Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

In article <ftmlur015pk@news5.newsguy,com >, bob <nabob33@hotmail,com >
wrote:

> On Apr 10, 8:45 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:36:24 -0700, bob wrote
>
> > > No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
> > > it.
> >
> > I knew someone was going to make JUST that pedantic comment. Of course it
> > sounds "different" every time, but it still sounds like the instrument or
> > the
> > set of instruments that it is. But does a sax not sound like a sax - every
> > time you hear one? A violin like a violin? A piano like a piano? Can you
> > not
> > ALWAYS discern live music from canned?  I think anybody can. Music and
> > reproduction wouldn't mean very much if you couldn't make those
> > determinations. The fact that the venue changes some aspects of the sound
> > doesn't mean that a saxophone becomes something else. It's always a
> > saxophone
> > and its always recognizable as a sax and will be every time. Now, I'm not
> > discounting the possibility that a sax (or any other instrument) sounds
> > different to you than it might to me, but still, the sound that a saxophone
> > makes whether different for each of us or the same is stored in our aural
> > memory and when we hear one, we think "saxophone". Therefore the sound of a
> > live baritone sax, for instance, is an absolute because it always sounds
> > like
> > a sax to each of us, even though, if I could hear it as you hear it, not
> > having YOUR aural memory, I might think it sounds strange (and vice versa).
> > The point is that it sounds like a baritone sax to you and you are able to
> > identify that sound and tell whether its live or reproduced.  
>
> Granted, the binary distinction live vs. recorded is (at least
> usually) clear. But that isn't strong enough to make your point. You
> want to be able to determine whether one recorded sound is closer to
> live than another recorded sound. I don't think you can do that
> without specifying *which* live sound you have in mind--a full Avery
> Fisher, or an empty Alice Tully.

I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
that separate it from any recorded sound. Live acoustic music produced
in Alice Tully, whether full or empty, will always sound like live
music, and recorded sound has never displayed the those distinctive
qualities. For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
being played. It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible to
tell the difference.

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

On Apr 11, 2:44 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac,com > wrote:

> I disagree.  Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
> that separate it from any recorded sound.  

Yet my quite modest system occasionally fools me into believing that I
am hearing a live sound. Mostly on non musical signals from TV
programs, but every once in awhile I have been fooled by snippets of
music. The effect is often very striking and on one occasion I only
became convinced that the neigbors in the next townhouse were not
actually having a loud conversation in their back yard by turning down
the sound.

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:15:08 -0700, eseedhouse@gmail,com wrote
(in article <ftqg5c02hph@news4.newsguy,com >):

> On Apr 11, 2:44 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac,com > wrote:
>
>> I disagree.  Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
>> that separate it from any recorded sound.  
>
> Yet my quite modest system occasionally fools me into believing that I
> am hearing a live sound. Mostly on non musical signals from TV
> programs, but every once in awhile I have been fooled by snippets of
> music. The effect is often very striking and on one occasion I only
> became convinced that the neigbors in the next townhouse were not
> actually having a loud conversation in their back yard by turning down
> the sound.

Yeah, I think most of us have "glimpsed the muse" occasionally. Every now and
then, I mistake a phone ringing on TV for my own.

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

"Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
news:ftom3q06me@news3.newsguy,com ...
> In article <ftmlur015pk@news5.newsguy,com >, bob <nabob33@hotmail,com >
> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 10, 8:45 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:36:24 -0700, bob wrote
>>
>> > > No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
>> > > it.
>> >
>> > I knew someone was going to make JUST that pedantic comment. Of course
>> > it
>> > sounds "different" every time, but it still sounds like the instrument
>> > or
>> > the
>> > set of instruments that it is. But does a sax not sound like a sax -
>> > every
>> > time you hear one? A violin like a violin? A piano like a piano? Can
>> > you
>> > not
>> > ALWAYS discern live music from canned? I think anybody can. Music and
>> > reproduction wouldn't mean very much if you couldn't make those
>> > determinations. The fact that the venue changes some aspects of the
>> > sound
>> > doesn't mean that a saxophone becomes something else. It's always a
>> > saxophone
>> > and its always recognizable as a sax and will be every time. Now, I'm
>> > not
>> > discounting the possibility that a sax (or any other instrument) sounds
>> > different to you than it might to me, but still, the sound that a
>> > saxophone
>> > makes whether different for each of us or the same is stored in our
>> > aural
>> > memory and when we hear one, we think "saxophone". Therefore the sound
>> > of a
>> > live baritone sax, for instance, is an absolute because it always
>> > sounds
>> > like
>> > a sax to each of us, even though, if I could hear it as you hear it,
>> > not
>> > having YOUR aural memory, I might think it sounds strange (and vice
>> > versa).
>> > The point is that it sounds like a baritone sax to you and you are able
>> > to
>> > identify that sound and tell whether its live or reproduced.
>>
>> Granted, the binary distinction live vs. recorded is (at least
>> usually) clear. But that isn't strong enough to make your point. You
>> want to be able to determine whether one recorded sound is closer to
>> live than another recorded sound. I don't think you can do that
>> without specifying *which* live sound you have in mind--a full Avery
>> Fisher, or an empty Alice Tully.
>
> I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
> that separate it from any recorded sound. Live acoustic music produced
> in Alice Tully, whether full or empty, will always sound like live
> music, and recorded sound has never displayed the those distinctive
> qualities. For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
> oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
> even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
> being played. It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
> the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible to
> tell the difference.

If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from live music and
compared that to a good recording derived from that feed, I bet that you
would NOT be able to distinguish live from recorded music.

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:48:14 -0700, Norman M. Schwartz wrote
(in article <fu11gu016c3@news1.newsguy,com >):

> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
> news:ftom3q06me@news3.newsguy,com ...
>> In article <ftmlur015pk@news5.newsguy,com >, bob <nabob33@hotmail,com >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 10, 8:45 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:36:24 -0700, bob wrote
>>>
>>>>> No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> I knew someone was going to make JUST that pedantic comment. Of course
>>>> it
>>>> sounds "different" every time, but it still sounds like the instrument
>>>> or
>>>> the
>>>> set of instruments that it is. But does a sax not sound like a sax -
>>>> every
>>>> time you hear one? A violin like a violin? A piano like a piano? Can
>>>> you
>>>> not
>>>> ALWAYS discern live music from canned? I think anybody can. Music and
>>>> reproduction wouldn't mean very much if you couldn't make those
>>>> determinations. The fact that the venue changes some aspects of the
>>>> sound
>>>> doesn't mean that a saxophone becomes something else. It's always a
>>>> saxophone
>>>> and its always recognizable as a sax and will be every time. Now, I'm
>>>> not
>>>> discounting the possibility that a sax (or any other instrument) sounds
>>>> different to you than it might to me, but still, the sound that a
>>>> saxophone
>>>> makes whether different for each of us or the same is stored in our
>>>> aural
>>>> memory and when we hear one, we think "saxophone". Therefore the sound
>>>> of a
>>>> live baritone sax, for instance, is an absolute because it always
>>>> sounds
>>>> like
>>>> a sax to each of us, even though, if I could hear it as you hear it,
>>>> not
>>>> having YOUR aural memory, I might think it sounds strange (and vice
>>>> versa).
>>>> The point is that it sounds like a baritone sax to you and you are able
>>>> to
>>>> identify that sound and tell whether its live or reproduced.
>>>
>>> Granted, the binary distinction live vs. recorded is (at least
>>> usually) clear. But that isn't strong enough to make your point. You
>>> want to be able to determine whether one recorded sound is closer to
>>> live than another recorded sound. I don't think you can do that
>>> without specifying *which* live sound you have in mind--a full Avery
>>> Fisher, or an empty Alice Tully.
>>
>> I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
>> that separate it from any recorded sound. Live acoustic music produced
>> in Alice Tully, whether full or empty, will always sound like live
>> music, and recorded sound has never displayed the those distinctive
>> qualities. For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
>> oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
>> even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
>> being played. It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
>> the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible to
>> tell the difference.
>
> If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from live music and
> compared that to a good recording derived from that feed, I bet that you
> would NOT be able to distinguish live from recorded music.
>

The microphone feed is not the live event in any sense except time. The
microphone feed will sound exactly like the recording made from that feed (or
rather vice versa) all you need to tell that is a DAT machine or HDD-based
recording system that allows read after write. Been there, done that and the
two are, for all intents and purposes, identical.

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fu3atr02u56@news5.newsguy,com ...
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:48:14 -0700, Norman M. Schwartz wrote
> (in article <fu11gu016c3@news1.newsguy,com >):
>
>> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
>> news:ftom3q06me@news3.newsguy,com ...
>>> In article <ftmlur015pk@news5.newsguy,com >, bob <nabob33@hotmail,com >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 10, 8:45 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:36:24 -0700, bob wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I knew someone was going to make JUST that pedantic comment. Of course
>>>>> it
>>>>> sounds "different" every time, but it still sounds like the instrument
>>>>> or
>>>>> the
>>>>> set of instruments that it is. But does a sax not sound like a sax -
>>>>> every
>>>>> time you hear one? A violin like a violin? A piano like a piano? Can
>>>>> you
>>>>> not
>>>>> ALWAYS discern live music from canned? I think anybody can. Music and
>>>>> reproduction wouldn't mean very much if you couldn't make those
>>>>> determinations. The fact that the venue changes some aspects of the
>>>>> sound
>>>>> doesn't mean that a saxophone becomes something else. It's always a
>>>>> saxophone
>>>>> and its always recognizable as a sax and will be every time. Now, I'm
>>>>> not
>>>>> discounting the possibility that a sax (or any other instrument)
>>>>> sounds
>>>>> different to you than it might to me, but still, the sound that a
>>>>> saxophone
>>>>> makes whether different for each of us or the same is stored in our
>>>>> aural
>>>>> memory and when we hear one, we think "saxophone". Therefore the sound
>>>>> of a
>>>>> live baritone sax, for instance, is an absolute because it always
>>>>> sounds
>>>>> like
>>>>> a sax to each of us, even though, if I could hear it as you hear it,
>>>>> not
>>>>> having YOUR aural memory, I might think it sounds strange (and vice
>>>>> versa).
>>>>> The point is that it sounds like a baritone sax to you and you are
>>>>> able
>>>>> to
>>>>> identify that sound and tell whether its live or reproduced.
>>>>
>>>> Granted, the binary distinction live vs. recorded is (at least
>>>> usually) clear. But that isn't strong enough to make your point. You
>>>> want to be able to determine whether one recorded sound is closer to
>>>> live than another recorded sound. I don't think you can do that
>>>> without specifying *which* live sound you have in mind--a full Avery
>>>> Fisher, or an empty Alice Tully.
>>>
>>> I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
>>> that separate it from any recorded sound. Live acoustic music produced
>>> in Alice Tully, whether full or empty, will always sound like live
>>> music, and recorded sound has never displayed the those distinctive
>>> qualities. For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
>>> oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
>>> even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
>>> being played. It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
>>> the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible to
>>> tell the difference.
>>
>> If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from live music and
>> compared that to a good recording derived from that feed, I bet that you
>> would NOT be able to distinguish live from recorded music.
>>
>
> The microphone feed is not the live event in any sense except time.

That's my point, however it exists there before any _recording_ has ever
been made. How can one expect any manufactured recording to approach, or
sound *live*, if the material from which it's derived doesn't sound live.
It's not "recording" which is a problem, it's that you are unable to catch
the live sound in the first place!

The
> microphone feed will sound exactly like the recording made from that feed
> (or
> rather vice versa) all you need to tell that is a DAT machine or HDD-based
> recording system that allows read after write. Been there, done that and
> the
> two are, for all intents and purposes, identical.

I'm certain you have, as you told us that it's your "business", however even
a hobbyist can anticipate it.

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

In article <fu11gu016c3@news1.newsguy,com >,
"Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline,net > wrote:

> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
> news:ftom3q06me@news3.newsguy,com ...

> > I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
> > that separate it from any recorded sound. Live acoustic music produced
> > in Alice Tully, whether full or empty, will always sound like live
> > music, and recorded sound has never displayed the those distinctive
> > qualities. For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
> > oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
> > even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
> > being played. It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
> > the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible to
> > tell the difference.
>
> If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from live music and
> compared that to a good recording derived from that feed, I bet that you
> would NOT be able to distinguish live from recorded music.

But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context that I mean it.
You're hearing it through a speaker, of course. I believe that you are
correct in your statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is
"live".

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:56:55 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article <fu3brn02un6@news5.newsguy,com >):

> In article <fu11gu016c3@news1.newsguy,com >,
> "Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline,net > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
>> news:ftom3q06me@news3.newsguy,com ...
>
>>> I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
>>> that separate it from any recorded sound. Live acoustic music produced
>>> in Alice Tully, whether full or empty, will always sound like live
>>> music, and recorded sound has never displayed the those distinctive
>>> qualities. For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
>>> oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
>>> even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
>>> being played. It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
>>> the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible to
>>> tell the difference.
>>
>> If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from live music and
>> compared that to a good recording derived from that feed, I bet that you
>> would NOT be able to distinguish live from recorded music.
>
> But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context that I mean it.
> You're hearing it through a speaker, of course. I believe that you are
> correct in your statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is
> "live".

Correct. The "live" music has been through at least TWO transducers before it
hits your ears.

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

"Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
news:fu3brn02un6@news5.newsguy,com
> In article <fu11gu016c3@news1.newsguy,com >,
> "Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline,net > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
>> news:ftom3q06me@news3.newsguy,com ...
>
>>> I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays
>>> distinctive qualities that separate it from any
>>> recorded sound. Live acoustic music produced in Alice
>>> Tully, whether full or empty, will always sound like
>>> live music, and recorded sound has never displayed the
>>> those distinctive qualities. For example, it's easy to
>>> tell the difference between an oboe and an English Horn
>>> in any live situation I've ever experienced, even when
>>> you don't know the score and can't see which instrument
>>> is being played. It's often possible to even tell the
>>> make and model of the instrument. In the case of
>>> recordings, it's sometimes impossible to tell the
>>> difference.

>> If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from
>> live music and compared that to a good recording derived
>> from that feed, I bet that you would NOT be able to
>> distinguish live from recorded music.

That follows from the fact that a good digital recorder is sonically
transparent. Playback is not audibly different from the signal that was
recorded.

> But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context
> that I mean it.

I agree with that, but...

The "but" comes from the fact that I frequently compare the feed from a mic
or mics to the concurrent live performance.

The differences I hear can be explained by the following:

(1) The mic/headphone combination I use don't have perfectly flat frequency
response.
(2) My head and ears are never at the identically same location as the
mic(s) for pretty obvious reasons.
(3) My head and ears don't have flat frequency response, either.

> You're hearing it through a speaker, of course.

Or earphones. One major problem with listening through earphones is that as
typically used, the mic/earphone combination bypasses the human body's HRTF
(Head Response Transfer Function).

> I believe that you are correct in your
> statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is
> "live".

Agreed. However, a major difference between sitting in the seats and
listening to a mic feed is that the sound is being monitored at two
different locations. The sound field in a concert hall is really quite
diverse.

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

In article <fu6cbt02j2k@news2.newsguy,com >,
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:

> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
> news:fu3brn02un6@news5.newsguy,com

> > But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context
> > that I mean it.
>
> I agree with that, but...
>
> The "but" comes from the fact that I frequently compare the feed from a mic
> or mics to the concurrent live performance.
>
> The differences I hear can be explained by the following:
>
> (1) The mic/headphone combination I use don't have perfectly flat frequency
> response.

Do any?

> (2) My head and ears are never at the identically same location as the
> mic(s) for pretty obvious reasons.

Of course.

> (3) My head and ears don't have flat frequency response, either.

Of course.

So do you disagree with the opinion that some recordings sound more real
and live than others?

>
> > You're hearing it through a speaker, of course.
>
> Or earphones. One major problem with listening through earphones is that as
> typically used, the mic/earphone combination bypasses the human body's HRTF
> (Head Response Transfer Function).
>
> > I believe that you are correct in your
> > statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is
> > "live".
>
> Agreed. However, a major difference between sitting in the seats and
> listening to a mic feed is that the sound is being monitored at two
> different locations. The sound field in a concert hall is really quite
> diverse.

Of course, but the question remains. IMV, it is obvious that some
recordings (and some gear) sound more real and live than others.

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:44:50 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article <fu8ndi02b57@news4.newsguy,com >):

> In article <fu6cbt02j2k@news2.newsguy,com >,
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
>> news:fu3brn02un6@news5.newsguy,com
>
>>> But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context
>>> that I mean it.
>>
>> I agree with that, but...
>>
>> The "but" comes from the fact that I frequently compare the feed from a mic
>> or mics to the concurrent live performance.
>>
>> The differences I hear can be explained by the following:
>>
>> (1) The mic/headphone combination I use don't have perfectly flat frequency
>> response.
>
> Do any?

Some are reasonable. Omnidirectionals are the most flat and of those,
microphones called calibration mikes are the absolute best as far as
frequency response is concerned. Unfortunately, with calibration mikes, this
ruler-flat frequency response comes at the expense of everything else, signal
to-noise-ratio, maximum SPL, etc. so they usually aren't great for recording.
>
>> (2) My head and ears are never at the identically same location as the
>> mic(s) for pretty obvious reasons.
>
> Of course.
>
>> (3) My head and ears don't have flat frequency response, either.
>
> Of course.
>
> So do you disagree with the opinion that some recordings sound more real
> and live than others?

Sure. the best recordings sound absolutely un-fiddled with. I.E. huge dynamic
range, no compression, no limiting, no EQ, etc. Even with classical stuff,
this type of recording is rare. Recordings made this way tend, on average, to
seem recorded at quite a low level compared to most (at least they do until
one hits a crescendo and sends the listener diving for his volume control -
which is the reason that most recordings have at least SOME compression. The
recordings I make are this way and some people appreciate the reason why the
average level is so low, and others do not. The San Francisco Symphony label
records that ensemble in this manner, and I've mentioned before how good
their recent Mahler cycle sounds.
>
>>
>>> You're hearing it through a speaker, of course.
>>
>> Or earphones. One major problem with listening through earphones is that as
>> typically used, the mic/earphone combination bypasses the human body's HRTF
>> (Head Response Transfer Function).
>>
>>> I believe that you are correct in your
>>> statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is
>>> "live".
>>
>> Agreed. However, a major difference between sitting in the seats and
>> listening to a mic feed is that the sound is being monitored at two
>> different locations. The sound field in a concert hall is really quite
>> diverse.
>
> Of course, but the question remains. IMV, it is obvious that some
> recordings (and some gear) sound more real and live than others.

Liker I said before, yes they do. Another factor is microphone technique. A
forest of microphones cannot make a good sounding recording because no matter
how good the mike, instruments don't sound the same up close as they do when
they all "mix" in the air between the ensemble and your ears and no amount of
electronic mixing can fix that. It is important for a good recording to mike
the SPACE that an ensemble occupies, not the instruments. Try listening to a
late 60's symphonic recording where a string section sounds like 12 violins
playing instead of like a string section and the only image the ensemble
throws is the one where each microphone is pan-potted between one speaker and
another.

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

In article <fub3ub02bqo@news1.newsguy,com >,
Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:

>The San Francisco Symphony label
> records that ensemble in this manner, and I've mentioned before how good
> their recent Mahler cycle sounds.

Fantastic recordings, IMO. Great performances as well. I've been to
several of the concerts when they are recording the Mahlers... all
wonderful.

> >
> >>
> >>> You're hearing it through a speaker, of course.
> >>
> >> Or earphones. One major problem with listening through earphones is that
> >> as
> >> typically used, the mic/earphone combination bypasses the human body's
> >> HRTF
> >> (Head Response Transfer Function).
> >>
> >>> I believe that you are correct in your
> >>> statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is
> >>> "live".
> >>
> >> Agreed. However, a major difference between sitting in the seats and
> >> listening to a mic feed is that the sound is being monitored at two
> >> different locations. The sound field in a concert hall is really quite
> >> diverse.
> >
> > Of course, but the question remains. IMV, it is obvious that some
> > recordings (and some gear) sound more real and live than others.
>
> Liker I said before, yes they do. Another factor is microphone technique. A
> forest of microphones cannot make a good sounding recording because no matter
> how good the mike, instruments don't sound the same up close as they do when
> they all "mix" in the air between the ensemble and your ears and no amount of
> electronic mixing can fix that. It is important for a good recording to mike
> the SPACE that an ensemble occupies, not the instruments. Try listening to a
> late 60's symphonic recording where a string section sounds like 12 violins
> playing instead of like a string section and the only image the ensemble
> throws is the one where each microphone is pan-potted between one speaker and
> another.

Indeed. So sad that so many great Bernstein and von Karajan readings
were recorded that way.

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 07:51:59 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article <fud0uf026r3@news1.newsguy,com >):

> In article <fub3ub02bqo@news1.newsguy,com >,
> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>
>> The San Francisco Symphony label
>> records that ensemble in this manner, and I've mentioned before how good
>> their recent Mahler cycle sounds.
>
> Fantastic recordings, IMO. Great performances as well. I've been to
> several of the concerts when they are recording the Mahlers... all
> wonderful.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You're hearing it through a speaker, of course.
>>>>
>>>> Or earphones. One major problem with listening through earphones is that
>>>> as
>>>> typically used, the mic/earphone combination bypasses the human body's
>>>> HRTF
>>>> (Head Response Transfer Function).
>>>>
>>>>> I believe that you are correct in your
>>>>> statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is
>>>>> "live".
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. However, a major difference between sitting in the seats and
>>>> listening to a mic feed is that the sound is being monitored at two
>>>> different locations. The sound field in a concert hall is really quite
>>>> diverse.
>>>
>>> Of course, but the question remains. IMV, it is obvious that some
>>> recordings (and some gear) sound more real and live than others.
>>
>> Liker I said before, yes they do. Another factor is microphone technique. A
>> forest of microphones cannot make a good sounding recording because no
>> matter
>> how good the mike, instruments don't sound the same up close as they do
>> when
>> they all "mix" in the air between the ensemble and your ears and no amount
>> of
>> electronic mixing can fix that. It is important for a good recording to
>> mike
>> the SPACE that an ensemble occupies, not the instruments. Try listening to
>> a
>> late 60's symphonic recording where a string section sounds like 12 violins
>> playing instead of like a string section and the only image the ensemble
>> throws is the one where each microphone is pan-potted between one speaker
>> and
>> another.
>
> Indeed. So sad that so many great Bernstein and von Karajan readings
> were recorded that way.

Yes I know. The best performance ever (IMHO) of Respighi's "Church Windows"
was made by EO and the PO in the middle 1960's. But sonically, its a
multi-mike nightmare and is practically unlistenable for that reason. Karajan
did a Beethoven Symphony cycle in the late 1950's. At that time, DGG was
using a single M-S stereo mike to record the Berlin Philharmonic. Those are
the best sounding Karajan recordings I've ever heard (along with his
recording with Sviatoslav Richter of the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto #1)

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

"Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
news:fu3brn02un6@news5.newsguy,com ...
> In article <fu11gu016c3@news1.newsguy,com >,
> "Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline,net > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac,com > wrote in message
>> news:ftom3q06me@news3.newsguy,com ...
>
>> > I disagree. Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
>> > that separate it from any recorded sound. Live acoustic music produced
>> > in Alice Tully, whether full or empty, will always sound like live
>> > music, and recorded sound has never displayed the those distinctive
>> > qualities. For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
>> > oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
>> > even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
>> > being played. It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
>> > the instrument. In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible
>> > to
>> > tell the difference.
>>
>> If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from live music and
>> compared that to a good recording derived from that feed, I bet that you
>> would NOT be able to distinguish live from recorded music.
>
> But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context that I mean it.
> You're hearing it through a speaker, of course. I believe that you are
> correct in your statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is
> "live".

I think we all know that. It's my meaning that _*recording*_ itself can't
approach live sound if *live* hasn't been captured in the first place. How
possibly can a _recording_ of a trumpet be expected to sound live if the
information going into making any recording doesn't sound LIVE in the first
place?

Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

In article <fu6cgp02j6c@news2.newsguy,com >,
"Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline,net > wrote:

> >> If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from live music and
> >> compared that to a good recording derived from that feed, I bet that you
> >> would NOT be able to distinguish live from recorded music.
> >
> > But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context that I mean it.
> > You're hearing it through a speaker, of course. I believe that you are
> > correct in your statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is
> > "live".
>
> I think we all know that. It's my meaning that _*recording*_ itself can't
> approach live sound if *live* hasn't been captured in the first place. How
> possibly can a _recording_ of a trumpet be expected to sound live if the
> information going into making any recording doesn't sound LIVE in the first
> place?

True enough. Obviously, some recordings sound more live than others,
and none are even close to perfect.