucks and the recording is incredible, its not worth listening to. If the music is totally awesome, but the recording quality sucks, well I'd buy it anyways unless a better recording of the music had been made.

Cheers,
Geek
 
Aug 29, 2003 at 5:17 PM Post #10 of 28
Quote:

Geek: If the music sucks and the recording is incredible, it's not worth listening to.


Hard to argue with that. Like the Nyman piano concerto, perhaps? Accompanied by the sounds of your own fingernails scratching the paint off the walls...

Quote:

grinch: whether or not the album was recorded/mixed in analogue.
smily_headphones1.gif


I agree, but for me it's not about "warmth". (Is that your reason?) Analogue is more forgiving at peak levels, and a tape master allows the digitally challenged multiple attempts to set the levels right for the transfer, whereas digital recording gives them only one shot to avoid an over-level event.
 
Aug 29, 2003 at 5:25 PM Post #11 of 28
Cool, a thread revival. I think that smoothness, rich midrange, frequency extension, and soundstage are the most important.
 
Sep 2, 2003 at 12:56 AM Post #12 of 28
To my ears, a good recording only needs to excel in one area: The Gestalt.
 
Sep 2, 2003 at 2:40 AM Post #13 of 28
Quote:

Originally posted by Dusty Chalk
To my ears, a good recording only needs to excel in one area: The Gestalt.


What does that mean?
confused.gif
 
Sep 2, 2003 at 3:24 AM Post #14 of 28
Quote:

Originally posted by MusicLover
What does that mean?
confused.gif


You must read Theodore Sturgeon's More Than Human. Basically it's the whole of the recording rather than the facets of it.
 
Sep 2, 2003 at 5:00 AM Post #15 of 28
Quote:

Originally posted by MusicLover
What does that mean?
confused.gif


As bralack42 said, "gestalt" is another word for "the big picture", the overall impression, the whole that is more than the sum of its parts, etc.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top