 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.209.161.177
In Reply to: Sorry, Dr. Geddes, I think you can blame me for starting that "biased discussion" posted by Homme De Terre on May 3, 2005 at 10:25:01:
You wrote:It brings a Duke Ellington quote to my mind though "If it sounds good, it is good."
Ellington is the artist, if it sounded good to him, I want to hear exactly what he heard. Since I couldn't be there myself I have to rely on a reproduction, but I still want to hear it exactly the same way that he heard it - uncolored, undistorted and if the recording was lousy, I want to hear that too. Listen to the early Billie Holiday stuff if you want to hear some really bad recordings (recordings I said NOT performances) - I want to hear them that way thank you.
Earl Geddes
Follow Ups:
Since I couldn't be there myself I have to rely on a reproduction, but I still want to hear it exactly the same way that he heard it...
It seems to me that the only way to do that would be to listen to the recording through the same speakers used for monitoring when the recording was made.
...uncolored, undistorted...
That presupposes that the speakers used for monitoring the recording were free of any coloration or distortion which certainly wasn't the case, and particularly so with older recordings.
The decisions made in the recording process, from microphone selection and placement, to the use of equalization, etc. are made while listening through the "filter" of the recording and playback system, including, and perhaps most significantly, the loudspeakers.
So what ends up encoded on the actual recording is ultimately the inverse of the "filter" through which the recording was monitored. In which case listening to that recording using loudspeakers which have less coloration and distortion is to hear less "exactly what he heard."
So if one's goal is hearing "exactly what he heard," depending on the recording, speakers such as the Iconics may very wll get one closer to that goal than yours.
se
You've got a point here, maybe we agree on the statement "I want to listen to the recording the way the recording engineer listened to it."
Perhaps that's even a reason why I like the 604s so much. Most of the music I prefer was recorded more than 20 years ago, mainly jazz, rock and classical. Since the 604 was so popular back then, many of my fav recordings could have been monitored over those speakers. Just a thought...Manfred
I think that both of the further posts are good points, but an old argument.Altec's have not been used for recording in many many years, given this fact, one would be foolish to design to their sound today. But if all you EVER want to listen to are old recordings, then yes, buy OLD Altecs!
I listen to modern recordings because they are so much better quality (DDD, etc.). Today the monitoring loudspeakers are diverse, but they are all converging on one principle and that is low coloration and distortion, exactly the same things that I am after. Virtually all of the pro monitor guys are after the same things. In the end all high quality loudspeakers should (and probably will) sound the same as each other and as the monitors. We are not there yet, but I, for one, am ceratinly not going to go backwards.
Earl Geddes
I think that both of the further posts are good points, but an old argument.
Yeah. So? :)
Altec's have not been used for recording in many many years, given this fact, one would be foolish to design to their sound today.
Why? There is a huge body of recorded music out there which was recorded many many years ago and will be with us for many many years to come, and for many that music constitutes a good portion of the music they like most. So why would it be foolish to offer these people solutions which may give them the greatest amount of pleasure and enjoyment?
But if all you EVER want to listen to are old recordings, then yes, buy OLD Altecs!
Why must it be all or nothing?
I listen to modern recordings because they are so much better quality (DDD, etc.).
Great. If that's what does it for you, that's what you should go for. But for some people, their emphasis is on the music rather than the recording. And there's a huge body of recorded music out there that will never see the light of DDD.
Today the monitoring loudspeakers are diverse, but they are all converging on one principle and that is low coloration and distortion, exactly the same things that I am after. Virtually all of the pro monitor guys are after the same things. In the end all high quality loudspeakers should (and probably will) sound hte same as each other and as the monitors.
Then certainly you have cause to be happy.
We are not there yet, but I, for one, am ceratinly not going to go backwards.
Well, I guess whether one is going forward or backward depends on where they're standing. :)
se
You've got a point here, maybe we agree on the statement "I want to listen to the recording the way the recording engineer listened to it."
Perhaps that's even a reason why I like the 604s so much. Most of the music I prefer was recorded more than 20 years ago, mainly jazz, rock and classical. Since the 604 was so popular back then, many of my fav recordings could have been monitored over those speakers. Just a thought...
And a very good thought at that in my opinion.
In the context of the huge number of recordings made over the decades, the notion of objectively perfect reproduction of those recordings doesn't make as much sense as it would seem. Though being the quantitatively-oriented society that we are, it does make good marketing sense I suppose. :)
se
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
