|
|
Post by dandeurloo on Oct 21, 2014 13:00:08 GMT -6
I think the question is how to get tight controlled lowend. Now that is a thread that could go on for days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Oct 21, 2014 14:43:45 GMT -6
That sounds exciting Tony, can't wait to hear how it all goes.
I think it was Glyn Johns who used the U47 FET on kick drums.
|
|
|
|
Post by drumrec on Oct 21, 2014 15:10:16 GMT -6
Boring answer but definitely Neve! For a fat bottom bd sound, I just say UAD VOG  /H |
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Oct 22, 2014 10:07:47 GMT -6
Regarding phase shift and low end response, George Massenberg also is concerned with these effects, he's done a pretty good job at avoiding them over the years. Maybe you've heard some of his stuff? It's not bad sounding.
Knowledge is a powerful force if one takes the time to invest in it. Knowing the limitations of your tools is not going to cause a problem, unless you have unrealistic expectations from it. Understanding the effects you experience will not be a hinderance either, unless you enjoy a good mystery.
Recording used to be a marriage between art AND science. These days the science has been essentially thrown out in favor of happenstance. That has not given us better sounding records if you examine the quality of releases over that last 15 years or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Oct 22, 2014 10:29:45 GMT -6
Actually i think modern recording sounds much better than even 10 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Oct 22, 2014 10:44:58 GMT -6
Actually i think modern recording sounds much better than even 10 years ago. We're in the minority, but I agree. Obviously, there is plenty of garbage too. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Oct 22, 2014 11:22:18 GMT -6
Actually i think modern recording sounds much better than even 10 years ago. Jim said 15 years, JMO, but comparing something from 2004 to today is not saying much. The best sounding recordings from a fidelity standpoint actually came between 1974 and 79, thats really not even debatable to my understanding. To refer to most any music since the turn of the century as being "high fidelity" would certainly elude to sayer being high, unless by "fidelity" you mean too loud, dynamics free, square waved DIGITAL distortion 8)(edit; i just read this, i'm totally joking) Recent mainstream Beyonce tunes are crushed to square wave digital distortion, i've seen it with my own eyes, and heard the space monkeys with my own ears, these are top of the mountain pop "artists" and the fidelity sucks! I can take a Paul McCartney Wings cd from 1979, give the attenuator a goose north, and kill a beyonce recording, plain and simple. Of course there are always exceptions in modern day, a lot of country has nice fidelity. high fi·del·i·ty noun the reproduction of sound with little distortion, giving a result very similar to the original. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Oct 22, 2014 11:29:07 GMT -6
Upon pulling my vinyl collection recently and listening back to a lot of my favorite music from that era on a GOOD set of studio monitors, not a home hi-fi like I was listening to back in the day....I was astounded and honestly taken aback at how distorted and poorly recorded many of those recordings actually are. Nostalgia plays a big part of our fascination with that era....
Maybe I've just moved on?
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Oct 22, 2014 11:35:16 GMT -6
Actually i think modern recording sounds much better than even 10 years ago. Jim said 15 years, JMO, but comparing something from 2004 to today is not saying much. The best sounding recordings from a fidelity standpoint actually came between 1974 and 79, thats really not even debatable to my understanding. To refer to most any music since the turn of the century as being "high fidelity" would certainly elude to sayer being high, unless by "fidelity" you mean too loud, dynamics free, square waved DIGITAL distortion 8)(edit; i just read this, i'm totally joking) Recent mainstream Beyonce tunes are crushed to square wave digital distortion, i've seen it with my own eyes, and heard the space monkeys with my own ears, these are top of the mountain pop "artists" and the fidelity sucks! I can take a Paul McCartney Wings cd from 1979, give the attenuator a goose north, and kill a beyonce recording, plain and simple. Of course there are always exceptions in modern day, a lot of country has nice fidelity. high fi·del·i·ty noun the reproduction of sound with little distortion, giving a result very similar to the original. I hear ya, but I don't really agree. No worries though. If we all thought the same way, the world would be a pretty boring! |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Oct 22, 2014 11:36:17 GMT -6
Upon pulling my vinyl collection recently and listening back to a lot of my favorite music from that era on a GOOD set of studio monitors, not a home hi-fi like I was listening to back in the day....I was astounded and honestly taken aback at how distorted and poorly recorded many of those recordings actually are. Nostalgia plays a big part of our fascination with that era.... Maybe I've just moved on? There are horribly recorded records from every era, or "error" if you will 8) |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Oct 22, 2014 12:54:17 GMT -6
Silly kids. EQ is phase-shift.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Oct 22, 2014 13:11:38 GMT -6
Upon pulling my vinyl collection recently and listening back to a lot of my favorite music from that era on a GOOD set of studio monitors, not a home hi-fi like I was listening to back in the day....I was astounded and honestly taken aback at how distorted and poorly recorded many of those recordings actually are. Nostalgia plays a big part of our fascination with that era.... Maybe I've just moved on? There are horribly recorded records from every era, or "error" if you will 8) Yeah, no doubt, but I'm talking about some of the most beloved records of all time. |
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Oct 23, 2014 8:54:34 GMT -6
Silly kids. EQ is phase-shift. Of course it is. Examine a phase vs frequency plot on a graphical analyzer and you will see that phase curve on shelf EQ and a waveform that looks like a heartbeat on a bell EQ curve. It is normal and required. What isn't required is a non-linear phase curve, one that deviates from a linear phase response. Depending on the filter design you can have severe ringing or a benign response. As Dean Jensen showed in his 1970 and 1980's AES papers any non-linear phase response will change the harmonic alignment of the waveforms. This is why he spent so much effort in designing a bessel or linear phase response into his transformers. To Dean it was all about removing the midrange "smear" that comes from a non-linear phase response. |
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Oct 23, 2014 8:59:12 GMT -6
There are horribly recorded records from every era, or "error" if you will 8) Yeah, no doubt, but I'm talking about some of the most beloved records of all time. Yeah, those old Stones records do sound like crap, but the music makes up for it. I have a de-emphisis switch on my DAC's, I hit that when I play those records. Take -10 db off the tops and they are listenable. Then again some of those old records sound amazing. You end up wondering how they got so much audio saved with such limited technology. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Oct 23, 2014 9:42:24 GMT -6
I think the combination of great old tube mics in a great sounding room, printing to tape using something like a Neve console and classic compressors is still a holy grail that most modern sound recordings struggle to equal. Mainly, I'd say it was the room, then musicians playing together in that room. I've been in some truly great studios. Some are historic, Bell Sound, (where Buddy Holly did his NY recording), Plaza Sound, (was the "Abbey Road" of NY, built for Toscanini to conduct the NBC orchestra, where they had a reverb send down to Radio City Music Hall, how's that for a "large hall"), and all my attempts at recording ever since have been to get close to the sound quality of a great room's acoustics.
With all those things going for it, I'm surprised at the weak sound quality of some classic recordings, but when analogue's good, it's untouchable. The next plug I buy will be the UAD Ocean Ways.
As to Tony's original question, I think he'd be happy with the Neve. The Great River sounds warm too, if you want to try another flavor, but I don't know it well.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Oct 23, 2014 14:44:20 GMT -6
I'm sorry....if one thinks old recordings are somehow better, WITHOUT regard to mastering practice, one owes it to oneself to buy a decent modern recording. They are astoundingly better than old ones. If you actually want a piano to sound like a piano....a voice to sound like a voice....you know--the true meaning of fidelity. Doesn't make it wrong to like smeary, distorted, bandwidth limited recordings....but, claiming the late 70s as the pinnacle of fidelity, and literally defining fidelity in your post, Tony, I found humorous. www.hdtracks.com/homewww.hdtracks.com/revelatorwww.hdtracks.com/ashes-fire-194646www.hdtracks.com/liquid-spiritShow me the 1970s recording that touches these in reality of fidelity. I'll even give you some starting places: www.hdtracks.com/jt-134097www.hdtracks.com/cest-chic-156008www.hdtracks.com/rumoursHolding up Beyonce or Britney spears as "what modern recordings sound like"....is commentary NOT on the recording tech's capability, but on what people find and make popular stylistically and thus makes the top 40. that's a valid but completely different discussion point. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Oct 23, 2014 15:28:30 GMT -6
I'm sorry....if one thinks old recordings are somehow better, WITHOUT regard to mastering practice, one owes it to oneself to buy a decent modern recording. They are astoundingly better than old ones. If you actually want a piano to sound like a piano....a voice to sound like a voice....you know--the true meaning of fidelity. Doesn't make it wrong to like smeary, distorted, bandwidth limited recordings....but, claiming the late 70s as the pinnacle of fidelity, and literally defining fidelity in your post, Tony, I found humorous. www.hdtracks.com/homewww.hdtracks.com/revelatorwww.hdtracks.com/ashes-fire-194646www.hdtracks.com/liquid-spiritShow me the 1970s recording that touches these in reality of fidelity. I'll even give you some starting places: www.hdtracks.com/jt-134097www.hdtracks.com/cest-chic-156008www.hdtracks.com/rumoursHolding up Beyonce or Britney spears as "what modern recordings sound like"....is commentary NOT on the recording tech's capability, but on what people find and make popular stylistically and thus makes the top 40. that's a valid but completely different discussion point. Hmmm... I may be cross pollinating listenability with fidelity? They are one in the same in my world. But this actually is pretty humorous, i just randomly clicked pops third link down, and then quick picked and listened to the Ryan Adams title track, "ashes and fire", then i searched and clicked this www.hdtracks.com/gaucho and played Steely Dans "Hey 19", and the Dan INSTANTLY BLEW the Adams mix out of the speakers! Adams sounded lopsided and shrill in comparison to my ears, of course this is just the samples on the HD site, probably not the 96/24 files, but does it really matter? even if the files were dumbed down, they are both on the same site, the SD kills it imo, listen for yourself. So again, YES, imo the mid to late 70's recordings smoke modern recordings from a listenability standpoint. Listen to McCartney's "silly love songs", for more humorous content 8) Could it be that today's average listener has their high frequency hearing all blown to shit from years of listening to digital garbage through earbuds that i simply shut off every time it came on? Hmmm....... |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Oct 23, 2014 16:13:29 GMT -6
I'll check those out later tonight popmann. I'm a recovering audiophile, so I d pay close attention to sound quality, but perhaps there's something more going on here than just "warmth and a big bottom. The closest thing I've ever heard to the sheer listenability of certain classic 70's records is the SACD of Becks' "Sea Change". It still doesn't thrill, but does sound great.
*Tony, I really like Ryan Adams, admire his sheer talent and brilliant songwriting. His CD's do sound shrill, sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Oct 23, 2014 16:23:54 GMT -6
You are confusing fidelity with the aesthetic you prefer for recorded music.
I want you to now go back and listen....since you picked the Ryan Adams, we'll deal with that--you listen to his voice. You've heard someone other than yourself sing before, right? I mean in the room....no mic...just sing. Now flip to Fagen. You would have to be smoking crack to say the vocal on Hey 19 sounds more like a human male singing in a room. THAT is fidelity. You play drums, no? Ever played a kick and snare that sound anything like the Hey 19 track? Right. You haven't. Because they're deadened and bent with heavy handed EQ and compression and tape saturation to sound like they do. Opposite of fidelity.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Oct 23, 2014 17:12:57 GMT -6
I can't listen to the HD tracks links, due to region restrictions.
But, I will say this.. that Ryan Adams album, was one of the few things I had heard in YEARS that made me rush to buy it.
I listened to it, loved it, never had heard of the guy before, and fell into a full blooded bromance.
Then I find out, Glyn Johns did the album, and no computers were used during the tracking and mixing...
no wonder I liked it.
8)
Wiz
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Oct 23, 2014 17:42:22 GMT -6
I like ryan adams, well, of course neither sound like real life to me, but the adams is pretty edgy and hard in the sib an mid frequencies to my ears, in that regard the SD sounds more like real life to me, it's also wider and more dynamic on my rig. From the standpoint of "real life", SD all the way, real life doesn't sound hard edged to me, sorry man, we're gonna have to agree to disagree here I think.
|
|
