Linn Studio Masters download for free

[IndianEars]

gooble said:

Ok it wasnt meant to be personal... more like "What a waste of hi-fidelity effort!" (Slaps forehead).

I could say the same about your perspective of many of these superb Close miked recordings ...

 

[hydra]

Great, I am going to buy that one and downsize it to 16/44.1 using FIR algorithm with some opensource tools. I need some stuff like this as a benchmark but something thats also enjoyable.

G0bble

You won't be disappointed! But do try it in the original 24/96 resolution too.

 

[jls001]

Can't we view that sort of recording (closed mic-ed ones) as capturing another viewpoint? Or hearing from a different, more intimate distance, to capture and acentuate the micro-er details in music? The soft intake of a breath, the left fingers innocuously sliding over the guitar string and producing an unintended glissando, or the special tone of the stretched skin of a tom tom heard at close quarters?

If one were to be seated among the audience, all these tiny audio clues will have been lost on its journey from the "stage" to the ears. But if one was seated an arm's length from (say) a guitarist, one can hear the "glissando", or the special tone of the tom tom as bare fingers strike stretched skin of a tom tom (or a ghatam).

It's another "viewpoint" and no less authentic than a far field "viewpoint".

 

[hydra]

^^ This is how I see the closed miked recordings. I like those too, for the sense of intimacy.

I too have a preference for well recorded live performances. "Well recorded" being the key aspect. IMHO live performances are very easy to mess up at the miking/recording stage.

 

[gobble]

No this isnt about closed mic recordings being poor as a generic statement. I have heard a few good close miked tracks.

There was something of a deadwood quality... a corpse of music with the tracks I sampled. Clinically perfect sound but with the vibrancy sucked out of it.
A closed mike recording may still use a 3rd mike at a suitable spot to capture the remanants of ambient energy and blend it into the track.

For example - an instrument, with no hint of natural timbre, reverb or resonances... where I couldnt close my eyes and feel the resonances of the lovely wooden box of the guitar creating the sound, only heard the strings perfectly - even though it wasnt an electric guitar. I hope that example expresses the subtleities I am trying to put across.

~G0bble

 

[ranjeetrain]

^^^ I think you may have ended up with some wrong samples.

Generally speaking, 24x96 sound a lot more resolved (at least in my setup, to my ears) wherever the recording genuinely contains more information that can benefit from extra resolution.

I also feel, the question you are asking is not just about closed-miked recordings. Your's a generic complaint about hi-res format being over-hyped.

My take is that, it all depends. Not all recording can benefit from extra resolution. Those who can, do sound more resolved (now this extra resolution is welcome or not, is being done justice to with or not is another question).

Besides, a format is just a format. A higher resolution format doesn't guarantee record labels or their marketing department won't misuse it. What you have experienced is most likely to be a misuse of high-res format. I feel if you sample more tracks from various sources you might begin feeling otherwise.

I do recommend trying some albums from B&W Society of Sounds.

 

[gobble]

Ok lets leave it at that. I havent given up hope on 24/96, but actually have been looking forwards to the day it is the norm.

But my small sampling of HiRes made me wonder if the HiRes market was being oversold promises with clinical sounding recordings touted as the next great thing.

I still have a lot to listen in HiRes so I'll circle back to review my opinion once I do...

Thanks Guys
~G0bble

 

[abhicreative12]

thnks for sharing the free links...