The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Does analog gear really sound "better", or is it just a learned response?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2521
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
If you read the interviews about many of those live albums you might be surprised at how many of them where doctored after the fact and by how much.

Hardly anyone who records a live album sets up a pair of super accurate mics in audience POV and uses that as the live album. At least not for rock. Yet for classical (where the listeners actually like realism) it is probably the most common way of recording.

One thing you hardly ever hear on any "live" album is the sound of the lead vocals coming out of a PA. The vocals on a live album are almost always treated exactly like a studio album vocal. From the microphone straight to the mix. Yet everyone at the concert is really hearing hearing this voice only through a PA system.

It's not that they couldn't tell the difference if it was pointed out to them. It's not that they can't remember what it sounded like. It's that they can't be bothered to even think about the difference. They just like it better when the vocal doesn't sound like big wooden box with a woofer and a horn. And who can blame them? But that's not 'real' and it's not even "realism".

As an engineer, I have occasionally mixed a little bit of 'speaker' sound back in to live concert vocals to give it a little edge. But I stress the "little bit" part. The vocals are still mostly direct. Full-blown speaker sound does not sound very "nice". And of course the actual PA will also be full of drums and guitars. But if I had a time machine and I could fly back and forth to the front row of the concert as my 'reference', I would be forced to admit my live album mix is almost as much of a fantasy as any studio album.
Having done some multitrack recording of a couple of live shows myself, I always assumed most/all of the recording was taken from the direct outs of the live board, and then mixed down later. But, being only a couple of shows, maybe this isn't the way most people do it.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2522
Here for the gear
 

i think musicians and people on ipads / iphones are subconsciously affected by the latency digital products produce. even the strange feeling you get with dragging your finger across an ipad surface, like unweighted keys. as far as sound, the digital world is catching up and catching up quick!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2523
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
Anyone with ears can hear that older records don’t sound real. The Beatles don’t sound real. Sinatra doesn’t sound real. They sound like a record, a warped interpretation of reality. Which IMO is cool, and I go into every digital recording not looking for accuracy but looking for a cool sound that has to be unearthed, in the tradition of making records.
if you're listening to 'electronic' or 'pop' music i guess ... depends what you're looking for ... i'm a huge fan of 'character' that's why i've been bending over backwards to get the most 'accurate' sounding mics and preamps etc that i could find ... i want to capture as much of the 'real character' of the instrument etc ...

and certainly 'older' records can sound as or MORE real than anything ... look at the much praised mercury living presence vinyl recordings from the 50s which are coveted for their realism and immediacy in reproduction ...
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2524
Here for the gear
 

Eh... I think that the initial question is very difficult to answer. I, for one, am into this sort of "bro-science" and am initially inclined to say Yes, buuut...

I have heard sooo many vinyl albums that have been done on the best of tape machines with all analog everything that sound like utter sh*t to me. And, I will add, that I looove the sound of CD's. -More than I like the sound of vinyl. I just do...

All that matters is that the music moves you -And that you do what you are psychologically at peace with. Do what does the most justice to the tunes you're working on. By any means necessary is my credo...

Some of the most fantastic music, which has moved me the most and almost brought me to tears was HIGHLY (if not completely) digital...
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitsmith View Post
if you're listening to 'electronic' or 'pop' music i guess ... depends what you're looking for ... i'm a huge fan of 'character' that's why i've been bending over backwards to get the most 'accurate' sounding mics and preamps etc that i could find ... i want to capture as much of the 'real character' of the instrument etc ...

and certainly 'older' records can sound as or MORE real than anything ... look at the much praised mercury living presence vinyl recordings from the 50s which are coveted for their realism and immediacy in reproduction ...
In your quest for “accuracy” of mics, have you found mics with a ruler flat response to help achieve that? I have found that to possibly be the case. I have two ruler flat mics, an AKG c2000 in a side address housing so it picks up bass more...this mic seemed to be more natural than an LDC mic, U87, on my voice, that added too much sibilants (I’ve used that a lot years ago) where the even then c2000 didn’t. On dynamic mics, my Shure Sm59 (ruler flat) seems to record my voice a little more “naturally” than my Shure 545s (Or USA sm57). The low mid and hi mid bumps in those change my texture differently. It’s More adding to what there instead of recording what’s there like the 59 does. I was curious what you found.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2526
Gear Addict
 
fadein's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
I do remember a post from one tape proponent who claimed that the musicians "played better" when they recorded to tape.
I didn't read that post, but I may guess, it was about media's limitations forcing players to perform better. It's questionable. Limitations work both ways for better and worse.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2527
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie Mumbles View Post
In your quest for “accuracy” of mics, have you found mics with a ruler flat response to help achieve that? I have found that to possibly be the case. I have two ruler flat mics, an AKG c2000 in a side address housing so it picks up bass more...this mic seemed to be more natural than an LDC mic, U87, on my voice, that added too much sibilants (I’ve used that a lot years ago) where the even then c2000 didn’t. On dynamic mics, my Shure Sm59 (ruler flat) seems to record my voice a little more “naturally” than my Shure 545s (Or USA sm57). The low mid and hi mid bumps in those change my texture differently. It’s More adding to what there instead of recording what’s there like the 59 does. I was curious what you found.
oh well 'flatness' isn't something i really care all that much about since I tend to record in a pretty 'characterful' room ... i'm using mostly earthworks sankens and brauners etc which i like for their ability to pick up transients and detail etc
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2528
Gear Addict
 
fadein's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
It’s an alternate-reality resemblance of what a live act sounds like. It’s a congruent sounding record though, sounds like a “real” well done record.
It doesn't have to be a "well done" one though. It can be e.g. an interpretation of an audio memory of a live event. One may ask then, if one's memory is something objectively real. Of course it's not, unless someone is into particular mystical views. But for that person, such memory is as real as any recording.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2529
Here for the gear
 

Modern Mastering...Ugh!

Just to throw my $0.02 in:

Analogue just sounds "nicer" in the same was as most people prefer to listen to imperfect valve amplifiers! The harmonic distortion produced is (mostly) concordant, so is actually masked by and tends to "enhance" the predominant sounds that you're recording....

Digital recording is now so good that it can actually record and reproduce exactly what the microphone "hears". Most of us oldsters aren't used to such audio precision, so complain that "it sounded better in the analogue days".

I stopped production use of my Studer analogue machines relatively recently. Now that the computer replacements are sufficiently good, I can't afford the maintenance time that is so essential with analogue tape machines.

I've spent many hours with music producers and artists listening to both analogue and digital versions of a recording session. I remember one major artist demanding that everything was mastered on 30 ips analogue tape "'cos it's best". The finished product was shipped to a mastering company, who applied some nasty cheap compressor to the whole thing, then recorded into clipping throughout the piece. The artist claimed that the "analogue CD" (his words) sounded amazing and was the best thing he'd ever done. It actually sounded terrible.
We'd taken great pains to make the analogue master as good as it could possibly be, but according to the artist, the proof CDs we burned were "too quiet"!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2530
Here for the gear
 

Even old analogue photos have the edge for me

As clear and as good as digital cameras have got. It was a very inspiring experience to go through my sisters Analogue traveling photos from the 90's. She is a trained photographer and there is something heartwarming and inspiringly special about those photos that digital cameras still don't capture.
Perhaps there is something in the higher frequencies that our ears and eyes don't catch but another sense does.

There is a story about listening back to a recording of a comedian. With and without a subwoofer. When the subwoofer is on even though no one can hear it is on. people laugh at the joke. When it is off people don't laugh. Sorry I can't find the link to the story.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2531
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by vernier View Post
There's NO LOOKING BACK. We're in THE DIGITAL WORLD whether we like it or not. The few of us that are still into analog probably like other old things like shifting the car and not cooking by microwave.
Manual "stickshift" is renowned for being a better drive.
Food cooked in the oven or over flame, etc, i.e. not in a microwave, is renowned for tasting better.

Your point kinda got lost there...

Our ears hear in analogue.
Not sure why conversion to digital then back to analogue is meant to be the destroyer of analogue.
Is 'using the wheel' "looking back"?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2532
Gear Addict
This type of question would only be asked by someone who doesn't know the theoretical differences. I'd suggest to the OP to educate yourself on the cause and not blindly question the effect.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2533
Here for the gear
Most audio today is consumed via a smartphone with earbuds or a car radio with stock speakers. In that environment, you probably cannot hear the difference between analog and digital. That said, the entire signal chain makes a difference. Every component matters to some extent.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2534
Here for the gear
 

My thought is that analogue is simply continuous information. When you slice the information up [digital] you essentially make it a square wave with its consequential odd harmonic generation. I had a Moog Synthesizer [Analogue synthesis}and even though the Buchala [Digital synthesis] played the exact same note it sounded different. Analogue tape has a compression effect due to the tape's saturation before the electronics distortion. If you have, in my opinion, the machine setup correctly. The tape has a usable dynamic range of about 60db, noise floor to saturation. [Of course it can be enhanced but not much more than by ~20db.] Digital has a dynamic range into 100+ db. The operating range of most reproduction systems is a nominal 40db [Of course the Grateful Dead have much more range :-)]
I agree that analogue filtration is much pleasanter to the ears, "that's my story and I'm stickin to it." ;-)
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2535
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitsmith View Post
and certainly 'older' records can sound as or MORE real than anything ... look at the much praised mercury living presence vinyl recordings from the 50s which are coveted for their realism and immediacy in reproduction ...
Example? Recording equipment in the 50s couldn’t really produce accuracy so I’m curious. I’m sure they sound great, but that’s different than real. Elvis records sound great, but they don’t sound real.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2536
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
Example? Recording equipment in the 50s couldn’t really produce accuracy so I’m curious. I’m sure they sound great, but that’s different than real. Elvis records sound great, but they don’t sound real.
I wiki’d it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merc...resence_series

I’m 1961, Mercury enhanced the three-microphone stereo technique by using 35 mm magnetic film instead of half-inch tape for recording. The greater emulsion thickness, track width and speed (90 feet per min or 18 ips) of 35 mm magnetic film increased prevention of tape layer print-through and pre-echo and gained in addition extended frequency range and transient response.

If the frequency range and transient response was extended by technological upgrades in the 60s, then it means the 50s recording’s reality could be improved upon. The 1950s records in this series largely weren’t even in stereo. That’s not at all realistic, reality is in stereo.

Records from the past don’t sound real. @ joeq is right, when people say “real” they mean “like a real record” not “exactly like reality.”
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2537
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fadein View Post
It doesn't have to be a "well done" one though. It can be e.g. an interpretation of an audio memory of a live event. One may ask then, if one's memory is something objectively real. Of course it's not, unless someone is into particular mystical views. But for that person, such memory is as real as any recording.
For sure. That post was specifically about Love Me Do.

By “reality” I’m meaning what actual drums, vocals, guitars, and harmonicas sound like being played in person. I think proposing that “memories are real” and that sort of stuff just confuses something that’s very clear. The drums in Love Me Do are rolled off big time on the high end compared to a live drum kit being played (to point just one difference out). That’s not real, that’s the sound being warped and adjusted to be different than reality via recording and engineering techniques and limitations.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2538
Lives for gear
 
proxy's Avatar
 

This reminds me of when the new high-refresh rate TVs started coming out.

People, myself included, were saying, despite having more digital information, they disliked the “soap opera effect” at least for things like drama... saying it felt too real, like it broke the third wall, losing its narrative quality.

BUT, to my amazement, I stumbled upon a YouTube video that compared low and high refresh rates for movies, and I was amazed at how many people (presumably younger people?) were saying without a doubt the higher refresh rate was better for drama because it wasn’t so stuttery during action sequences.

I don’t see that as them having worse taste, merely different norms and points of reference. Same is likely true of things like LED lights.


Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
I think this is something that is often overlooked in the “sounds better” debates. In my teens I knew older adults who didn’t like the “new” FM radio because of its increased HF performance. I also knew adults that had grown up in the 30s and 40s who found the sound of 33rpm vinyl to be fatiguing because of all the high and low end information they had not heard on 78s. Les Paul tells of how the engineers at Capitol didn’t like him using condenser mics on Mary Ford’s voice in his home studio because they though they sounded too “bright and hot” compared to the ribbons they were used to using.

I sometime wonder if the “analog sound best” belief is at least partly an extension of norms that were developed before certain technological innovations?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2539
(I was sitting this thread out for a while but found myself reading a bunch of posts I hadn't seen before while lying sleepless in bed last night. Nothing I'm going to say below is something I haven't said before. That said, I find myself feeling the need to say it again. Feel free to skip.)


Subjective valuation is, of course, important. It is our primary impression of an event. But the effectiveness of that valuation is, by necessity, based on the experience of the individual in question.

I did my first overdub in 1965. I feelanced in almost exclusively all analog studios through the 1980s, had my own project studio in the 1990s. I've owned 10 analog, reel tape recorders. In terms of natural, unamplified music, not only have I spent thousands of hours comparing live studio performance with resulting recordings, I've seen over 80 (unamplified) symphonic and chamber concerts. And I play a handful of acoustic instruments (not necessarily uniformly well, but I do).

And I have to say, by my well-experienced ear, it's certainly not my impression that analog tape can capture the original signal coming from the control room with the sonic accuracy of properly chosen, set-up, and performed professional level digital capture. Some might well like the results better, but that is not the same thing as fidelity to the original signal. It might feel like a record to a given individual (What does that ultimately even mean?) but that's not the same thing by a stretch.

Of course, THAT subjective evaluation of analog 'realism' is only MY opinion. Other folks have theirs, whatever their own level of experience.


And that is one very good reason why the people who have designed and developed the analog and digital recording technologies we used and continue to use have, since the very early days of recording, called on a variety of carefully chosen, much-tested and evaluated objective measurements of sonic performance to provide subjectivity-free standards of evaluation of sonic fidelity (accuracy of reproduction).

And by those standards, properly chosen, set-up, and performed digital audio transcription is more accurate -- by every single objective measure we have traditionally used in evaluating audio gear.

When I combine understanding of that measured superior performance with long experience listening to analog tape and grooved disc (and now digital transcription), I find myself 100% confident that I made the right choice (for me) of recording platforms. I have the sonic accuracy I dreamed of as a kid sweating over my various tape recorders and I have a production platform of enormous flexibility. I considered myself something of a whiz with blade and block editing. But me go back to editing and production, rewinding, maintenance, repairm and the rest that goes with analog tape -- along WITH the degraded sonic performance? That's just not going to happen. Let others keep the old dinos alive, God love 'em.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2540
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
If you read the interviews about many of those live albums you might be surprised at how many of them where doctored after the fact and by how much.

Hardly anyone who records a live album sets up a pair of super accurate mics in audience POV and uses that as the live album. At least not for rock. Yet for classical (where the listeners actually like realism) it is probably the most common way of recording.

.
Agreed.

I run sound at a club that (with the artist's permission) takes a 16-24 track digital recording off the board for each show. Now, remember that I am there running sound, so I know exactly what it sounded like live

It takes an ungodly amount of tweaking to get those recordings to sound "live" and like it sounded in the room. More than it takes with a recording done under studio conditions.

I also have a stereo pair at the mixing position for audience pickup. It universally sounds disappointing for recording the music.

Form the moment when they told the singer to stand closer to the horn than the musicians, the sound of popular music has never been one of a accurate representation of of the live experience.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2541
Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
Agreed.

I run sound at a club that (with the artist's permission) takes a 16-24 track digital recording off the board for each show. Now, remember that I am there running sound, so I know exactly what it sounded like live

It takes an ungodly amount of tweaking to get those recordings to sound "live" and like it sounded in the room. More than it takes with a recording done under studio conditions.

I also have a stereo pair at the mixing position for audience pickup. It universally sounds disappointing for recording the music.


Form the moment when they told the singer to stand closer to the horn than the musicians, the sound of popular music has never been one of a accurate representation of of the live experience.
And THEN throw in the digital latencies (the nasty, unavoidable weasel in the digital picnic basket) of modern in-ear wireless monitoring, eh? Yeah, in a dedicated system, you can get that latency 'down there' -- but it's always there. That said -- the way pop/rock bands spread out on stages these days, if they had to depend on sound-in-air, the 'latencies' hearing their bandmates might be even worse.


I have to say, there was a time, very early in my game, when, perhaps thinking about how I'd occasionally been pressed into running sound for a handful of live acts at different times (based, perhaps, on nothing more than the fact that I wore glasses and looked the part) before I ever got into studio work, that -- I'm ashamed to admit now -- I 'looked down' on live venue sound.

Until I was dumb enough to take a live sound gig with my frequent production partner of the era. It was a bloody nightmare. We might have known our way around a low end studio, but we realized almost immediately that we were very ill-prepared. We tamed the feedback, got the monitors working, the band's manager finally stopped yelling at us. But, seriously, it was an IMPORTANT lesson about knowing your own wheelhouse.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2542
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by proxy View Post
This reminds me of when the new high-refresh rate TVs started coming out.

People, myself included, were saying, despite having more digital information, they disliked the “soap opera effect” at least for things like drama... saying it felt too real, like it broke the third wall, losing its narrative quality.

BUT, to my amazement, I stumbled upon a YouTube video that compared low and high refresh rates for movies, and I was amazed at how many people (presumably younger people?) were saying without a doubt the higher refresh rate was better for drama because it wasn’t so stuttery during action sequences.

I don’t see that as them having worse taste, merely different norms and points of reference. Same is likely true of things like LED lights.
This was an added effect "feature" on LCD's, which were massively inferior to plasma TVs which came before them, very noticible side by side at Best Buy.

Its a terrible effect. If you turn it off, your LCD will lose the "hyper real" look and just look like a dull plasma, which is preferable. Its not making things "more real" is essentially a digital effect plugin you can turn off and on.

Plasma TVs are where its at, they look stunning. They don't make them anymore though. I've hung onto mine. LED's got close enough to plasma where other pros/cons ran plasmas off the market. If you get a new TV these days, make sure its LED not LCD.

https://www.cnet.com/how-to/soap-ope...off-heres-how/

This motion "whatever" was ostensibly developed to help decrease apparent motion blur on LCDs. All LCD TVs have difficulty with motion resolution. Which is to say, any object onscreen that's in motion will be less detailed (slightly blurry) compared with that same object when stationary. High-refresh-rate LCDs (120Hz and 240Hz) were developed to combat this problem.

http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/h...plasma-tv.html

Plasma TVs have obtained our top ranked picture quality ratings other than much more expensive new 4K or OLED TVs for the past 10 years in a row without exception. Granted, picture quality comparisons have gotten closer over the past couple years. Except for the very best LED TVs, Plasma Televisions have trounced LED and LCD TVs in black level, processing speed (Hz rate vs sub field drive on plasma), side angle viewing quality and contrast, and color saturation and rendition.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2543
Gear Head
The only thing that matters in the end is, the listener's perception of reality.


I love great sounding analog gear. I love great sounding digital gear. Great tools, are great tools. I love digital editing, who doesn't? Here, digital wins. No digital, no automation, digital wins again. Preamps-Analog wins. Eq-Analog wins. Compression-Analog wins. Reverb, delay-Toss up.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2544
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post

Until I was dumb enough to take a live sound gig with my frequent production partner of the era. It was a bloody nightmare. We might have known our way around a low end studio, but we realized almost immediately that we were very ill-prepared. We tamed the feedback, got the monitors working, the band's manager finally stopped yelling at us. But, seriously, it was an IMPORTANT lesson about knowing your own wheelhouse.
Its also physically exhausting at the low end if you don't have much help!

I ran a seven-band 10 hour show Saturday night/Sunday morning. 20 minutes to get one band off the stage and another on, a one minute line check and then go.

And every **** wanted to use his own drum kit!

I spent what seems like a lifetime chivying drummers on and off stage. What is it about the genetics of a drummer that makes them utterly adverse to putting a cymbal on a stand until the stand is set up on stage, and equally adverse to removing the stand and cymbal from the stage in one piece? Literally one guy was still carefully removing cymbals from stands on stage and carefully putting them is a case 15 minutes after he finished playing. The next drummer "helped" him remove the rest of his kit in record time.

I did mange to get them bands to agree on a single back-line bass amp. Quote of the night from the bassist of band #5 :

"This bass amp sound really bland. And I'm not getting much level."

Me:

"That's because the amp is still in standby. You're listening to the drummer's monitor."

It is now 10 am on Monday, and I'm getting messages along the lines of "have you mixed any of these recordings from Saturday yet?"

And this was a volunteer gig!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2545
You’d have to ask yourself, if you could track through a neve console, to a Studer a800, or to the latest PT version with top convertors what would YOU use? I think it comes down to the project. What do YOU want out of the recording. How are you gonna make the recording? Will it be patchwork (cut and paste, fly and loop job) or more capture preformances? Addressing these first and knowing what the project will entail Would tell me what better. I prefer analog for sound, but some projects will be better digital. Lots of comps, or like I said earlier with patchwork, I’d go digital. For capturing performances it’s analog all day. (Not to say I just use analog to capture performances, but when I use analog, I know what the limitations are that I have gotten so use to with PT
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2546
Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
Its also physically exhausting at the low end if you don't have much help!

I ran a seven-band 10 hour show Saturday night/Sunday morning. 20 minutes to get one band off the stage and another on, a one minute line check and then go.

And every **** wanted to use his own drum kit!

I spent what seems like a lifetime chivying drummers on and off stage. What is it about the genetics of a drummer that makes them utterly adverse to putting a cymbal on a stand until the stand is set up on stage, and equally adverse to removing the stand and cymbal from the stage in one piece? Literally one guy was still carefully removing cymbals from stands on stage and carefully putting them is a case 15 minutes after he finished playing. The next drummer "helped" him remove the rest of his kit in record time.

I did mange to get them bands to agree on a single back-line bass amp. Quote of the night from the bassist of band #5 :

"This bass amp sound really bland. And I'm not getting much level."

Me:

"That's because the amp is still in standby. You're listening to the drummer's monitor."

It is now 10 am on Monday, and I'm getting messages along the lines of "have you mixed any of these recordings from Saturday yet?"

And this was a volunteer gig!



Oh, man! Volunteer gigs. Low-key. No money. Do it for the love. It'll be FUN!!!


I once had a punk rock comp project to record -- 13 bands scheduled in the same super low-ball studio over two days. (The label guy had apparently never got the memo that you solicit stuff bands already had in the can; that said, at least a third of these guys had never recorded before anywhere, far as I could tell.) At one point I actually had to get between the huge lead singer of a bunch of jailhouse punks and the slick but slimy label guy. (If I'd known how things/money would ultimately turn out, I might not have jumped in.) But, you know what? It STILL sounds like I had an easier time of it than your 'fun' gig.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2547
Gear Addict
 
fadein's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
Example? Recording equipment in the 50s couldn’t really produce accuracy so I’m curious. I’m sure they sound great, but that’s different than real. Elvis records sound great, but they don’t sound real.
Depends which records, or even better: recordings. Plenty of those are completely live, even those in studios. Check out the book Elvis Presley: A Life in Music--The Complete Recording Sessions, if you care.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2548
Gear Addict
 
fadein's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
The 1950s records in this series largely weren’t even in stereo. That’s not at all realistic, reality is in stereo.
Depends where you are in a performance room. The experience can be closer to mono. Then again: stereo isn't really enough for the very same reason.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2549
Gear Addict
 
fadein's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by proxy View Post
People, myself included, were saying, despite having more digital information, they disliked the “soap opera effect” at least for things like drama... saying it felt too real, like it broke the third wall, losing its narrative quality.
Now, there's an answer to my question why I suddenly started to watch plenty of recent series! I just enjoy the view and all the other stuff goes to the second plan. Cheers for this remark.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2550
Gear Addict
 
fadein's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
It takes an ungodly amount of tweaking to get those recordings to sound "live" and like it sounded in the room. More than it takes with a recording done under studio conditions.
That's a very good and true explanation! Thanks.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump