[LAU] Questions from an audiophile to some engineers

[Bearcat M. Sandor]

thanks for the reply. That gives me a lot to consider.

On Wednesday 11 April 2007 in an email titled "Re: [LAU] Questions from an 
audiophile to some engineers" Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 10:34:24AM -0600, Bearcat M. Sandor wrote:
>> So, my question to you is what causes these bad recordings most of the
>> time?
>
>It's impossible to answer your question, since as far as I can see you use
> the term 'bad' in a purely subjective way - it's 'bad' when you don't like
> it.
>
>The first thing to ask yourself when evaluating a recording is what has
>been the intention of the recording engineer or producer:
>
>1 - To recreate at the listener's side a sound that is as close as
>    possible to the original.
>
>2 - To create at the listener's side a sound that the listener will
>    think is close to the original even if it is in reality something
>    quite different.
>
>3 - To create a sound that most listeners will like, that is in fact
>    synthetic but still sounds natural.
>
>4 - To create a sound that doesn't even exist as real acoustic event.
>
>Or on a different scale:
>
>A - Create a 'you are there' effect.
>
>B - Create a 'they are here' effect.
>
>C - None of the above.
>
>For classical music, or any type requiring the acoustics of a concert
>hall or other space normally used for that type of music, most recordings
>are of type 2. Even people who go to classical concerts, and know how e.g
>an orchestra sounds in a good hall, do in general *not* like type 1 when
>listening at home. So what is 'good' and 'bad' in this context ?
>The recordings that most people prefer are not the most faithfull ones.
>The situation changes when you can listen using a real 3-D surround
>system (not an ITU 5.1 one, that's a joke). In that case type 1,A do
>work well. A type 2,B recording also works well with solo instruments
>or chamber music, after all they could be in your living room while
>an orchesta clearly can't.
>
>For things like jazz and folk where there is still some pretense to
>making things sound natural, most recordings are type 3. Usually, the
>less processing the 'better' it sounds, 'better' meaning 'natural'
>or authentic here.
>
>For all the rest, almost everything is type 4,C and there is no
>relation at all to any 'real' sound. Assuming things are more or less
>in balance and the sound is not overly distorted, filtered or compressed,
>or drowned in effects, anything goes. It's purely a matter of personal
>preference if you like it or not. The terms 'good' and 'bad' can still
>be used, but they would refer more to the skill of the producers than to
>the anything else. Most people don't even know how a kickdrum, a snare
>or cymbals sound in reality. What you hear on most pop recordings and
>what many people take for reality is in fact very far from it.
>
>> As far as the compression goes, would i do better to buy vinyl and master
>> it to my hard drive or is the compression done before the mastering to
>> vinyl takes place?
>
>These are two questions, and the two answers are not necessarily related.
>
>With very few exceptions all recordings are compressed, either manually
>(as for classical music), or during mastering, or even individual tracks
>during recording or mixing.
>
>Mastering techniques for vinyl and digital media are different, so it's
>no surprise they sound different. If you prefer the typical sound of
>vinyl, go ahead and buy that. But don't think it's better since it
>isn't. You may just like its imperfections.