|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.57.125.26
In Reply to: RE: Relevant loudspeaker tests posted by Tony Lauck on July 15, 2014 at 20:54:33
"End of the golden age and the beginning of the dark age."
I can't tell if you're being serious or humorous. Which?
Tell me which of the examples I cited were not improvements over 1950s-60s technology or approach.
:)
Follow Ups:
I am dead serious. I formed my opinion on the general quality of recordings and playback of recordings since the early days of stereo forward. IMO the big step back was the introduction of multi-track recording that ended the era of purist stereo recording. Sound quality was deteriorated further by introduction of Dolby-A signal mongering.
The early progress in solid state amplification was not real progress, just a partial attempt to regain what had been lost when moving away from tubed amplifiers.
All the EQ stuff, etc., more grist for the mill. Not needed in the first place if the original recording is made properly.
My comments apply only to acoustic music. I have never concerned myself with the "quality" of reproduction of music from instruments whose sound is deliberately manipulated electronically. I found the gap in sound quality between recorded classical music and jazz vs. pop to be obvious while I was still in high school in the very early 1960's, back when Peter Moncrief and I were lugging around our tape decks, KLH-6's and my Citation II to various large rooms and auditoriums.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I will have to disagree to some extent.
For example, while I enjoy the music of Stan Kenton's 1950s-60s recordings, I would be lying if I said they sound better than his 1970s recordings, or even my own two-mic bootleg.
Multi-mic recordings were being made well before multi-track tape recorders. Most of the 1940s-50s recordings were made with mikes on pretty much each instrument. The big difference is that they were mixed down live, rather than later.
One other point I'd disagree with:
"All the EQ stuff, etc., more grist for the mill. Not needed in the first place if the original recording is made properly."
"Properly" is a subjective term. The legendary Al Hirt with totally hot actress and wonderful singer Ann-Margret recording of "The Best Man" (c. 1965) was recorded and produced completely differently than Carly Simon's 1972 iconic "You're So Vain" with completely different technology. Yet, both are excellent.
:)
"If I don't make it as a recording engineer, I'll be a bass player in a rock band."
I just repeated what John Dunlavy made clear on several occasions. I dont understand the first thing about the theory as to why. If he was wrong, his speakers sounded great(I had a pair of SC IVs for years).
Edits: 07/16/14
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: