Recording vs hi-fi

  • Thread starter Thread starter MaxMix
  • Start date Start date
M

MaxMix

New member
It's interesting you know . . being a "hi-fi" person I look at
the equipment, interconnects and other such like stuff and
wonder why it's all so different when the product is actually
recorded . .

For hi-fi . .
People spend thousands on special cables, stands, amplifiers
etc . . To try and extract the purest sound from the source
material they possibly can . . Keeping everything as neutral
as possible so as not to "colour (color)" the sound . .

For recording . .
It's all goes through all kinds of stuff, equalisation, interconnects,
effects . . The so called "hi-fi" syndrome goes completely "out
of the window" . . It's all tweeked to death to attempt to
get a "hi-fi" result! Crazy eh? . .

Maybe I'm missing a point somewhere, but somehow I can
see major conflict between the two scenarios?

One one hand we are trying to reproduce a pure and true
result . . On the other we are adjusting to attempt to give
a similar impression . . A true hi-fi person would shudder at
the though of inserting a "graphic equaliser" in the system! It
would simply degrade the sound!! A recording engineer would
do quite the reverse perhaps? . .

Interesting and food for thought . .
 
You hi fi guys sure are high! And most don't know squat about sound.

Ed
 
Really? Complete nonsense . .

Well! if that's what you think i recon you should be ashamed
of yourself! . .

Don't rate yourself too highly buster!
 
>For recording . .
It's all goes through all kinds of stuff, equalisation, interconnects,
effects . . The so called "hi-fi" syndrome goes completely "out
of the window" . . It's all tweeked to death to attempt to
get a "hi-fi" result! Crazy eh? .

Speak for yourself amigo. :rolleyes:

My recording chain is the shortest I can arrange.
And my "Hi-Fi" playback system is the same system I use to monitor my mixes. Now that your thesis has been dismantled you can get back to recording any way you please which is the way it should be. If it sounds right to you, what else matters?

And Max: As for Ed- just take his comment in the context of his avatar.
 
I don't understand this thread at all. Is this another audiophile thing? Without the 'source' material it would be a pretty damn quiet world for the 'Hi-Fi's'.

On the recording side it's the norm to EQ, Effect etc. In rock and pop etc. Classical/jazz doesn't always go to as much extreme processing, but there is always a little.

I guess it would be possible to acoustically/naturally reproduce most of the processing (if not all) by using different acoustical enviroments. Whether naturally created, or artificially constructed. But, logistically it would be difficult, time consuming and very expensive.

In the end it always ends going through some electronic device, so if you want the real thing go see the artist live. Otherwise, live with the limitations of audio reproduction.

I realize your not agreeing with the 'Hi-Fi's' Max.

But it's an interesting topic, far more interesting than 'Is a DJ a Musician?" .... :)
 
MaxMix, dude, I hate to rain on yer parade, but you just made "hi-fi" people look like utter fools:

MaxMix said:

For hi-fi . .
People spend thousands on special cables, stands, amplifiers
etc . . To try and extract the purest sound from the source
material
Click to expand...

...which has already gone

through all kinds of stuff, equalisation, interconnects,
effects . .
Click to expand...

If hi-fi'ers want pure sound, let them record the wind or something..

Cy
 
Hey guys...I can see what he's saying...

I would say that, in general, the goal of recording is to capture the original source with minimal coloration and absolute fidelity while the goal of hi-fi is to reproduce the signal of the recording with minimal coloration.

The goal of mixing/mastering/producing can be to control/add/modify coloration. Sometimes during recording, it is desirable to use a certain piece of gear, such as a mic pre or compressor, that will impart a certain coloration on the sound if there is definite foreknowledge (or room for experimentation) that its effect is beneficial. With the advent of the DAW and the ability to apply effects in the digital domain, adding effects to a prerecorded signal seems to be the ideal way to add coloration while maintaining flexibility.

Also, I would say that for every bit of hype/BS in recording, there is 10x more in hi fi.
 
Here's my spin...

In the recording process you are dealing with "art". You (the engineer, musicians, etc.) are creating a product, and you have the aritistic license to make that sound however you want it to sound. EQ, reverb, compression, are all tools of the trade - no different than brushes are to a painter, or words are to a poet.

The "hi fi" guys, on the other hand, are the audience, and they should be listening to the "product" the way the artist wanted it to be heard - which means no coloration. Any desired coloration was already added in the recording/mixing/mastering process by the artists.

"True" reporduction should be the goal for "hi-fi"; however, that is not necessarily the goal of the artist when making the recording.

I see no contradiction in this whatsover.

Here's a thought. Many rock artists use feedback as an element in their performance; however, I certainly wouldn't want feedback in my stereo system. Bottom line, the goals of the two groups are quite different and therefore the comparison is invalid.
 
Last edited:
I though this subject might get a few people going . .

It's been interesting to see how others have viewed the
comments at the start of this thread . .

Some people seem to have missed my point completely . .
But . . All this leads to healthy discussion as i suspected it
might (lol) . .

I suppose my original message was somewhat 'over the top', but
my intention was to stimulate others comments. It appears I
have succeeded . .

I do still maintain that recording, in the purest sense, is
dissappearing . . The temptation to process it just a little is
always there, compression is a good example . . I realise this
it's entirely dependant on the source material, music type etc
etc . . Lots of people listen to FM radio . . Now that isn't
processed at all . . Noooo . . And FM sounds "So Good!"

I don't wanna go on and on . . But I know I do have a point . .

And no more insults please . . Not necessary . .

Bye for now . .
 
Well, I believe what kind of vodoo that goes on in a studio is dependent on the type of material being recorded. For instance, if a bluegrass band comes in to record I won't use compression or VERY little and I'm going for the cleanest, most realistic recording I can. For a metel band on the other hand, compression becomes an effect for that in your face sound. And of course they have to have the loudest CD on the so it gets squashed again, but hey, that's what's in vogue.:D
Oh, and by the way, FM radio is compressed heavily.
 
Its interesting... compression is constantly referred to as "processing" (i.e. coloring sound)... i think its important to define what compression IS. compression "compresses" the frequency response of a given signal... thus "squeezing" out the frequencies that fall outside of the threshold established.

Recording, as best practices stipulate, requires a VERY short signal path (thus attaining the purest and cleanest, and uncolored sound). In most major studios... the mics don't even plug into the console... they go straight into very nice mic pre's and then into the recorder.

This practice is (at least by me) is followed (i don't have a pre's) but my signal path is, in reality 3 "hops" (source, mixer, recorder), my mix path is the same.

If anything, hi-fi gear colors sound (i.e. the graphic eq, dsp etc).

I would rather listen to a good CD in my studio than on a decent hi-fi system.... JMHO
 
Actually, compression "compresses" the dynamics of the amplitute.

Audiophiles are evil!

Ed
 
minusone said:
Its interesting... compression is constantly referred to as "processing" (i.e. coloring sound)... i think its important to define what compression IS. compression "compresses" the frequency response of a given signal... thus "squeezing" out the frequencies that fall outside of the threshold established.

Recording, as best practices stipulate, requires a VERY short signal path (thus attaining the purest and cleanest, and uncolored sound). In most major studios... the mics don't even plug into the console... they go straight into very nice mic pre's and then into the recorder.
Click to expand...

OK, so you don't know what compression is but you know all about what goes on in "most major studios."

Hmmmm......

:rolleyes:
 
But does it really matter?

Someone commented earlier about the recording engineer
being an artist . .

This is actually quite true . . To produce a satisfying result,
whatever the material, surely? It's like tools of the trade, you
sometimes need a special one to get the desired result.

Someone commented they "Would rather listen to a good CD in
their studio than on a hi-fi system"! I don't quite understand
what that's supposed to mean? Is your studio monitoring not
hi-fi? Is it better than hi-fi? What is hi-fi?
Are recording engineers not trying to reproduce a hi-fi result?

I suppose there's 'fidelty' meaning an accurate reproduction of
a particular sound . . Then there's something else . . Sound
creation? Surely?

We've all listened to material that sounds impressive but have
found, in time, it's actually quite tiresome . .

Listening to archive recordings (for some) can be immensly
satifying, but not hi-fi? But it must have something that's
satisfying . . even though there's no information above 5kHz
perhaps . .

This is going on again (lol) . . over to you guys . .
 
When recording engineers get basic tracks down ... it's a very "pure" attitude ... the less that's obstructing the signal path, the better ... any engineer would agree with that. However, when you mix, you really have to apply whatever processing is necessary to carry the mix properly on mulitple systems ... and to fool the end listener into thinking it was all done at the same time, in the same room, etc. Listening to 32 tracks of completely "raw" signals would not be pleasurable at all. Now, if every recording was made with a matched capsule stereo pair of mics in front of live performers in a properly tuned room ... then it would probably be different. Which is pretty analogous to an audiophile's approach ... starting with 2 clean signals and maintaining that integrity until they reach your ears.

When you multitrack, there's just no getting around using the tools that are necessary to pull off the illusion of a cohesive and simultaneous performance. Even then, most engineers would agree that you should keep that processing to a minimum and apply only what is absolutely necessary to benifit the mix. Unless, of course, you are acting as a some kind of sound designer and want a certain effect on some signals ... that's where art comes in. But, again, that's only applied to individual signals to make the overall mix work ... there's much more give and take to build the final result.

In either case, purity is the goal ... to obtain the cleanest recording/playback possible.
 
Last edited:
EQ, reverb, compression, are all tools of the trade - no different than brushes are to a painter, or words are to a poet.
Click to expand...

I like this painting analogy. So, the artist is free to use whatever tools are at her disposal to achieve her end. Everything is potentially valid.

Of course, there are techniques with have been developed to make it easier to obtain generally accepted results, and not wind up with a big wash of mud. Even here I can see that a Hi-fi approach could add more tools to the palate. For example, say one is using EQ to cut the low end from a guitar track to make room for the bass. Rather than using a 20 band graphic EQ, a far more 'pure' approach would be to use a Linkwitz-Reily high pass filter. This is much less destructive to the passband than a graphic EQ which chops up and reassembles even the signal you are trying to keep. But, like I said, this is just one approach available to the 'mixing artist'. It could just as easily be that the guitar actually sounds better chopped up by a graphic EQ. Hi-fi approaches on the production side are just another set of tools to create with, and don't necessarily have anything to do with the quality of the work. Various philosophies and approaches are only as good as their end result.

Now we come to the question of the 'end result'. Some might argue the end result for us 'mixing artists' is the PCM (Pulse Code Modulation) file stored on our hard drive or burned to a CD or DVD. I think, however, this audio file is better termed the 'source' since it's what the listener starts with. The 'end result' is the sound the listener ultimately hears from their speakers in their particular environment. This is an important distinction because the nature of the end result directly affects how we produce the source in the first place. Setting aside the loads of voodoo and hype in the industry, Hi-fi in my opinion is simply the quest to produce and end result which mirrors the source as faithfully as possible in the ears of the listener.

Most people, however, do not have Hi-Fi systems. They have boomy, colored, cluttered sounding systems. So we 'mixing artists' have the choice of producing our source so it sounds best to the vast majority through their boom boxes, or producing our source so it sounds best to the few who listen with clearer ears. Given our artistic license, which of these audiences we choose to optimize the end result for should have less influence on the tools we use to create the source (mic, preamp, ADC, effects, EQ, ect.) and more influence on the system we use to monitor the source (DAC, preamp, amp, speakers, etc.). The creative tools are all in our hands to do with as we please. The reproduction systems eventually are not. If we want to show our work best to the masses, then we should choose our monitoring chain accordingly. Want to go a different direction, then perhaps choose differently.

Personally I feel the limitations of normal consumer audio are also limitations to creativity. Returning to the painting analogy, one will never experience the full brilliance and depth of a Rembrandt looking at it through cheep, dark, scratched sunglasses. And regardless of his paints, brushes and inherent genius, Rembrandt probably would have never produced those astonishingly luminescent yet subtle works had he been wearing such glasses when he painted.

barefoot
 
Last edited:
sic em Ed.
Audiophiles ARE evil!
They fire up their Macintosh amps and Paul Klipsh (sp?) folded horn speakers as they dust off their direct to disk LPs and sneer at the mere mortals without a $10,000 sound system.
Seriously,in college ,I worked for an audiophile speaker mfg (Toby Speakers Corp.) in Ft Worth Tx and the customer base was the strangest collection of artsy-fartsy, cork up the butt "purists" you would ever want to meet.

Tom
 
Yeah, Ed is probably right in that regard.

Maybe it's just semantics, but I stick with the term 'hi-fidelity' rather than 'audiophile'. I spent a few years trying to run a business building 'hi-fi' loudspeakers. The 'audiophiles', with their faith in the spirits of speaker wires and other such metaphysics made my job very difficult.

barefoot
 
c7sus,

You're absolutely right. Still, there's nothing wrong with attempting to recreate an acoustic event as it was experienced live. It's no more or less valid than tweaking the hell out of something.

Either way, there's the concern of whether the listener playing your disc actually hears what you heard and were trying to communicate while in the studio. This is where the 'to be hi-fi, or not to be hi-fi' question really comes in to play.

barefoot
 
Audiophiles are very strange beings indeed. Who breeds them? Where are they born? Is it a planetary thing? Or just more down to earth, like a brain deficiency?

I met one recently who had spend, sit down and hold yourself - the measly sum of $124.000 Yes boys and girls, onehundredandtwentyfourthousand dollars, on his little pile of amps and speakers.
The best speakers, tweeters with the most exquisite components, hand-build, audiophile special cabinets, an expensive CD player and turntable, beautiful expensive tube amplifiers - all a pure joy of high quality ......... running through a 150 bucks graphic equaliser 'coz otherwise the response of the system was so godawful. The company that installed it told him that was the ultimate cool audiophile thing to do.

When he came to the studio and went into the control room there was a mix playing and the sound quality blew him away. He pointed at the main monitors and proclaimed "Those sound awsome!" After that, I turned them on as he had been listening to the nearfields :rolleyes: I think part of him died then.

He only just had the thing installed, needless to say, the only items that stayed were the CD player and the turntable, which he had before buying his pride-and-joy already.

We then configured a brandnew system. Managed to get a vintage Neve Kelso 10 x 4 for $11.000 (which is now his pride and joy), a Lucid 2496D/A for the CD player, and two 3208 Quested monitors. Total cost, with wiring, speaker stands and a small console stand, just over $15.000. Now he's got good sound, and all his audiophile firends are busy trying to take it all to pieces.

As long as there are lunatics prepared to pay stupid money, there will be companies making stupid systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top