thanks for the reply. That gives me a lot to consider. On Wednesday 11 April 2007 in an email titled "Re: [LAU] Questions from an audiophile to some engineers" Fons Adriaensen wrote: >On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 10:34:24AM -0600, Bearcat M. Sandor wrote: >> So, my question to you is what causes these bad recordings most of the >> time? > >It's impossible to answer your question, since as far as I can see you use > the term 'bad' in a purely subjective way - it's 'bad' when you don't like > it. > >The first thing to ask yourself when evaluating a recording is what has >been the intention of the recording engineer or producer: > >1 - To recreate at the listener's side a sound that is as close as > possible to the original. > >2 - To create at the listener's side a sound that the listener will > think is close to the original even if it is in reality something > quite different. > >3 - To create a sound that most listeners will like, that is in fact > synthetic but still sounds natural. > >4 - To create a sound that doesn't even exist as real acoustic event. > >Or on a different scale: > >A - Create a 'you are there' effect. > >B - Create a 'they are here' effect. > >C - None of the above. > >For classical music, or any type requiring the acoustics of a concert >hall or other space normally used for that type of music, most recordings >are of type 2. Even people who go to classical concerts, and know how e.g >an orchestra sounds in a good hall, do in general *not* like type 1 when >listening at home. So what is 'good' and 'bad' in this context ? >The recordings that most people prefer are not the most faithfull ones. >The situation changes when you can listen using a real 3-D surround >system (not an ITU 5.1 one, that's a joke). In that case type 1,A do >work well. A type 2,B recording also works well with solo instruments >or chamber music, after all they could be in your living room while >an orchesta clearly can't. > >For things like jazz and folk where there is still some pretense to >making things sound natural, most recordings are type 3. Usually, the >less processing the 'better' it sounds, 'better' meaning 'natural' >or authentic here. > >For all the rest, almost everything is type 4,C and there is no >relation at all to any 'real' sound. Assuming things are more or less >in balance and the sound is not overly distorted, filtered or compressed, >or drowned in effects, anything goes. It's purely a matter of personal >preference if you like it or not. The terms 'good' and 'bad' can still >be used, but they would refer more to the skill of the producers than to >the anything else. Most people don't even know how a kickdrum, a snare >or cymbals sound in reality. What you hear on most pop recordings and >what many people take for reality is in fact very far from it. > >> As far as the compression goes, would i do better to buy vinyl and master >> it to my hard drive or is the compression done before the mastering to >> vinyl takes place? > >These are two questions, and the two answers are not necessarily related. > >With very few exceptions all recordings are compressed, either manually >(as for classical music), or during mastering, or even individual tracks >during recording or mixing. > >Mastering techniques for vinyl and digital media are different, so it's >no surprise they sound different. If you prefer the typical sound of >vinyl, go ahead and buy that. But don't think it's better since it >isn't. You may just like its imperfections. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
