Passive_audio_enthusiast
Well-Known Member
I am not friends with them.Have you even heard of Alan Parsons and Steven Wilson , and know what they do ?
I am not friends with them.Have you even heard of Alan Parsons and Steven Wilson , and know what they do ?
But I will still nitpick and insist on interpreting "as the artist intended" literally even though I know it wasn't meant literally. Why? Because that's the way I get my jollies.Cher’s music including auto tune is heard by Cher at the studio and she knows how it sound in the final product. So when I say artist intended it’s what’s at the recording desk I mean not the sound coming out of the artists mouth. Depending on the mic used, eq used in the recording, what is sung there infront of the mic can be vastly different in the recording. At this point, the producer/artist/ engineer they all agree about what should be there as the sound of the final recording and to me that’s artist intended.
And it gets my goat to think that we could be so delusional , after years in this hobby , as to believe that mass market CDs and streaming content would be identical to the original master (be that analog or digital )….But I will still nitpick and insist on interpreting "as the artist intended" literally even though I know it wasn't meant literally. Why? Because that's the way I get my jollies.
Only by listening to the original master , which in any case is stored away in vaults for pre 80s music, and the unaltered digital files post 80s. None of which are available to us.Again - sorry for being that one child with a learning disability. Even if the artist's inputs were taken in consideration while creating the published music. How do we know what was the record they created at the studio? Won't you need a frequency response spec sheet for every song to actually be able to tell whether your speakers are true to the source or not?
So…
We can’t ask the artist what they intended
We don’t have access to the master versions
We have in some cases several versions, mixes, remastered, compressed files of the same piece of music
Older music was recorded with older technology.
Every recording engineer makes his/her own choices while mastering music.
Our equipment imposes it’s own influence on the reproduction
Some of it measures well, others not
Our musical preferences vary widely
The formats we use as sources vary
The sound signature, spl, preferred by us vary widely
Our susceptibility to marketing and snake oil claims vary
Our rooms are different, each has its own acoustic properties
Our hearing ability varies by age, amount of abuse, disease
Our enjoyment of music varies depending on our mood and chemicals imbibed.
We are on page 26 of this discussion with no end in sight
We sometimes agree on the above and at other times disagree. Mostly in an amicable way.
It’s bewildering…
If you mean the media that has been published for our consumption by the studio, we don't need a per song meta data - all we need to ensure is that the equipment the media is played on colors the data the least. I say, "the least" because all equipment WILL color the sound; it is inevitable and we need to accept that - only the degree and nature of coloration differs and varies. Coloration can be harmonious and many of us like it - nothing wrong with that preference. Does that answer your Q?Again - sorry for being that one child with a learning disability. Even if the artist's inputs were taken in consideration while creating the published music. How do we know what was the record they created at the studio? Won't you need a frequency response spec sheet for every song to actually be able to tell whether your speakers are true to the source or not?
Yes, cause these are my thoughts exactly!If you mean the media that has been published for our consumption by the studio, we don't need a per song meta data - all we need to ensure is that the equipment the media is played on colors the data the least. I say, "the least" because all equipment WILL color the sound; it is inevitable and we need to accept that - only the degree and nature of coloration differs and varies. Coloration can be harmonious and many of us like it - nothing wrong with that preference. Does that answer your Q?
This is an excellent one-post executive summary of the quandary we're inSo…
We can’t ask the artist what they intended
We don’t have access to the master versions
We have in some cases several versions, mixes, remastered, compressed files of the same piece of music
Older music was recorded with older technology.
Every recording engineer makes his/her own choices while mastering music.
Our equipment imposes it’s own influence on the reproduction
Some of it measures well, others not
Our musical preferences vary widely
The formats we use as sources vary
The sound signature, spl, preferred by us vary widely
Our susceptibility to marketing and snake oil claims vary
Our rooms are different, each has its own acoustic properties
Our hearing ability varies by age, amount of abuse, disease
Our enjoyment of music varies depending on our mood and chemicals imbibed.
We are on page 26 of this discussion with no end in sight
We sometimes agree on the above and at other times disagree. Mostly in an amicable way.
It’s bewildering…
That’s why studios have standards. At the listening desk all studios use equipment that adheres to a standard flat frequency response.Again - sorry for being that one child with a learning disability. Even if the artist's inputs were taken in consideration while creating the published music. How do we know what was the record they created at the studio? Won't you need a frequency response spec sheet for every song to actually be able to tell whether your speakers are true to the source or not?
Why should we come to an agreement? Nobody has to compromise their perspective here if m not wrong.So…
We can’t ask the artist what they intended
We don’t have access to the master versions
We have in some cases several versions, mixes, remastered, compressed files of the same piece of music
Older music was recorded with older technology.
Every recording engineer makes his/her own choices while mastering music.
Our equipment imposes it’s own influence on the reproduction
Some of it measures well, others not
Our musical preferences vary widely
The formats we use as sources vary
The sound signature, spl, preferred by us vary widely
Our susceptibility to marketing and snake oil claims vary
Our rooms are different, each has its own acoustic properties
Our hearing ability varies by age, amount of abuse, disease
Our enjoyment of music varies depending on our mood and chemicals imbibed.
We are on page 26 of this discussion with no end in sight
We sometimes agree on the above and at other times disagree. Mostly in an amicable way.
It’s bewildering…
So…
We can’t ask the artist what they intended
We don’t have access to the master versions
We have in some cases several versions, mixes, remastered, compressed files of the same piece of music
Older music was recorded with older technology.
Every recording engineer makes his/her own choices while mastering music.
Our equipment imposes it’s own influence on the reproduction
Some of it measures well, others not
Our musical preferences vary widely
The formats we use as sources vary
The sound signature, spl, preferred by us vary widely
Our susceptibility to marketing and snake oil claims vary
Our rooms are different, each has its own acoustic properties
Our hearing ability varies by age, amount of abuse, disease
Our enjoyment of music varies depending on our mood and chemicals imbibed.
We are on page 26 of this discussion with no end in sight
We sometimes agree on the above and at other times disagree. Mostly in an amicable way.
It’s bewildering…
That’s the most sensible post in this thread so far, and I completely agree with your sentiment.Why should we come to an agreement? Nobody has to compromise their perspective here if m not wrong.
@chander, I think that’s a important insight: a reference FR spec sheet for every recorded piece of music so that those who are interested can use this to tailor their set ups closest to “how it sounded when the artists performed”a frequency response spec sheet for every song
The commercial point is how many would be interested and also have the means to accurately measure@chander, I think that’s a important insight: a reference FR spec sheet for every recorded piece of music so that those who are interested can use this to tailor their set ups closest to “how it sounded when the artists performed”
Absolutely! But we are talking about some FM who are desirous of “maximum accuracy”The commercial point is how many would be interested and also have the means to accurately measure
This is an example of „whataboutery“Absolutely! But we are talking about some FM who are desirous of “maximum accuracy”
Probably never going to happen (Imagine Bob Dylan’s expression if asked to do this!!!)
Well spotted, but do note there is no malice intended.This is an example of „whataboutery“