18 Jun
2018
18 Jun
'18
7:39 p.m.
robertlazarski <robertlazarski(a)gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Paul Davis
<paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>
wrote:
I don't know enough of the setup to say anything definite here but I am
skeptical when we are talking about something that is represented by a
few lines running to static speakers/amps.
A symphony orchestra tends to be quite more transparent in a reasonable
price range of seats than a really good recording of it. Even a bunch
of instrument amps is more transparent than a good recording since the
amps all have their own "throwing" characteristics you can make use of
when moving your head.
This is extremely so with Leslie (rotary) speakers, of course.
Microphone and mix it, whether for creating a recording or for
retransmission through a PA, and the magic is gone. What is left is
reproducible perfectly.
That's one reason that concerts with ten thousands of visitors make
little acoustic sense: the necessity of PA use makes the acoustics
indistinguishable from recordings blasted over a humongous speaker
system. If you want to really enjoy some Hammond/Leslie sound, the
sound reaching you has to come from the Leslie cabinet, not a PA.
--
David Kastrup
this is more audiophile-level woo.
virtually nobody alive can tell the difference between a good digital
recording and an analog one. those who think they can will rarely (if
ever) agree to double blind testing.
there can certainly be things about analog equipment that are hard or
impossible to capture with a digital equivalent.
but to claim that the recording process is the source of audible
differences? even if this might have been true of the earliest days
of commercial digital recording, it isn't true anymore.
I guess I didn't clearly indicate that I am not talking about
recording at all.
Put a Nord stage in the same room as a Steinway - as I have seen first
hand - and the difference is huge. I seen Keith Emersons Moog Modular
live and felt it in the balcony.