dasmueller wrote:
> A type of recording not mentioned so far is the pre-FM recording, which
> to be honest I do not truly understand.
Good question. I always assumed this was from the soundboard "feed"
(maybe with some on the fly mixing) that was being delivered to the
radio station for broadcas
A type of recording not mentioned so far is the pre-FM recording, which
to be honest I do not truly understand.
Many SBD recordings from the late 60's-early 70's that become available
these days are of poor quality due to the deterioration of the recording
tape.
I like garym tend to like matrix
Interesting discussion. I have many non-commercially released
recordings (many from archive.org, a legal place for obtaining concert
performances). Many of these are Grateful Dead shows. I often find the
best of both worlds is a "matrix" recording where a Soundboard and
Audience tape are merged
The only bootlegs I can pretend to have any real knowlege about are U2
recordings and it can be incredible how much the location of the taper
has on the sound of the recording. I was at the show at the Forum in LA
on 5/26 and recorded it myself. I was seated in the upper bowl portion
and my reco
SBGK wrote:
> and if the market is always right then the abx objectivists are
> increasingly like the loon shouting the world is going to end while the
> likes of jplay, regen, cable manufacturers etc walk away with the
> spoils.
Doesn't this depend on who and where you ask? Do you think the mar
ralphpnj wrote:
> Why is this the case and what is happening to make the sound captured by
> the microphone so different from the sound captured by one's ears?
just google the real story behind the very first "Live" Rock Album (or
was it the first ever live Rock double Album)?
Kiss Alive and eve
ralphpnj wrote:
> Perhaps the reason for this is that a microphone is like an ear but a
> good recording is like an ear plus a brain that processes (mixes) the
> sound coming from the ear (microphone) to create a more coherent overall
> sonic picture.
>
I think that there is no comparison betwe
Julf wrote:
> One reason is that our ear-brain combination is very adaptive, and
> listening in a live situation gives enough clues to allow us to
> compensate for and filter out some of the conflicting sound - something
> we can't do once a lot of the clues have been reduced down to one or two
>
SBGK wrote:
> and if the market is always right then the abx objectivists are
> increasingly like the loon shouting the world is going to end while the
> likes of jplay, regen, cable manufacturers etc walk away with the
> spoils.
Let's not conflate commercial realities with technical truths.
I
arnyk wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> That can be true or not.
>
> Underlying this is probably the idea that the ideal location for
> microphones and the ideal locations for listeners are the same or at
> least similar.
>
> I did live recordings of band and choir festivals professionally for
> about 12 y
ralphpnj wrote:
> So my question is this: when one is at a concert the sound is often
> quite good - well balanced and crystal clear with nice high end and good
> but not over powering bass, however many audience recordings, even those
> made using top quality microphones and equipment located in
SBGK wrote:
> and if the market is always right then the abx objectivists are
> increasingly like the loon shouting the world is going to end while the
> likes of jplay, regen, cable manufacturers etc walk away with the
> spoils.
Nah, I guess that is just a sign of how the whole "high-end" hobby
ralphpnj wrote:
>
>
> What I've noticed is that for the most part soundboard and FM recordings
> usually sound better than even the best audience recordings (and there
> are many excellent sounding audience recordings available).
>
Agreed.
>
> So my question is this: when one is at a conce
arnyk wrote:
> Is this a Royal We?
>
> Don't you think it is presumptuous to purport to speak for people who in
> fact disagree with you?
>
> As far as I'm concerned I'm one person with one opinion, and so is
> everybody else.
>
> This is a marketplace of ideas, and we all bring what we have,
The internet has made the collecting of bootleg recordings much easier
than ever and over the years I have up many very good recordings with
many of these recordings often rivaling in sound quality officially
released live recordings. For the most part I tend to stick with what
are called "soundbo
cliveb wrote:
> Y'know, I think the problem is as follows:
> Just because you're correct doesn't give you the right to drag our forum
> down to the level that wrecked rec.audio.opinion.
Just because name or names aren't mentioned doesn't keep a libelous post
from being a personal attack.
The fa
cliveb wrote:
> A flame war only starts when someone calls BS and is then prepared to
> slug it out for an interminable time. It only needs one rational person
> to get reeled in and keep on arguing for things to get out of hand. And
> we have recently acquired such a person on this forum. He kno
Y'know, I think the problem is as follows:
There are quite a few fruitcakes around with crazy beliefs about audio
engineering. They have a habit of posting their thoughts for the
"benefit" of we poor souls who have not yet seen the light. (That's what
crazies do on the internet, regardless of the
MichaelJ wrote:
> We? You don't care...don't presume to speak for me!
Nor me. I do care, and have found the recent combative threads quite
entertaining. There is also quite a bit of information coming out from
Archimago and Arny that I find quite interesting.
--
19 matches
Mail list logo
