Reference recordings

You mean like... LP, CD, mp3... in that sense, right? I didn't understand incorrectly.

CD from which one can hear a good sound given by optimal recording techniques, starting from the choice of instrument, the acoustics (preferably natural), etc., etc.... I think they call them audiophile reference (?)..

mmmmm....well, I don't know anything about it. I stick to the old indications found on CDs where some indicated the mastering method used for the recording, and if I'm not mistaken, the other steps to master it definitively. In the end, there were three steps, and many indicated (analog, digital, digital) while others indicated (digital, digital, digital), etc., depending on the various choices.

I must say that on certain versions where (digital, digital, digital) was indicated, the final version, although being very clean and free of hiss, resulted in being cold and glacial from the perspective of "sound body," in the sense of a lack of blend (like a dish in which we find all the ingredients but unfortunately disconnected).

If I'm not mistaken, the NAXOS label made recordings of this type; I believe that the best recordings should have a part of analog since it is dirtier but richer in timbres and sonorities, as well as in "spatiality."

I believe that in this discussion Simone will be able to clear things up.

Very interesting anyway, it is a fundamental aspect for music.

I would change the point of reference, because how important is the type of support?

In the end, nowadays, what matters is the track and the instruments that allow it to reach the ear

So the instruments should be my external audio interface RME FF802 and the headphones or monitors... since I already have them at an acceptable quality. For now, I would avoid buying anything else like specific players.

I believe I need to look for lossless like FLAC or WAV... but I was thinking of starting from a physical medium like a CD, maybe they are easier to find.

My ideas are still a bit confused on how to proceed, but I would like to have the possibility to train my ears on good reference points...

Rotore wrote:

I would change the point of reference, because why is the type of medium so important?

In the end, nowadays, what matters is the track and the instruments that allow it to reach the ear

the type of medium matters immensely instead. For the simple fact that it is the 'source'.

the principle of high fidelity is to return a sound to the listener that is as faithful as possible to the original.

High-level (and high-cost) amplifiers, speakers, players, signal cables, etc. have the merit of taking pure water and delivering it to you pure. And not the merit of purifying water that is already dirty at the source.

If during the reading/transmission/broadcast phase the signal is "improved", it is not 'high fidelity': it is something else - also worthy, if we want - but something else.

Anyway Nancy, try to take a look - I'll try too - online the subject is discussed

LucaCavaliere wrote:

the type of medium matters immensely instead. For the simple fact that it is the 'source'.

Yes, but Nancy is referring to the CD which is a late '80s medium... if you include track, include everything; nowadays practically everything is listened to via WEB channels... so first of all, one must consider upload compression algorithms.

If the track is then downloaded.... even download compression. If you pull directly from the recording studio, it's the format compression that makes the difference... clearly, one then adds how much detail there is, which is "nothing more" than "the tools that allow it to reach the ear" (as I was writing).

Of course the medium is worth something... but nowadays I would replace CD with track; the problem might eventually lie in evaluating where the track is "deposited".

Yes, indeed my goal is to have "a track" in my hands where everything is optimal... from the choice and preparation of the instrument and the acoustic context, to the recording, mixing, and mastering phase... including then the transfer phase to a medium. I was considering a CD because it shouldn't have compression and therefore I should find a "complete" track there.

For playback, I have my audio interface available, and Genelecs as monitors (even if they are small).

Dovrei farmi le orecchie su un suono considerato ottimale...

I was reflecting on Nancy's last sentence: "an optimal sound" in relation to the ear. It might be cliché, but you develop your ear in the concert hall... afterwards, the ear will be very good at evaluating the quality of audio tracks and the level of "fidelity". No?

Yes indeed, Frank. Unfortunately, the return 'to pure water' that Luca was alluding to is not always possible. Many times it is not easy to judge a sound source, since many acoustic alterations turn out to be polluted even by poor speakers and an environment unsuitable for receiving sound. It is not easy to have certainties regarding audio fidelity. But you, Nancy, if I am not mistaken, would like to find a good medium for recording, right?

Frank wrote:

I was reflecting on Nancy's last sentence: "an optimal sound" in relation to the ear. It might be cliché, but you develop your ear in the concert hall... afterwards, the ear will be very good at evaluating the quality of audio tracks and the level of "fidelity". Right?

Yes, fortunately that ear exists, I have already developed it. And certainly a good concert remains the best opportunity to listen to music. But what when that is not enough?

Unfortunately, there are far too few classical concerts in Italy, and work and family commitments often further restrict the opportunities to attend those few.

Very often I happen to listen to tracks where I perceive something artificial that makes me wrinkle my nose, beyond the musician's interpretative style. The sound quality... how it is recorded and processed causes a loss of dynamics, naturalness, and atmosphere in the performance when compared directly to a good Live performance.

I continue to wonder what the limits of recordings are... I would like to find a recording that, by exploiting all the possibilities of current skills and technologies, can come as close as possible to the best Live situation.

Maximum quality Hi-Fi to then have it as a reference for all non-Live listening. Above all, I would like technicians and engineers to provide more details on how they recorded. It would be very useful... in practice, even if the ear is already trained for Live listening, I would like to train it for digital listening!

I understand what you are saying, but ultimately I believe that recordings always and anyway serve to impoverish the whole thing. A Live performance has great emotional and dynamic impact precisely because it is in flux and you will no longer have the possibility to go back and listen to it as "LIVE"; we will listen to it again as a recording but... unfortunately it will no longer be the same thing.

The recording has given so much but... it has also taken away a large slice of oxygen from concerts and performances across all genres.

Just like a photo, it will have frozen a moment that in reality was not at all! The "moment" does not exist in nature! (meant as an isolated moment crystallized in time) everything is in flux; perhaps we have truly lost that enchantment for the ephemeral, in this society always searching for stability and certainty in everything. In some way, I believe much of the joy of living has been taken from us.

Small concerts via teleconference? Ha Ha..that would be quite a headache for Simone; personally, I continue to dream of the perfect recording.