 
|
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 |
4.246.120.244
In Reply to: You're RIGHT ON, Robert! posted by Michael Bishop on January 6, 2007 at 08:14:30:
My friend and I hear a lot of live music in Davies Hall, San Fransisco. Two experiences stand out from the rest: Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, (recorded by RCA as we listened), and Mahler's grand "Symphony of a Thousand" back in '02? Maybe?In any case, the first (FIRST) reaction from both me and my friend was this: "It wasn't as loud as CD." Let's have a moment of silence and think about this for a moment.
Mr. Lang writes at length about speakers and dynamics. I ask: What does it matter if digital over-emphasizes (sp) to begin with???
My last observation, as I believe that both Mr. Lang and Mr. Bishop truly believe that multi-channel is the cat's meow:
Vinyl creates the illusion of live as well, but is more of a half-circle imaging: the orchestra hangs between and behind the speakers on vinyl in a way that is more persuasive than any CD player I've heard. I believe Mr. Bishop and I use the same speakers, at least from the waist up: I use Vandersteen 3A sigs, and Mr. Bishop uses the 5A's??
I experimented with surround, though in the end, I couldn't move my chair to the middle of the room for optimal enjoyment. The rear and center channel ambience was indeed helpful in creating a "live" experinece, IF one's desire is to be in the conductor's shoes. If one's desire is to hear the music from 20 rows back, vinyl does the job. Dynamic range, and I can't emphasize this enough: is not the last word when it comes to "musicality!"
My plea to Telarc: Make records again!
Follow Ups:
I'm not sure what position you are referring to in the subject line.I'm recording on the format I prefer (DSD) and when the project's released on SACD, I feel it's the best representation of what I recorded when played back on an equal system. I can't ask for more than that! I consider myself very fortunate to be working for a label that supports that kind of work.
There's no getting around the fact that lacquer masters and vinyl pressings have some technical "imperfections" that give the characteristics to vinyl playback that fans love. That's what I mean when calling the format "euphonic." I, for one, am happy to leave those characteristics to others to employ. I don't like those characteristics imposed on my recordings, and that's my preference. While I have a bit of influence in choosing the Telarc release formats, it's really not up to me ultimately. I'm really happy that our best stuff gets out there on SACD and in surround, though!
Best Regards,Michael Bishop
Recording Engineer
"There's no getting around the fact that lacquer masters and vinyl pressings have some technical "imperfections" that give the characteristics to vinyl playback that fans love. That's what I mean when calling the format "euphonic."Thank you for responding. I can't tell you how excited I used to be to save up my money in '81 as a Junior in High School, and buy Telarc albums--then go home and play them on a Sound-design turntable....I wish I still had Shaw's Carmina Burana, it routinely sells for $100+ on ebay. I used to examine the ultra-wide grooves in the sun in the car on the way home.
Anyway: Even if vinyl is euphonic, it drives me crazy when everyone stops there--it's so much more than that! Besides vinyl delivering better timbral honesty, better concert-hall atmosphere, and a supreme delicacy; there is one fundamental difference that won me over, and I didn't hear it even on a top-of-the-line SACD surround system: that fundamental difference is an "anchoring" of the entire soundstage and the instruments in it. (Forgive my awkward metaphors.) When listening to vinyl, there is simply more "traction" and laser-like focus to the sounds, individually and collectively. This anchoring and traction lends much more "physicality" to both rhythms and the actually creation of sound from an instrument. I believe this is what people are talking about when they discuss the "soul" of music. It's the best description I can give after days of careful thought and listening.
I had the wonderful opportunity to visit Mr. Robert Lang in Oakland, CA last weekend to hear is amazing surround system. (Great guy, beautiful house, beautiful family.) We couldn't listen to vinyl, but I had a chance to hear surround SACD on the two-piece Meitner player into matched speakers of which I can't remember the name. I can't imagine it getting better than this. We listened to the Linn Barber/Poulenc SACD. It was thrilling, the organ coming from full-range rears was awesome. Still, the soundstage and imaging was loosely-hinged which adversely affected rhythms and textures. Next was an SACD of the Widor Mass, also thrilling: I think surround is great in capturing large, reverberant acoustics in which the sound kind of floats around anyway.
The good news, if you haven't fallen asleep yet,: ) is when we got around to the Telarc SACDs, namely the Jarvi Lutoslawski, (a great demonstration piece, as each string choir enters one at a time), suddenly the soundstage was indeed anchored and textures in excellent focus, better than any other SACDs to which we listened that day, but...IMHO, listening after I got home, I vinyl focused and anchored better still, especially focus. Mr. Lang was quick to point out that the art of recording in surround is pretty young, and will surely get better. I agree.
The biggest surprise of the day was listening to plain old CD on the Meitner. I was drop-jawed at the level of soundstage width and depth and luminous textures that the player produced. If only I had $10K+, LOL. But then I could buy back all the Telarc records I gave away during the Great Record Purges of '85.
I have spent over three times the amount of money on my vinyl rig
(VPI Scoutmaster, Shelter 901 Cary PH-302)as I did on my SACD player (Sony XA-777) By all accounts I have a very good vinyl front-end. And yet vinyl performance on my system does not come close to MCH SACD when the best of both are compared. It does come very close to SACD on 2CH but my SACD player still takes the lead. I try to compare the best of both media in order to ensure a comparson of "apples" to "apples".To be honest I wish this were NOT the case. I have many more records than I do SACDs and there is a lot of used vinyl out there in excellent condition. If I bought a Rockport, complete with a Boulder phono preamp would my vinyl front end be better than my SACD player? Probably, but dollar for dollar it's not even close.
Please register and post your system. That way, I can see what equipment you are using to make your comparison and whether you have objectively evaluated high-end discrete MCH sound. This is not a put-down Good music MCH systems, as opposed to HT systems, are few and far between.
.
I'm not sure but I think your moniker will be in boldface oance you have registered.
Robert C. Lang
nt
****"My friend and I hear a lot of live music in Davies Hall, San Fransisco. Two experiences stand out from the rest: Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, (recorded by RCA as we listened), and Mahler's grand "Symphony of a Thousand" back in '02? Maybe?
In any case, the first (FIRST) reaction from both me and my friend was this: "It wasn't as loud as CD." Let's have a moment of silence and think about this for a moment."********”Mr. Lang writes at length about speakers and dynamics. I ask: What does it matter if digital over-emphasizes (sp) to begin with???”****
Please explain what does this have to do with CD vs. vinyl. Are you saying that the ability to capture dynamic contrasts (the difference between the quietest passages and the loudest passages) or greater for CD than what actually occurred at the live performances you cited? And if so, are you saying also that this exaggeration of contrasts, especially to boost loudness, is an "inherent" foible of digital? Or are you saying that digital recording engineers have a tendency to boost the juice in the loudest passages and that vinyl recording engineers don’t do the same? I believe it serves no useful purpose to blame the format in this case.
I, too, find that music that I play at home is louder (by about 2-3 db or greater depending on my mood) than when I attend a live orchestral concert (of course that will dramatically differ depending on the seat in the hall, at Davies Hall for sure! And also, of course, this has little to do with dynamic “contrasts”). But that's my “fault” not the “fault” of the format and I tend to play my music at roughly the same levels whether the source is vinyl or digital, it doesn't matter.
Look, I agree with you that the dynamics of some recordings are “hyped”. But vinyl is in no way exempt from this affliction. In fact, the age-old vinyl quest to achieve the latest “sonic blockbuster” not uncommonly resulted in over-saturated recordings because of the limits of the format, poor engineering, and/or because of the inability of the turntables/arms/cartridges to adequately handle the loudest, most bass laden passages. To be sure, I do have vinyl in my collection that do a superb job on these type of recordings, but they are more likely to be (not always) “audiophile” discs, especially direct-to-disc, that come closest to what I hear at Davies Hall (to use your reference point).
But among all classical recordings in my collection, comparing even randomly selected SACD to “handpicked” vinyl, both to which I compare to a Davies Hall like experience, SACD has a much higher rate of success across the spectrum, but specifically with respect to wide dynamics (since that what we are focusing on at the moment).
***”My last observation, as I believe that both Mr. Lang and Mr. Bishop truly believe that multi-channel is the cat's meow:”****You believe that vinyl is the cat’s meow, true? Based on your comments, I believe I have a far deeper appreciation of and more relevant experience with vinyl than you have with SACD multi-channel. Certainly Mr. Bishop has far deeper understanding of the strengths and weakenesses of both formats than either of us. I recommend that you obtain more relevant experience with SACD multi-channel before you pass judgement on a format that you know little about (based on your words). Since we both apparently live in the San Francisco Bay Area I would be happy to help you out.
***”I believe Mr. Bishop and I use the same speakers, at least from the waist up: I use Vandersteen 3A sigs, and Mr. Bishop uses the 5A's??***”
That borders on being completely irrelevent for many reasons. But looking at *only* the ability to replicate wide dynamics and demanding bass of, say the Fischer Mahler 2 (to bring us back to your emphsis of your thread), the Vandersteen 5A is audibly and measurably superior, by a significant margin to the 3A, even though tonally they are both in the same league of being the “cat’s meow” in my opinion. PLUS Mr. Bishop has 5 of the Vandersteen 5As. A pair of 3A’s, as muuch as I admire them, compared to five 5As in a multi-channel SACD configuration, would not stand a smidgen of a chance to bring to life what the Fischer recording has to offer both in terms of dynamics or the imaging that you describe.
***”Dynamic range, and I can't emphasize this enough: is not the last word when it comes to "musicality!"”***.
Agreed. In fact, for the major part of the inventory wide dynamic range is a relative minor consideration. But dynamic range is a *critical* ingredient to the successful implementation of many compositions, such as the Mahler, which is why the composer wrote them in the score and called for such large forces to pull it off.
But generally, as superior that some believe that vinyl is to SACD or CD (I have listened to far more vinyl than CD in recent years) I know of one person who has both an extensive collection of vinyl and reel-to-reel tapes. He believes his reel-to-reel, is far superior, particularly in head to head comparisons of the same performances.
Is reel-to-reel king? I don’t think so. One thing that many vinyl devotees have in common, which is a casualty of their devotion to medium, is that they are stuck in stereo. Most are completely missing the boat (many in a cavalier manner), akin to their mono predecessors who for years deprecated stereo, to the virtues of well-done multi-channel SACD, of which there are now hundreds of releases. Like most of us I hold on to for dear life to the technology to which I grew up on. I don’t dismiss technology simply because its old. Most often I’m guilty to hold on to technology because it is old and tried. But to me SACD multi-channel trumps it so (or can) soundly, including SOTA vinyl systems, that it is simply no longer an issue.
Robert C. Lang
I can imagine that 5 Vandy 5a's would be quite something. It brings a smile to my face, kind of akin to being in front of an engine of my father's B-52."I recommend that you obtain more relevant experience with SACD multi-channel before you pass judgement on a format that you know little about (based on your words). Since we both apparently live in the San Francisco Bay Area I would be happy to help you out."
I think 3 months with 20 audiophile channels was enough, but I must admit, I used an additional amp for the rear and center speakers, (though all speakers were same brand), and I could only drag my listening chair to about 3 feet of the ideal center. I live in Sacramento but often visit SF on Sundays. I would love to hear a properly set up system. And if anyone is interested in the Sacramento area, my door is always open if one wants to hear Classical vinyl for the first time "in years." I was able to set up my two channel system quite properly.
***"I think 3 months with 20 audiophile channels was enough"***It's the strength not the length (as our high school teacher would say).
****"I live in Sacramento but often visit SF on Sundays. I would love to hear a properly set up system".****Come on by. You can contact me directly through my web site that is listed in Inmate Systems.
Robert C. Lang
HowdyIf you ever get up to the Seattle area you're welcome here and MikeL is a very gracious host with the best vinyl system I've ever heard.
-Ted
HowdyI wouldn't respond to your rude posts if I were him. He often responds to polite posts.
His posts so far square with my experience and I infer from your post that you don't have as much MC experience as some of us...
A good friend of mine has a very nice TT, room, speakers, amps, preamps, etc. ( http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/663.html ) I still prefer listening to MC in my space. MC can give (and does deliver most of the time IMO) a much better soundstage, sense of immediacy, ... i.e. a much better sense of "being there" than the best stereo has to offer TT or not. I find this true for both minimalist recorded and "overproduced" music.
-Ted
I was hoping that of all people in the music industry that he would buckle. While I do not define the quality of my existence by the quality of my reproduced music in my home, it is my humble opinion that digital--hi rez or not-- was the wrong way to go. Even in multi-channel. If you disagree, well...we're Americans and we'll move on.
Gramophone, etc. and read a bad review of a release that just cost the company tens of thousands of $$ to produce can certainly handle my humble opinion. Your corrective posts are just silly.I also respect Mr. Bishops craft and survival in the business for almost 30 years now?
I've just begun to wonder if all of us, producers and listeners have forgotten how live music really sounds. I also think that the common dismissal of vinyl's strengths as "euphony" is condescending. Ironically the word has been used to describe SACD sound as well.
Every project my colleagues and I work on starts as live music. Part of the session preparation is to first hear the music performed in rehearsal and in-concert, sometimes over several concerts. How else would one know where to start? Post-concert meetings take place between the conductor, soloists, producer and engineer before a single note is recorded.Recorded music will not fool anyone into thinking it's live music. Since every form of recorded music has its own "euphony," I'm not sure I see how calling vinyl playback "euphonic" is condescending. I apologize if you took it that way, but it certainly was not intended to be.
Best Regards,Michael Bishop
Recording Engineer
HowdyAnd I have a lot of surround music (from Telarc as well as others) which sound quite a bit like live. As I said surround (IMO and system) sounds a lot more like live than stereo (from any source I've heard) and hence I think Mr. Bishop is on the right track. You never hear me talking about vinyl euphony.
-Ted
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 © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]