[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:57:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Jenn" wrote in message


I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays
distinctive qualities that separate it from any recorded
sound.

I don't think you have the evidence at your disposal
that it should take to say that with such certainty.

Evidence? You carry all the evidence that you should need
hanging on either side of your head.

Ears?

Those aren't evidence, they are part of your test equipment setup.

It says that the best of recordings are light years away
from being perfect. Better than ever, yes, but perfect
no. A lot of people hold up the 1950's recordings of
Mercury's C.R. Fine and RCA's Louis Layton, and perhaps
Rudy Van Gelder's jazz recordings as being among the best
ever made and while I agree that many of these sound
simply amazing, the technology exists today to simply
blow them away and do so relatively cheaply and with a
minimum of equipment.

Agreed.

But even as good as it's possible
to get today - even on ordinary 16-bit, 24KHz CD, most
recordings still don't sound very good and even the best
fall short of reality.

Agreed.

Producers have agendas and some
of those agendas have little to do with sound quality of
the recordings they make and everything to do with
selling CDs.

Agreed.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 07:51:59 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

The San Francisco Symphony label
records that ensemble in this manner, and I've mentioned before how good
their recent Mahler cycle sounds.

Fantastic recordings, IMO. Great performances as well. I've been to
several of the concerts when they are recording the Mahlers... all
wonderful.



You're hearing it through a speaker, of course.

Or earphones. One major problem with listening through earphones is that
as
typically used, the mic/earphone combination bypasses the human body's
HRTF
(Head Response Transfer Function).

I believe that you are correct in your
statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is
"live".

Agreed. However, a major difference between sitting in the seats and
listening to a mic feed is that the sound is being monitored at two
different locations. The sound field in a concert hall is really quite
diverse.

Of course, but the question remains. IMV, it is obvious that some
recordings (and some gear) sound more real and live than others.

Liker I said before, yes they do. Another factor is microphone technique. A
forest of microphones cannot make a good sounding recording because no
matter
how good the mike, instruments don't sound the same up close as they do
when
they all "mix" in the air between the ensemble and your ears and no amount
of
electronic mixing can fix that. It is important for a good recording to
mike
the SPACE that an ensemble occupies, not the instruments. Try listening to
a
late 60's symphonic recording where a string section sounds like 12 violins
playing instead of like a string section and the only image the ensemble
throws is the one where each microphone is pan-potted between one speaker
and
another.

Indeed. So sad that so many great Bernstein and von Karajan readings
were recorded that way.

Yes I know. The best performance ever (IMHO) of Respighi's "Church Windows"
was made by EO and the PO in the middle 1960's. But sonically, its a
multi-mike nightmare and is practically unlistenable for that reason. Karajan
did a Beethoven Symphony cycle in the late 1950's. At that time, DGG was
using a single M-S stereo mike to record the Berlin Philharmonic. Those are
the best sounding Karajan recordings I've ever heard (along with his
recording with Sviatoslav Richter of the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto #1)

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:03:27 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:57:35 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Jenn" wrote in message


I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays
distinctive qualities that separate it from any recorded
sound.

I don't think you have the evidence at your disposal
that it should take to say that with such certainty.

Evidence? You carry all the evidence that you should need
hanging on either side of your head.

Ears?

Those aren't evidence, they are part of your test equipment setup.

In the sense that the proof of the pudding is in the eating (or in this case,
the listening), it is.

[Steve LeDuke]

The best sound IMO is a live band in a good sounding room with only a PA
system for vocals, no mics on the drums or amps. Pure, ambient sound.

bob wrote:
On Apr 6, 8:58 pm, Terry wrote:
I have several MP3's that I've downloaded and want to
copy them to my RX-505.
If analog is suppose to give a warmer better sound, wouldn't
it have to be analog to analog copy from a record
instead of digital to analog copy from a computer to get that warm
analog sound?

If by "that analog sound," you mean tape hiss, high-frequency rolloff,
and wobbly wow & flutter, then you're in luck. Putting your newly
acquired MP3s on cassette will give you all of those things!

If what you're really after is "that vinyl sound"--surface noise, pops
& clicks, W&F, phase distortion, frequency response anomalies,
tracking error (have I missed anything?)--then you do indeed have to
start with a vinyl disk.

bob