Scott Baxendale
Well-known member
Good point.
High end recording gear vs high end audiophile listening gear.
E
ecc83
Well-known member
No, it wasn't, not at least here in UK. The big electronics firms, Thorn, Philips, Hacker became interested in "Audio" and we had 'mid-fi' products such as receivers with a modest 10 to 20W per ch output and some two way speakers in the 1-2 cu ft class. Top hi fi it was not...no threat to The Quad, Radford and Leaks of that world but much better reproduction than the tranny radio and Dansette record player.
These evolved into the often slighted Music Centre but some of these were really very good. 30Wper ch amps and a decent turntable and a magnetic cartridge. They also housed a Dolby tape deck.
Some people like myself went on to get ever better amps, decks and cassette machines. I built my own speakers, "Peerless" kits. Most of the rest of the peeps went onto video games then computer games then listening to carp on crap bubs.
The level of ignorance we find on forums about matters audio shows they are at least two lost generations!
Dave.
E
ecc83
Well-known member
What is so great about "Neve" preamps? Yes,yes, I know "da industry" bow to them but they are not 'clean' and thus cannot be called even remotely "high fidelity".
Why on earth would I want my pristine ribbon signal 'mangled' by a half century old class A 2N3055 transistor running through an indifferent transformer? From what I read they do not even have a particularly low noise floor?
Dave.
Scott Baxendale
Well-known member
Sure, all of us that were into music bough HiFI systems in the 70’s . I even took out financing to buy my first system with JBL speakers and a TEAC cassette deck. But the average kid just had a a portable Panasonic mono cassette deck or a small transistor radio.
As musicians we weren’t the average listener, even back then. Granted, in the 70’s more people got into music and HIFI but by the 80’s video game consoles took over.
Scott Baxendale
Well-known member
I just used Neve as the standard of the industry example. Which it is. The Neve 1076 Preamp is considered the standard of the industry.
Personally, I slightly prefer API, but the best records from the best era of recording are generally through these type of amplifiers. From the recording consoles that were dominating studios in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s.
The records recorded through this gear are often heralded as the best sonic examples of records to listen to on these high end systems, which is my original point. You can use Steely Dan’s Aja or the Beatles Abby Road as examples. These are two popular records used by many mix engineers as comparison mixes for the records they are producing.
Sure, some recording engineers up the anti with cleaner more pristine amps but I’m speaking about the iconic and classic albums considered the best fidelity for listening on these million dollar systems.
During the last record I did on a vintage 80 series Neve console not one person in that studio ever thought or said: “dang if only the noise floor was better our sound would have such better fidelity.” However, What everyone did say was: “damn this recording sounds fucking amazing! The bass is so creamy and present, wow!.
Mixed to 1/2” tape at 30ips it sounds as HiFI as you could imagine.
Last edited:
Papanate
Well-known member
As good as Blackbird can be - they are still blocking the sound on the right side with the Monitor - even if they move it a bit out of the way - it will shape the frequencies reflecting off of it.
Steenamaroo
...
I don't see why.
I've always viewed recording as an attempt to capture something as faithfully as possible.
Of course I understand different microphones and preamps and processors are used to taste, and recordings are intentionally altered in many ways during the recording, mixing, and mastering processes but setting creative decisions aside, at its core, the goal is to capture something with as little damage as possible.
The goal in playback, I feel, should be the same.
If anything it should be even purer in playback, taking preferences out of the equation.
The aim, in my opinion, should be to reproduce the recorded work with as little damage, colouration or alteration as possible.
E
ecc83
Well-known member
Exactly. The problem here is that 99.9% of all the forum members here are either "studio people" from the 'pop/rock' industry or people that listen exclusively to that genre of music. If you are recording say a 4 piece rock band, the only acoustic instrument involved is the drums and sometimes not even those!
Consequently nobody KNOWS what a Strat or P bass actually SOUNDS like so all bets are off reproducing it! FFS! Studios in UK used Tannoy folded horn 15" monitors. Loud? Sure. Exciting? You bet! But accurate? Not very. I have, many years ago heard an EV Sentry (V iirc), common I believe in US studios? Knocks your socks off but coloured to ****k!
Here in UK the most accurate 'monitor' was probably the Quad ELS but nowhere near loud enough but the BBC and companies like Spendor eventually developed speakers to rival them. Today, if you have the wonga, loud, very accurate monitors can be yours.
Pre amps too have got very much better because we have the technology. When all you had was valves and transformers it simply was not possible to make a really low distortion pre amp. When transistors became viable (Si planar. Germanium were really quite poor) things improved but putting more than about 3 in cascade AND some NFB to reduce distortion AND keep the fekker stable was virtually impossible so yes, thd went down an order but still way above what we can get from even quite a cheap mixer these days.
It was the much maligned op amp that eventually gave us pre amps to match the tiny thd levels of digital systems. THEN the "mojo" brigade STOLE the op topology, made it with discrete transistors then claimed they had re-invented sliced bread!
Dave.
TalismanRich
Well-known member
Thinking back to systems that I've listened to over the years, with speakers from Infinity, Martin Logan, Vandersteen, Wilson Audio, Magnepan, etc, the one speaker that really struck me were the B&W 800 and 801 Diamonds. Effortless, clear, smooth and detailed. They are also a speaker that is used in some pro studios, including Abbey Road. So there can be some crossover. At $40000 a pair, they are in the same neighborhood as the ATC monitor systems.
As for using Neve preamps, they may be the standard because Neve made a lot of consoles for high end studios, as did SSL and API. I don't know that Mark Levinson, Pass Labs, Dan Augustino, Krell, Audio Research or Conrad Johnson ever attempted to make a console with mic pres and multiband EQ. Maybe if they had, they would have become the standard, especially for transparent, pure sound quality. They made some kick ass amplifiers and preamps with exellent phono and line level sections.
As for using Neve preamps, they may be the standard because Neve made a lot of consoles for high end studios, as did SSL and API. I don't know that Mark Levinson, Pass Labs, Dan Augustino, Krell, Audio Research or Conrad Johnson ever attempted to make a console with mic pres and multiband EQ. Maybe if they had, they would have become the standard, especially for transparent, pure sound quality. They made some kick ass amplifiers and preamps with exellent phono and line level sections.
Scott Baxendale
Well-known member
I agree, but that goes to my point.
If the amplification used to capture as cleanly as possible is also used to monitor on playback during the mixing/mastering process then why wouldn’t it be the best gear to use to listen to the recording with the least alteration? That’s my point.
Scott Baxendale
Well-known member
If these multi million dollar stereo listening systems are so much better than why aren’t they using that gear to record with?
As for Neve preamps, I use API…
Any of these preamp designs sort of offer the same type of thing, but what makes the iron in an Audio Note M-10 Sig so much better? And if it is so much better then why is t it being used on the front end during recording?
Scott Baxendale
Well-known member
Why is that a problem? I do rock/folk/counrty records and that is what I listen to.
Scott Baxendale
Well-known member
Have you been in there? You can get vertigo just standing in there. There are zero reflections from the walls.
Steenamaroo
...
Well, I covered part of that by mentioning that there's preference and stylistic/creative decisions when recording.
These guys choose the gear to be high quality but they're also choosing desirable impacts on the sound.
They'll use X preamp for drums, or Y preamp for vocals.
That isn't a factor in playback - You should? just want it to be as faithful to the recording as possible.
But you're also dealing with the fact that they're two completely different sources.
The engineer is capturing sound waves.
The preamps you've mentioned take the low voltage output of a microphone and bring it up to line level.
When you're playing back a recording you're getting whatever voltage output comes from the tape head, or the magnetic/ceramic cartridge or, more commonly these days, ones and zeros.
Comparing the listener and chain to the engineer and chain doesn't really work,
because they're dealing with different sources, different destinations, and have different goals or intentions.
TalismanRich
Well-known member
Actually, if you check out a few of the old audio magazines, folks like Stereophile actually did do recordings with audio system like that. Some had specially built mic preamps, and usually were doing minimalist 2 or 3 channel recordings, not 32 channel Fleetwood Mac or Eagles type stuff. I'm guessing that the fellow that designed that million dollar system could easily build a mic pre and DAC system. I'm also guessing he's not interested in building consoles, or external preamps for studios. D'Agostino is selling a stereo preamp with a digital section for $150,000. That's 2 channels. It's got all kinds of fancy tech inside. Translate that into a 24 channel board with EQs and other stuff that isn't in the preamp, and you're talking multi million dollars. I don't know if it's worth it, or if it would sound better than what Neve or API puts out. I'll never hear it and so I'll never know. It's like comparing an F1 engine to the one in your SUV. Different targets, different tech, different clientele.
BTW, I found this amusing this morning....
I was just checking off the stuff on LinkedIn, and there was an article about how GenZ folks are buying cassettes now. The funny part was the girl that bought some singer's cassette, got her mom's cassette player, and couldn't figure out how to work it. Once she figured out how it went in, she found that she had to FF and RW until she found the song she wanted.
How often is she going to play that cassette from start to finish, do you think? This ain't your Spotify where you can throw a couple of tunes and listen to the two songs you like,
So vinyl has taken off, cassettes are on the move. Could buying a high end stereo for about $100,000 be far behind? It's the 70s all over again!
BTW, I found this amusing this morning....
I was just checking off the stuff on LinkedIn, and there was an article about how GenZ folks are buying cassettes now. The funny part was the girl that bought some singer's cassette, got her mom's cassette player, and couldn't figure out how to work it. Once she figured out how it went in, she found that she had to FF and RW until she found the song she wanted.
How often is she going to play that cassette from start to finish, do you think? This ain't your Spotify where you can throw a couple of tunes and listen to the two songs you like,
So vinyl has taken off, cassettes are on the move. Could buying a high end stereo for about $100,000 be far behind? It's the 70s all over again!
Farview
Well-known member
I'm not sure I agree with the premise that recording is about capturing everything exactly as it sounds.
If that were the case, we would all be micing everything up with earthworks mics or binaural heads.
We choose equipment for recording that creates the sound we want, to fit into the mix with the other elements, to create the experience we want the listener to have.
On the playback side of it, the listener does the same thing.
Any claims that one thing is "better" than the other needs to be clarified as "better in what way".
If that were the case, we would all be micing everything up with earthworks mics or binaural heads.
We choose equipment for recording that creates the sound we want, to fit into the mix with the other elements, to create the experience we want the listener to have.
On the playback side of it, the listener does the same thing.
Any claims that one thing is "better" than the other needs to be clarified as "better in what way".
Steenamaroo
...
Pretty sure I covered that.
Scott Baxendale
Well-known member
This gets into the listening experience debate. I only buy music on vinyl. I’ve never downloaded a song from Spotify or Apple Music. For me this has very little to do with fidelity because it’s about the superior listening experience. Sitting down and listening to a side of an album is the best way to listen to music. The songs are sequenced in the order they were intended and dealing with the record and turntable helps focus that listening experience to the music.
Downloading a song from Spotify is usually the worst listening experience.
I listen to my original music off of a jump drive in the car. I down res my music to MP3 to email or upload to YouTube or Instagram.
Vinyl has been on the upswing for well over a decade. Last year they sold more vinyl records than an any previous year.
Cassettes have been popular with alternative bands for nearly a decade now, and there is an entire cult of kids using cassette porta studios to make records with.
TalismanRich
Well-known member
I haven't bought a record album in 30 years. I still have my full turntable setup, but it rarely gets used. I have bought CDs, the last one earlier this year, and I think maybe 3 the year before. I don't buy much anymore since I've got well over 500 CDs downstairs. Do I really need more? Yesterday, I was listening to Mike Bloomfield live at the Waldorf. Today, I just finished Brothers In Arms. A few days ago, it was Santana's Supernatural.
I've got about 5 downloaded albums several in FLAC format, just because they were available there and not on CD from anyplace local. I don't use Spotify or any of the other streaming services, except Youtube (usually to pull down a song to learn) or Soundcloud because people post their personal songs there, not for commercial stuff. Oh yeah, I bought Gonzo X's (Bats Brew) album - Time is Magic off Bandcamp. I like his stuff.
As for cassettes, mine are sitting in their cases in the basement, rarely do I even turn on the cassette deck. I did send a box of C-60 Cro2 cassettes to someone a few week ago. While going through the cases, found a couple of things that I recorded back about 40 years ago that I'll transfer to digital. Other than that, they'll sit until I sell or give them away.
markmann
Well-known member
I always assumed that audiophiles were gear hobbiests as much as high end listeners.