Can a hi-fi be too revealing?
- Thread starter The Gryphon
- Start date
I started to write about this in my last post, thought it was off-topic, but then upon thinking about it further, realized that it may just fit after all. I've discussed this topic below elsewhere, but the types of listeners in this forum would better understand my point.
Richard Carpenter. A great producer and arranger, having placed quite a few of the Carpenters' hits on the charts. In some circles, a household name.
Yet in the post-Carpenters world, here's our perfectionist Richard Carpenter, the George Lucas of music. Ever since his sister's passing, he has increasingly tinkered with past recordings. First it was remixes, and then he started to re-record parts, first his own piano parts, then the parts of others. The ultimate might be the recent release by the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, which extracted his sister's voice and selected instrumentation to be backed by the orchestra.
To the majority of listeners, the remixes, re-recorded parts and the RPO album all sound perfectly fine, and some prefer them to the originals.
What do I hear when I listen to one of the remixes? Things aren't matching up. Here we have beautifully-recorded, pristine new digital takes on top of recordings that were originally made in the mid to late 70s. You can never match the sound of the two. You can suck all the life out of the original recordings by converting them to digital and processing the crap out of them (*cough* RPO *cough*), but that just makes the situation worse.
What we have in those cases are the original recordings, recorded at specific studios in various rooms with unique sound signatures, using specific equipment (mics, mixing boards, analog tape decks), some of which doesn't exist today. Add in the routine mid 70s production and engineering techniques, and you're trying to overlay modern digital recordings over the top of it? It sounds awkward to me. Even if those 70s recordings might have been a bit dulled or rolled off, that was the signature of those recordings, and I fully expect and appreciate that sound when I play one of the originals.
And that's partly what listening to music is all about--the totality of that original sound makes us forget that these tunes have their unique sonic signature, and we can simply listen to the music. When we are either used to the original recordings, or listening on systems that could highlight the differences, those differences distract us from enjoying the music.
Richard Carpenter. A great producer and arranger, having placed quite a few of the Carpenters' hits on the charts. In some circles, a household name.
Yet in the post-Carpenters world, here's our perfectionist Richard Carpenter, the George Lucas of music. Ever since his sister's passing, he has increasingly tinkered with past recordings. First it was remixes, and then he started to re-record parts, first his own piano parts, then the parts of others. The ultimate might be the recent release by the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, which extracted his sister's voice and selected instrumentation to be backed by the orchestra.
To the majority of listeners, the remixes, re-recorded parts and the RPO album all sound perfectly fine, and some prefer them to the originals.
What do I hear when I listen to one of the remixes? Things aren't matching up. Here we have beautifully-recorded, pristine new digital takes on top of recordings that were originally made in the mid to late 70s. You can never match the sound of the two. You can suck all the life out of the original recordings by converting them to digital and processing the crap out of them (*cough* RPO *cough*), but that just makes the situation worse.
What we have in those cases are the original recordings, recorded at specific studios in various rooms with unique sound signatures, using specific equipment (mics, mixing boards, analog tape decks), some of which doesn't exist today. Add in the routine mid 70s production and engineering techniques, and you're trying to overlay modern digital recordings over the top of it? It sounds awkward to me. Even if those 70s recordings might have been a bit dulled or rolled off, that was the signature of those recordings, and I fully expect and appreciate that sound when I play one of the originals.
And that's partly what listening to music is all about--the totality of that original sound makes us forget that these tunes have their unique sonic signature, and we can simply listen to the music. When we are either used to the original recordings, or listening on systems that could highlight the differences, those differences distract us from enjoying the music.
I have occasionally heard things in recordings that I haven't played since I upgraded a component and have been pleasantly surprised. I look upon them as Easter eggs to be discovered. 
The MC carts and the rest in my main system can often be pretty revealing and at times show a bit more than what the producer might have intended. Every once in awhile something odd turns up like an English horn sticking out of the texture of an orchestra, clearly recorded separately in a different acoustic and "pasted"in.
Since I got the Empire set-up going last week in the loft bedroom system I've been in for a few surprises as it has turned out to be considerably more revealing yet. It has been interesting how many mixing errors have turned up in multi-mic/track recordings. In one organ recording the location of two distinct ranks of pipes switched in the middle of one work. Oops! In 60s RCA recording of a work for ten instruments one could hear distinctly how the mics were placed, not only very differently for each instrument, but it ended up sounding like was in its own box with a clear dividing wall between - very odd.
On the plus side - the helicopter on Side 1 of "The Wall" sounded like it was hovering 30 ft above the house to the left of the speaker with the reflected sound of the rotors coming off a wall lower and to the far right was interesting. Hearing the sound of the assistant changing stops on an organ recording or the sound of a car passing by in the background actually adds something enhancing rather than detracting, at least to me.
Since I got the Empire set-up going last week in the loft bedroom system I've been in for a few surprises as it has turned out to be considerably more revealing yet. It has been interesting how many mixing errors have turned up in multi-mic/track recordings. In one organ recording the location of two distinct ranks of pipes switched in the middle of one work. Oops! In 60s RCA recording of a work for ten instruments one could hear distinctly how the mics were placed, not only very differently for each instrument, but it ended up sounding like was in its own box with a clear dividing wall between - very odd.
On the plus side - the helicopter on Side 1 of "The Wall" sounded like it was hovering 30 ft above the house to the left of the speaker with the reflected sound of the rotors coming off a wall lower and to the far right was interesting. Hearing the sound of the assistant changing stops on an organ recording or the sound of a car passing by in the background actually adds something enhancing rather than detracting, at least to me.
It's a bit like how Jeff Lynne has gone in and re-recorded ELO songs, though I think mostly to eek out all the royalties for them. They're just...not the same. They're antiseptic. I remember buying a Roy Orbison tape when I was a kid, that turned out to be his hits re-recorded in the '80s. They may have been recorded on more modern gear and his voice was still good but...no. Just...no. They didn't have 'it'. There's something to a song, and a band when they're recording that song, when it's new. You just can't recapture that spark, so leave the little studio noises in, the this or that that's slightly off because that's part of it.
Some groups have re-recorded songs since they wanted to release them on their current label, without having to mess with licensing the original. The end result is the same, unfortunately, but in some rare instances that is the only way to release a version of the song, with the original label refusing to license it.
Perez Prado was one to re-record songs. His original mambos from the late 40s and early 50s are the definitive versions, yet he was always anxious to record new versions, especially as technology improved. It's disappointing when getting an LP named Big Hits by Prado, only to find out that they were not only re-recorded, they aren't even the same arrangements. The album is actually fairly good on its own, but someone out there who thinks they are buying reissued versions of the original recordings would be disappointed.
And the current situation with copyright means there are probably 100+ regurgitations of his catalog in various forms, and it's difficult to find which of those are genuine RCA product! Worse, even RCA was prone to screw things up--one of their compilations ran the old early 50s tracks through a smiley-faced EQ and gawdawful digital reverb, and they sound absolutely atrocious. You don't even need a modestly revealing system to hear how awful these sound. Very glassy, bright, artificial. The originals were recorded when 78 RPM records were still being released. The one label that got the tracks right--Tumbao Cuban Classics--is worth seeking out there. They aren't sonic masterpieces, but the feel is all there. It's like listening to a snapshot of music history.
Perez Prado was one to re-record songs. His original mambos from the late 40s and early 50s are the definitive versions, yet he was always anxious to record new versions, especially as technology improved. It's disappointing when getting an LP named Big Hits by Prado, only to find out that they were not only re-recorded, they aren't even the same arrangements. The album is actually fairly good on its own, but someone out there who thinks they are buying reissued versions of the original recordings would be disappointed.
And the current situation with copyright means there are probably 100+ regurgitations of his catalog in various forms, and it's difficult to find which of those are genuine RCA product! Worse, even RCA was prone to screw things up--one of their compilations ran the old early 50s tracks through a smiley-faced EQ and gawdawful digital reverb, and they sound absolutely atrocious. You don't even need a modestly revealing system to hear how awful these sound. Very glassy, bright, artificial. The originals were recorded when 78 RPM records were still being released. The one label that got the tracks right--Tumbao Cuban Classics--is worth seeking out there. They aren't sonic masterpieces, but the feel is all there. It's like listening to a snapshot of music history.
I hear a few distracting clicks associated with her vocals in the first 30-40 seconds. What sounds like a piano pedal thumping when it's released suddenly around 2:30. And the creak of metal (chair? mic stand?) around 2:40.
cheers, Derek
And now you can never un-hear them.
Yep. But generally those types of things don't bother me; mostly, they add to the richness of the experience of listening. It exists, it is our attachment to it that determines our... Sure, I'd like some recordings to be more to my liking (the extremely dynamically compressed and dull); I prefer to simply experience though, not that I achieve such musical enlightenment often.
I don't consciously think about it much. There was a time when I did... when I owned systems that were primarily about upper frequency "detail" (and not genuine resolution).
Rudy, funny you should say that. I listen mostly to old music on old equipment and the quality of the recordings is variable to say the least. This includes a lot of fifties rockabilly/rock'n'roll/hillbilly/country/jazz compilations embracing countless rare bits and pieces with limited pressings sold out of car boots. Many were clearly recorded under shoe-string budget constraints not to mention amateur musicians, not all of whom had quite 'got there' yet and weren't blessed with real panel operaors let alone true producers.
So, naturally they sound 'thin', with odd cuts, artifacts, etc. I know this is all pretty lowbrow musically and I'm not here to advocate or defend, but it's music I can't do without. Need some every day, good and loud. An odd side-benefit is that I've taught myself to have faith in my mid-fi near-field system, such as it is — because when I play well-recorded current stuff (eg, Norah Jones, Diana Krall, various orchestral pieces for a change of pace, the quality is all there, ie, never went away). I know it's a rather unsophisticated and tiresome mantra but I'm here to enjoy MY music, not anyone else's and am not one of the endless-search-for-perfection brigade. And there's only so much I'm prepared to spend.
Repeating: why don't we just relax a bit and enjoy the music as best you can — otherwise what's the point? No finger-pointing, just a broad observation from a newbie. (As a side issue, I'd like to compliment everyone here for their civility; I've seen discussions like this and about similar matters result in acrimonious taunts, uncalled-for insults and other tedium on lesser forums.)
So, naturally they sound 'thin', with odd cuts, artifacts, etc. I know this is all pretty lowbrow musically and I'm not here to advocate or defend, but it's music I can't do without. Need some every day, good and loud. An odd side-benefit is that I've taught myself to have faith in my mid-fi near-field system, such as it is — because when I play well-recorded current stuff (eg, Norah Jones, Diana Krall, various orchestral pieces for a change of pace, the quality is all there, ie, never went away). I know it's a rather unsophisticated and tiresome mantra but I'm here to enjoy MY music, not anyone else's and am not one of the endless-search-for-perfection brigade. And there's only so much I'm prepared to spend.
Repeating: why don't we just relax a bit and enjoy the music as best you can — otherwise what's the point? No finger-pointing, just a broad observation from a newbie. (As a side issue, I'd like to compliment everyone here for their civility; I've seen discussions like this and about similar matters result in acrimonious taunts, uncalled-for insults and other tedium on lesser forums.)
In my opinion, there are two ways
In the first way, the system is revealing because the majority of the components in the chain are in harmony with each other, for lack of a better descriptor. In this sense, the presence of even one component that is 'out of tune' is heard and scrutinized, and the listener's enjoyment of the system plummets. it is easy in this case to wish for a more comfortable sound where a single component does not upset everything, especially if there are functional considerations to replacing a component versus just sonic ones.
In the second way, there are components and systems which sacrifice the aesthetic of the recording - its attributes which make it unique from other recordings - for the sake of revealing details which are actually extraneous to music, i.e. do not contribute to the listener's enjoyment of music. Ironically this is common in equipment which many describe as 'accurate', and is usually a sign that the component is not actually 'revealing' in the sense that it will display differences between recordings.
In the first way, the system is revealing because the majority of the components in the chain are in harmony with each other, for lack of a better descriptor. In this sense, the presence of even one component that is 'out of tune' is heard and scrutinized, and the listener's enjoyment of the system plummets. it is easy in this case to wish for a more comfortable sound where a single component does not upset everything, especially if there are functional considerations to replacing a component versus just sonic ones.
In the second way, there are components and systems which sacrifice the aesthetic of the recording - its attributes which make it unique from other recordings - for the sake of revealing details which are actually extraneous to music, i.e. do not contribute to the listener's enjoyment of music. Ironically this is common in equipment which many describe as 'accurate', and is usually a sign that the component is not actually 'revealing' in the sense that it will display differences between recordings.
Over the 45 plus years that I have enjoyed "Hi-Fi" I have always had one philosophy.....it is this, when I stop listening to and enjoying the music .....and start obsessing with this part of my system and should I upgrade this or that .....I stand back.....cool a bit, and remember that I have a system to play and enjoy music.....that is my goal, and, it is not the music that pushes me to change this and change that in an endless quest. Of course, I don't have the worlds greatest system, but I believe I have a good one, that allows me, the pleasure of enjoying my music and hearing the majority of what the musicians, producers and engineers put into it......I may not be at the mixing desk and be totally up front in the process, but, I'm close.....in live performance terms.....I have a good seat in the house and it's close to the front row......and ( grin ) if the musicians sneeze.....I get wet !
Try taking The Beatles "Hey Jude"....listen carefully just before the drums come in.....you can hear Ringo getting onto his drum stool and it creaks ...he was in the Gents when they started, and returned just in time.....
What a great thread this became. I'm not an acoustic engineer, but I've been in the business of introducing A list musicians and vocalists onstage to new equipment at sound check for them to employ in their live performance that night in large venues. It was like making a cold call to a VVIP in person at showtime. And I've been your average blues (Patton and House forward) and rock fan since Elvis. The real Elvis. This thread was so excellent and thought provoking about a couple things I've been testing and thinking about for awhile that I can't resist offering a couple observations you can disregard if you wish, and one suggestion I urge you to try. I recognize the seriously advanced level at which many of you are operating on these topics, so this is no lecture. I'm not qualified and I envy the audience here.
On the topic of "revealing" I just had all the mid and bass drivers in my Fried G/2s rewound. I pulled them out and put them back in, after having them rebuilt at what I think may be the only place left in San Fernando Valley or maybe L.A. to do that work. Name available on request. Highly recommended. And I replaced the Hyquphon tweeters. I found out later that my amp lost 5 transistors either before or during a demonstration to a 50 years long recording musician what the brand new, in the shrink wrap, limited issue MoFi issue of In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida sounded like at full output. Full. Buried. Preceded by Fujiyama Mama at the same level. While distorted sounds we never heard before enveloped us, I melted the tweeters' internal sealed workings, and blew all of the drivers into rat's nests of copper wire and burn debris. The resulting rebuild was revealing beyond my most optimistic hopes and my greatest fears that I would lose what I love in these speakers--the natural presence of live performance Bud Fried sought to achieve, and demonstrated to me in person in his lab before getting me for $1,875 each.
So now, with the previously unwired double magnets and double voice coils properly wired, I'm getting more musical information than I had any idea was on my vinyl. I'm listening to 1 to 4 hours of music at least 3 or 4 days a week by artists I would previously never spend a minute on. This may offend you or convince you I'm an idiot, but I'm listening to Count Basie, Ray Noble, Johnny Crawford Orchestra--yep that Johnny Crawford, The Carter Family, and Dave Grohl's analog "Sound City, Real to Reel" just to hear the detail of "the" Neve 8028 console. Just listening. No reading, no phone, no TV sports on mute.
So when I think of the way each person's ears, the delicate hair fibers, all randomly distributed in each individual's ears, all uniquely wired to our unique brains, with the residual accumulation of live and recorded musical experiences, the idea that we share common experiences with our peers as to the sound of a particular piece of music is to me a vast generalization. I really live for the little artistic flaws or variations in live performance. They are what makes them live music, not synthesized mechanical sounds. Artists have to vary what they do in order to be more than just "pre-recorded" sound. Studio-recorded and re-re-recorded music loses the immediacy of the emotional and enthusiastic performance of the first or 2nd run through. Twenty takes get flat IMO.
I always think of what the Sun recordings would have sounded like to young ears if RCA had Elvis first. I think of whether "Louie Louie" would have hit kids in 1963 and forever after the way it did if Ron Ely's mike hadn't been a boom mike near the ceiling of the studio, forcing him to stand on tip toe and arch his head back and open his throat to sing through his braces, after singing a 90 minute version of the song at a club the night before. I wish I'd been there for that night. Without all that serendipity, we lose immediacy in music. Immediacy is what live music sounds like and triggers our brains' reactions to the true and natural sound of various instruments.
So, I'm all for revealing. I can adjust from that point forward if I don't like it.
If you're still with me, here's a suggestion I've been experimenting with and having some of the most ear inspiring moments of my life. I hope you try it out. It's so simple, yet mind expanding. Step toward your speaker front line . Turn your back to them. I position myself at just a foot or two in front of the sound stage, never forward out into the imaginary audience. Allow yourself to be a member of the band, not a third party listener staring back and forth at your speakers or your fireplace. Adjust slightly forward and back into the sound stage until you find your sweet spot for each segment of the performance. Move right or left when you want to focus on Ron Wood, always on your right, or on Keith always on your left (from the stage looking out). Don't treat it like Karaoke; just stand there and listen to what you and your band are projecting to everyone else in the mythical audience. I like this so much I'm getting around to adding a chair between the speakers. It is weird at first, especially with anyone else around, so I started solo, in private. Also, the music is so cool this way that I start rockin' out. I cant hep my sef.
I think you will be very surprised how the music you are so familiar with that you know every note, even before it is played, sounds so different, fuller, richer, more nuanced, more detailed, new notes and tones I think the brain is actually filling in your old music memory with additional information, giving you an enhanced experience. Your brain is two halves neither of which is a mirror image of the other, they each get the same music signal at slightly different times due to the varying dimensions and formation of each of your ears, and brain, the distances of each ear from each speaker, and the reflections in your music room. So they process all that information in essentially the same way every time you repeatedly listen while facing your speakers from the same hot spot. But there is nothing sacred or mandatory about facing into speakers. Reversing your direction puts your ears and brain in the position of a musician generating the music from the loudspeakers directly behind him or from his instrument, instead of you facing directly in toward him and the speaker banks or the instruments. I think it gives us listeners a multi or three dimensional image of the music, maybe for the first time. It's a whole new way to hear music. JMHO -- Just My Humble Opinion.
Unless of course, you are a performing musician already living within that space and keeping it for your personal secret pleasure.
On the topic of "revealing" I just had all the mid and bass drivers in my Fried G/2s rewound. I pulled them out and put them back in, after having them rebuilt at what I think may be the only place left in San Fernando Valley or maybe L.A. to do that work. Name available on request. Highly recommended. And I replaced the Hyquphon tweeters. I found out later that my amp lost 5 transistors either before or during a demonstration to a 50 years long recording musician what the brand new, in the shrink wrap, limited issue MoFi issue of In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida sounded like at full output. Full. Buried. Preceded by Fujiyama Mama at the same level. While distorted sounds we never heard before enveloped us, I melted the tweeters' internal sealed workings, and blew all of the drivers into rat's nests of copper wire and burn debris. The resulting rebuild was revealing beyond my most optimistic hopes and my greatest fears that I would lose what I love in these speakers--the natural presence of live performance Bud Fried sought to achieve, and demonstrated to me in person in his lab before getting me for $1,875 each.
So now, with the previously unwired double magnets and double voice coils properly wired, I'm getting more musical information than I had any idea was on my vinyl. I'm listening to 1 to 4 hours of music at least 3 or 4 days a week by artists I would previously never spend a minute on. This may offend you or convince you I'm an idiot, but I'm listening to Count Basie, Ray Noble, Johnny Crawford Orchestra--yep that Johnny Crawford, The Carter Family, and Dave Grohl's analog "Sound City, Real to Reel" just to hear the detail of "the" Neve 8028 console. Just listening. No reading, no phone, no TV sports on mute.
So when I think of the way each person's ears, the delicate hair fibers, all randomly distributed in each individual's ears, all uniquely wired to our unique brains, with the residual accumulation of live and recorded musical experiences, the idea that we share common experiences with our peers as to the sound of a particular piece of music is to me a vast generalization. I really live for the little artistic flaws or variations in live performance. They are what makes them live music, not synthesized mechanical sounds. Artists have to vary what they do in order to be more than just "pre-recorded" sound. Studio-recorded and re-re-recorded music loses the immediacy of the emotional and enthusiastic performance of the first or 2nd run through. Twenty takes get flat IMO.
I always think of what the Sun recordings would have sounded like to young ears if RCA had Elvis first. I think of whether "Louie Louie" would have hit kids in 1963 and forever after the way it did if Ron Ely's mike hadn't been a boom mike near the ceiling of the studio, forcing him to stand on tip toe and arch his head back and open his throat to sing through his braces, after singing a 90 minute version of the song at a club the night before. I wish I'd been there for that night. Without all that serendipity, we lose immediacy in music. Immediacy is what live music sounds like and triggers our brains' reactions to the true and natural sound of various instruments.
So, I'm all for revealing. I can adjust from that point forward if I don't like it.
If you're still with me, here's a suggestion I've been experimenting with and having some of the most ear inspiring moments of my life. I hope you try it out. It's so simple, yet mind expanding. Step toward your speaker front line . Turn your back to them. I position myself at just a foot or two in front of the sound stage, never forward out into the imaginary audience. Allow yourself to be a member of the band, not a third party listener staring back and forth at your speakers or your fireplace. Adjust slightly forward and back into the sound stage until you find your sweet spot for each segment of the performance. Move right or left when you want to focus on Ron Wood, always on your right, or on Keith always on your left (from the stage looking out). Don't treat it like Karaoke; just stand there and listen to what you and your band are projecting to everyone else in the mythical audience. I like this so much I'm getting around to adding a chair between the speakers. It is weird at first, especially with anyone else around, so I started solo, in private. Also, the music is so cool this way that I start rockin' out. I cant hep my sef.
I think you will be very surprised how the music you are so familiar with that you know every note, even before it is played, sounds so different, fuller, richer, more nuanced, more detailed, new notes and tones I think the brain is actually filling in your old music memory with additional information, giving you an enhanced experience. Your brain is two halves neither of which is a mirror image of the other, they each get the same music signal at slightly different times due to the varying dimensions and formation of each of your ears, and brain, the distances of each ear from each speaker, and the reflections in your music room. So they process all that information in essentially the same way every time you repeatedly listen while facing your speakers from the same hot spot. But there is nothing sacred or mandatory about facing into speakers. Reversing your direction puts your ears and brain in the position of a musician generating the music from the loudspeakers directly behind him or from his instrument, instead of you facing directly in toward him and the speaker banks or the instruments. I think it gives us listeners a multi or three dimensional image of the music, maybe for the first time. It's a whole new way to hear music. JMHO -- Just My Humble Opinion.
Unless of course, you are a performing musician already living within that space and keeping it for your personal secret pleasure.
Thanks, John the Administrator, wish I could find an imoge to say as much.
lol. Emoji.
I was left speechless. It’s an interesting thing that I never thought of- sitting with the band. Looking out into an imaginary crowd. I can’t say I’ve done that but I used to lay on the floor and put my speakers on either side of my head like giant headphones, to block out the world. I’d just disappear into the music, nothing else mattered. I didn’t think about the fidelity, with the music so new to me it didn’t matter.
