![]() |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
In message , Graeme Wall
writes On 18/11/2017 08:23, Graeme wrote: With 'popular' (including pop/rock/country/whatever) music is not the opposite true?* Whether we are discussing a recording made last week or the Crystals in 1963, it is the live artist trying to reproduce the sound record buyers hear on the LP/CD. That won't work with Sgt Pepper and the many albums that followed it. Surely that is exactly where it works? Sgt Pepper was an engineer produced album, and the Beatles could never have played it live, to sound like the album the public knew. Perhaps we are at cross purposes, but I struggle to see how any live band could reproduce, on stage, the same sound that had been created on a record by Phil Spector, George Martin etc. Having said that, does it matter? People still love hearing the Beatles thumping out Get Back on a roof, but it isn't the same as track as released. Then again, does it matter? How many times has Queen at Live Aid been played via YouTube? Fans love to listen to their favourites whether live or as presented on disc, the fact that the music will never be quite the same is irrelevant. -- Graeme |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
In article ,
Graeme wrote: In message , Mike Fleming writes The producer of a studio creation will be trying to create the sound he feels is ideal, so it's only polite to try to reproduce that sound accurately. Not sure how well I can express myself here. I think two different experiences are being discussed. Listening to 'classical' musical, it is the sound engineer is trying to capture that live sound, to be reproduced at home via CD. With 'popular' (including pop/rock/country/whatever) music is not the opposite true? Whether we are discussing a recording made last week or the Crystals in 1963, it is the live artist trying to reproduce the sound record buyers hear on the LP/CD. In other words, the 'real' sound with classical is what we hear live. With pop, the 'real' sound is decided by the engineer. It is in both cases. If you were to do a rule of thumb for a classical recording with no chance to experiment or rehearse in the venue, you'd simply sling a stereo pair above the conductor. Since he is the one who 'engineers' the balance of the orchestra. But that's not a place any member of the audience can hear the work from. -- *Consciousness: That annoying time between naps. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
On 18/11/2017 09:43, Graeme wrote:
In message , Graeme Wall writes On 18/11/2017 08:23, Graeme wrote: Â*With 'popular' (including pop/rock/country/whatever) music is not theÂ* opposite true?Â* Whether we are discussing a recording made last week orÂ* the Crystals in 1963, it is the live artist trying to reproduce theÂ* sound record buyers hear on the LP/CD. That won't work with Sgt Pepper and the many albums that followed it. Surely that is exactly where it works?Â* Sgt Pepper was an engineer produced album, and the Beatles could never have played it live, to sound like the album the public knew.Â* Perhaps we are at cross purposes, but I struggle to see how any live band could reproduce, on stage, the same sound that had been created on a record by Phil Spector, George Martin etc. We are at cross purposes, I was addressing the remark about live artists trying to reproduce the sound record buyers hear on the LP/CD. Having said that, does it matter? To me, not at all. People still love hearing the Beatles thumping out Get Back on a roof, but it isn't the same as track as released.Â* Then again, does it matter?Â*Â* How many times has Queen at Live Aid been played via YouTube? 25,806,265 times apparently! Fans love to listen to their favourites whether live or as presented on disc, the fact that the music will never be quite the same is irrelevant. Agreed The thing about Sgt Pepper is that there was never going to be the chance to hear it live. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
In article , Mike Fleming
wrote: A fair amount of non-classical music is performed for recordings only and never played live. But you're rather making my point, the engineer decides what the real sound is, so, if you want the real sound that the engineer decided on, you need a high fidelity system. Indeed. And for material like R3 broadcasts of concerts, having some idea of what being there sounds like can help you to decide if what your hi-fi is producing is a decent representation. Becoming familiar with the sound of such performances in halls can be a useful guide. However for some other types of recording, there will be no acoustic 'original' beyond what someone sitting at a mixing desk created as they operated the controls to get a result they think will 'sell', or have impact or please their target audience. Using a setup you would never get to hear and which is unlike home hi-fi systems. In those cases you can't access such a reference so just have to decide if you like the result or not. Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
On 12/11/2017 13:39, D.M. Procida wrote:
Now that the contents of a CD can be held in RAM, never mind in other cheaper and still very fast digital storage, what does an expensive CD player offer that a cheap transport and a decent digital-to-analog converter cannot? If DAC products can buffer seconds' or even minutes' worth of data, and can stream it out to the actual DAC circuitry with GHz precision, there doesn't seem to be much need any more for costly CD players. Am I missing something? Daniele Not really. However, if you can get a good deal on a top class CD player then it's always there for future use whereas the cheaper alternatives might or might not last. I got an ex-demo top of the range tecnics a few years ago for less than half price and it does the job really well when needed. -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Mike Fleming wrote: A fair amount of non-classical music is performed for recordings only and never played live. But you're rather making my point, the engineer decides what the real sound is, so, if you want the real sound that the engineer decided on, you need a high fidelity system. Indeed. And for material like R3 broadcasts of concerts, having some idea of what being there sounds like can help you to decide if what your hi-fi is producing is a decent representation. Becoming familiar with the sound of such performances in halls can be a useful guide. However for some other types of recording, there will be no acoustic 'original' beyond what someone sitting at a mixing desk created as they operated the controls to get a result they think will 'sell', or have impact or please their target audience. Using a setup you would never get to hear and which is unlike home hi-fi systems. In those cases you can't access such a reference so just have to decide if you like the result or not. It's quite true that you can't hear a reference for certain material, because you'll never hear what (say) Kraftwerk heard in their studio in 1976 or what Laurie Anderson heard in her head. However, if you know what an ordinary human voice sounds like, and a piano and a violin, and you know that your hi-fi does a good job of rendering those in your sitting room, you can listen to Kraftwerk or Laurie Anderson and have a reasonable degree of confidence that you're hearing a good rendition of what you should be hearing. On top of that, even if you listen to something that has no reference, so that you don't know whether a certain pleasing colouration is part of it or just a lucky anomaly of your playback system, you can hear the same thing on another system and realise that one reveals more than the other, or one is able to present details that the other cannot, and that's another reasonable and not entirely subjective basis for judging that one might be better than the other - even in the absence of of a "real" sound to make your comparisons with. Daniele |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
On 17/11/2017 10:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Not quite, Jim. Pop type recordings are mixed by their engineers for the very best sound they can get in their control room. To say they will sound just as good on a 'music centre' or whatever isn't the case. AIUI sometimes they are mixed to sound the best they can _on_ _poor_ _equipment_ which compromises the reproduction on something good. snip Andy |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote: However for some other types of recording, there will be no acoustic 'original' beyond what someone sitting at a mixing desk created as they operated the controls to get a result they think will 'sell', or have impact or please their target audience. Using a setup you would never get to hear and which is unlike home hi-fi systems. In those cases you can't access such a reference so just have to decide if you like the result or not. It's actually quite rare to have a totally electronic recording. Most have vocals. Many real drums, guitars, and so on. All of which picked up by microphones in exactly the same way as a classical piece. -- *Reality is the illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote: On 17/11/2017 10:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: Not quite, Jim. Pop type recordings are mixed by their engineers for the very best sound they can get in their control room. To say they will sound just as good on a 'music centre' or whatever isn't the case. AIUI sometimes they are mixed to sound the best they can _on_ _poor_ _equipment_ which compromises the reproduction on something good. Same applies to many classical recordings and broadcasts. If nothing else the dynamic range is usually reduced. -- *I didn't drive my husband crazy -- I flew him there -- it was faster Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote: It's actually quite rare to have a totally electronic recording. Most have vocals. Many real drums, guitars, and so on. All of which picked up by microphones in exactly the same way as a classical piece. Agreed. But may be partioned off to some extent with panels of acoustic materials, etc. Hence there may not be one overall acoustic, etc. So no quite "the same way" as something like a R3 concert broadcast. Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk