Well, there's a lot here to get into! 1) Artists (just like anyone else) do not have an objective view of what they sound like - they have a purely subjective mental image and its comparability to the average view of everybody else is highly variable - it swings both ways, in that they can sound "worse" or "better" than the average view. Does this matter? - no, not really. All that matters is how you personally react to an artist and their music. Opinions can be polarised - take Bob Dylan or Tom Waits for example!
2) In many cases, a surprising number of people (and things) will have an effect on the sound you get to hear - only one of which is the artist! 3) In absolute terms, the recording process will definitely "degrade" the sound...like anything else to do with audio, it isn't perfect. Is this important? - NO! Why? Well, if it really was important, we wouldn't be listening today to the tens of thousands of great recordings made on equipment that by current standards is a joke...very limited (and uneven) frequency response, poor THD, lots of noise etc etc. This is because we are listening to the music and in older (simpler) recordings it is easier for the brain to ignore the limitations and recover the underlying music. As equipment got better so recordings got more complex - today, arguably, the recording chain is limited by the microphones - the electronics are probably as good as they need to be. In other words, if the mics can do a good job of capturing the original sound, it is possible to preserve this all the way through to your home. I say possible - but not easy...there's lots that can be done to mess up the sound on its way from multitrack to CD. 4) There is nothing magical about tube/valve technology. Yes it is true that THD is introduced in overload conditions in a way that is more bearable to the human ear than with solid state stuff (even vs. odd order harmonics) - however, the idea that tubes can magically introduce "missing" musical information is just twaddle!. Yes, valves are used as a creative tool by musicians (and engineers) to add to the musical experience - indeed, rock, pop, blues and R&B would be very different without the sound of tubes distorting. However we don't really want to add any more of that even-order harmonic distortion sound in our replay chain - otherwise we are not hearing what we should be hearing. It's no different to ambience. Any guitarist will know that having go a great sound from ones tube amp, the last thing you want to do is to put sound through another layer of audible distortion; the result will be unpredictable "mush" as the two sources of distortion fight against each other. 5) It is true that "sparkle" can be lost in the recording process through multiple bounces/overdubs/poor miking/wiring/compression/etc...and is sometimes "repaired" using enhancers of variable pedigree/effectiveness (think Aphex Aural Exciter, SPL Vitaliser, BBE Sonic Maxmiser etc) - however these devices are all generating fake harmonics derived from the underlying signal and so are merely "studio effects" - they have nothing to do with "realism" or "accuracy". 6) In conclusion: yes it's true - even today - that recording bandwidth is ultimately limited (albeit way less than was possible 20 years ago). Does it matter? Not really. There are other much more destructive forces (phase distortion, power delivery or lack thereof, resolution of detail and micro-dynamics) that mess up the replay experience. And don't forget...recording bandwidth may be limited, but it is still way higher than is available from a 16/44.1 replay chain. -- Phil Leigh ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30820 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
