2. misc-audio
  3. 1375840071

Does it bother you?

I'm a recording engineer who has worked in some of the world's top facilities. Let me walk you though an example signal path that you might find in a place like, say, Henson Studio A:

1. Microphone: Old. Probably a PCB inside. Copper wiring.
2. Mic cable: Constructed in house with $1/ft Canare Star Quad, solder, and a connector that might have been in the bottom of a box in the back.
3. Wall jack: Just a regular old Neutrik XLR connector on the wall.
4. Cable snake: Bundles of mic cables going to the control room.
5. Another XLR jack.
6. Another cheap mic cable.
7. Mic preamp: Old and lovely sounding. Audio going through 50 year old pots.
8. Patchbay: Another cheap copper cable is soldered into a patchbay where hundreds of connectors practically touch.
9. TT Cable: Goes from one patch to the next in the patch bay. Copper. No brand preference.
10. DB25 connector: Yes, the same connector you used to connect a modem to your computer in 1986. This is the heart and soul of studio audio transfer.
11. DB25 cable to the console: 25 strands of razor-thin copper wire, 8 channels of audio, sharing a ride.
12. The mixing console: PCB after PCB of tiny copper paths carry the audio through countless op amp chips.
13. DB25 cable to the recording device: time to travel through two more DB25 connectors as we make our way to the AD converters or tape machine.
14. AD conversion: More op amp chips.
15. Digital cable: nothing fancy, just whatever works. USB and Firewire cables are just stock.

...and this is just getting the audio into the recorder.

Also:

None of this equipment has vibration reducing rubber feet, it's just stacked haphazardly in racks. Touching.

No fancy power cables are used, just regular ol' IEC cables.

Acoustic treatment is done using scientific measurements.

Words like "soundstage" and "pace" are never uttered.

Does it bother you? Do you find it strange that the people who record the music that you listen to aren't interested in "tweaks," and expensive cables, and alarm clocks with a sticker on them? If we're not using any of this stuff to record the albums, then what are you hearing when you do use it?
trentpancakes

Showing 18 responses by mapman

mapman's avatar
mapman
22,702 posts
 
I love this thread!
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,702 posts
 
Maybe its easier for the professionals to record the music than it is for audiophiles to play it back because they are professionals trained to do this stuff.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,702 posts
 
I know there are some professional sound engineers that are also participants on this site that buy into the audiophile mantra to a great extent. I'd like to hear what those folks have to say about this.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,702 posts
 
"Does it bother you? Do you find it strange that the people who record the music that you listen to aren't interested in "tweaks," and expensive cables, and alarm clocks with a sticker on them?"

I don't find the alarm clocks with sticker on it part strange. :)
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,702 posts
 
I do think high end audio is a much riper playground for charlatans in general than is the recording industry, where people compete for jobs based on actual skills and abilities.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,702 posts
 
Well, I'm sure there are good recording studios, production companies and engineers and not so good ones. The variations of sound quality I hear recording to recording help confirm that.

For me, its a reasonable audiophile goal for their system to reveal all the variations present recording to recording. Forget about "The Absolute Sound", though it might pop up on occasion with certain recordings if you are in a good place home audio sound wise.

Recordings are what they are. Audiophiles that seek to make a recording into something that it is not are unfortunately doomed, for the most part, since they also poo poo any form of sound processing, digital or otherwise. Audiophiles that can appreciate each recording as a unique work of art will probably be happier. If it takes a clock with a sticker on to achieve that, well......
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,702 posts
 
" the reason why those recordings sound better is because the musicians playing the music were better. "

That's a silly statement.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,702 posts
 
It was largely because hifi and stereo was new and sound quality was a novel marketed feature back then, hence more of a primary selling point and profit maker then than it is today.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,702 posts
 
Well, there are many things that go on in high end audio world that leave it vulnerable to criticism.

My estimate is what you read on a site like this is about 50% information and 50% misinformation or noise. 100% information and 100% misinformation or noise in some cases, though that is rare. Lots of propaganda mixed in as well. Maybe not bad really. Might even have what is called our national "news" media these days beat. Standards are on the decline overall these days, you know.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,702 posts
 
" Almost every piece of equipment in the chain was a tube device that added multiple odd and even-order harmonics (which is actually perceived as pleasing to the ear, although it is, by definition, distortion)."

That rings true. ALso consistent with the notions that some forms of distortion can be pleasant and others not. I do think that the tube gear used at the time, for better or for worse, has a lot to do with the unique sound of early recordings prior to when transistors took over. As does the more pervasive focus on sound quality back then and whatever went into achieving it. OFten that was a simpler approach, like in many MErcury Living PResence Recordings, or as is found in certain more modern CD labels even, like Mapleshade and Dorian.

But it wasn't that the performers were just better back then as was initially asserted. We've identified why that was a silly assertion as to why the recordings sounded the way they do. Personally, those early recordings have a unique character and tonality as a whole that I find to be pleasing, even on newer digital CD releases, especially those that are mastered well.

To answer the OPs original question, no, in most cases it does not bother me. I do not find most modern recordings as objectionable as I suspect many here might. TO me each is a unique piece of art. I would not want them all to sound the same, ie "the absolute sound". Not to say I might not have done them differently or tried to make them better if it were me. But I have no control over how recordings are made. I can only judge the results, not the details of the technology that went into making them behind the scenes. Nor do I care. If I do not like one recording, I can easily move on to the next.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,702 posts
 
Trent, I hear what you are saying. Obviously there are good and bad performances just as there are good and bad recordings. Best for both to be good whatever that entails or means to each. Hard to argue with that.

Part of the preferences and opinions expressed frequently on this site is likely a result of member demographics. I have never seen any metrics indicating, but from experience I suspect most here are older rather than younger and nostalgia plays a major role in an individual's preferences.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,702 posts
 
The only thing that might concern me is if Trent tried an alarm clock with a dot on it and heard something different (the alarm maybe??) :)
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,702 posts
 
":Audiophile is owner of a “good taste” and “knowledge”.

Well said! You hit the nail on the head! Those are the two main ingredients. Also, maybe just a bit of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, at least on occasion :^)

Lots of hobbies thrive on good taste and knowledge. Technology has always fascinated me. Reproduction of music with the quality possible today is a technology enabled miracle as I see it. It has always fascinated me as a curious mix of science and technology with art. Figuring out how it all works and where the boundaries may lie in of itself is a fascinating thing. Then there is all good music and its effects. It has its quircks like most things, but I would love to see more young people get into this stuff. Gotta keep it real though. That can be a challenge sometimes.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,702 posts
 
Yes, and Newton was better than Einstein and Jobs as well. :)
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,702 posts
 
"there is no competition to make sonically superior music so there is no reason to spend any money doing it."

That is an excellent point!

Fact is most get much better sound quality overall these days via even portable devices and headphones than ever in the past. Plus mobility and mobile applications including entertainment is where it is at these days. Nothing there really to push high end home audio anywhere much beyond where it already is as a niche. Plus most people can't afford a lot of high end audio stuff. So we should be happy that sound quality of modern recordings is as good as it is, which overall I would say may also still be the best as a whole overall than ever as well.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,702 posts
 
One thing I notice is that a lot of world music CDs I hear produced outside the US has surprisingly good sound quality. I've heard some recent reggae compilations that I would have to assume were produced in Jaimaica that will knock your socks off. A lot of Putumayo CD tracks are very well recorded. So maybe there is some hope for better sound in a "global economy".
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,702 posts
 
Trentp ++1
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,702 posts
 
"True enough but if it is a crappy recording quality does the emotion, power, fragility come through?"

In general, for me as long as I do not hear any unpleasant noise or distortions that should not be there in the first place, it works for me.

As an analogy, abstract art ie Monet is a highly distorted reproduction. It's the distortions itself that make for the unique artistic experience.

On the other hand, for example, any noise or distortion in my TV picture tends to negatively affect my enjoyment.
More to discover