# Distortion/Ringing/Shrill Noises on Classical Recordings



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Why do some Classical Recordings, even newer ones, have this problem? Others I find play beautifully, and then others unsatisfactorily.

Does anyone have any insight into this?

Thanks,
Nakulan


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2018)

I'm not sure what you mean.

Can you name examples?

Generally I find classical recordings are often unnaturally "bright." More treble than you would typically hear in the concert hall. Probably this is because producers find that such recordings make a better impression and sell better.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Kemplerer's B Minor Mass is full of it. During the intense portions, there is ringing and sometimes a crackling distorted tone. It's low in the mix, but it annoys me.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Why do some Classical Recordings, even newer ones, have this problem? Others I find play beautifully, and then others unsatisfactorily.
> 
> Does anyone have any insight into this?
> 
> ...


I have recordings on most labels (DGG, Angel, ECM, Mercury, RCA, Reference Recordings, Naxos, Chesky, etc, etc, etc), many of them very recent, and for the most part, I do not see this as a big problem.

Most classical recordings tend to be of higher fidelity than most other genres. Classical music has almost none of the studio manipulation that other genres have, so, bad recording techniques can't be hidden by studio tricks.

And most classical listeners (and jazz listeners) tend to care a bit more about sound quality, than listeners of other genres.

What format are you listening to? Are the recordings you are hearing the problems, on a different format than the recordings without the problems?



> Generally I find classical recordings are often unnaturally "bright." More treble than you would typically hear in the concert hall.


I do not notice this at all.

My system is very flat in my room, but my speakers use a ribbon tweeter, so, if there are problems with upper frequencies, I'm going to know about it. My speakers are very revealing.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Simon Moon said:


> I have recordings on most labels (DGG, Angel, ECM, Mercury, RCA, Reference Recordings, Naxos, Chesky, etc, etc, etc), many of them very recent, and for the most part, I do not see this as a big problem.
> 
> Most classical recordings tend to be of higher fidelity than most other genres. Classical music has almost none of the studio manipulation that other genres have, so, bad recording techniques can't be hidden by studio tricks.
> 
> ...


They are all physical CDs that I am listening to.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2018)

That's an old analog tape recording. In those days tape hiss was a problem and they would set the recording volume as high as they could get away with, which could result in distortion when the tape was saturated. Possibly other parts of the signal chain were also saturated. It's a trick problem because you can't know in advance exactly how strong the signal will be during the actual performance. Possibly they didn't pay as much attention to such things at the time because they knew it would be cut to an LP and would be masked by the limitations of LP reproduction.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> They are all physical CDs that I am listening to.


Are they all recorded recently? As opposed to reissues?

Have you tried the same CD's in different systems, and heard the same distortions?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Simon Moon said:


> Are they all recorded recently? As opposed to reissues?
> 
> Have you tried the same CD's in different systems, and heard the same distortions?


I honestly think it's my headphones picking up on all the nuances on the recordings. They are Grado SR60e Cans, and they are very revealing.

Yes, I've tried different CD players and heard similar things. What does seem to change it is using cheaper, less revealing headphones, like the Apple Earbuds. I hear less of the imperfections of the recordings, but the overall sound is far less enjoyable.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

It's kind of like DVDs vs Blu-Ray; Blu-Ray brings out more of the imperfections of the video recording than DVD but it's a much more precise picture.

I still collect DVDs for this very reason.

Maybe I should look into less revealing headphones.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2018)

What is driving your headphones?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Baron Scarpia said:


> What is driving your headphones?


A portable CD player. I sometimes plug it into my computer as well, and use the external CD drive I bought for that, or youtube/mp3s.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2018)

Your higher performance headphones may require more power and might be overtaxing the source. It might be worth it to get a dedicated headphone amplifier. This can take the form of a gadget which connects to the source by a digital connection (USB, Optical, Coax) and produces a headphone signal. Or it might be an analog amplifier which goes between the headphones and the headphone plug of the source.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Your higher performance headphones may require more power and might be overtaxing the source. It might be worth it to get a dedicated headphone amplifier. This can take the form of a gadget which connects to the source by a digital connection (USB, Optical, Coax) and produces a headphone signal. Or it might be an analog amplifier which goes between the headphones and the headphone plug of the source.


I think that will improve the sound quality, but the sounds that are on the recordings will not disappear.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I went back and listened with my Apple Earbuds, and I can hear the same sounds now, but they are far less noticeable.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

A bad recording is a bad recording. There have been good recordings and bad recordings since the beginning of recorded and published music, and it'll be like that forever. Regardless of how good the recording equipment is or how high the bit rate is, if a sound clips on the recording or if there's electrical noise, it's gonna be a bad recording. 

It's also likely that you're listening to a reissue. Too often I see recordings labeled with a year in the 21st century, but it's actually just a recording of a poor-quality vinyl record from the '50s or '60s slapped onto a CD. 

Also, using bit rates that are too low can cause ringing and glitchy sounds. Once the files are converted too low, the sound will always be ruined. The producer could have crushed the bit rate before putting it on the CD. It's also possible that your hardware is malfunctioning in some way. A certain frequency in the recording could be causing something to ring in an unpleasant way.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> A bad recording is a bad recording. There have been good recordings and bad recordings since the beginning of recorded and published music, and it'll be like that forever. Regardless of how good the recording equipment is or how high the bit rate is, if a sound clips on the recording or if there's electrical noise, it's gonna be a bad recording.
> 
> It's also likely that you're listening to a reissue. Too often I see recordings labeled with a year in the 21st century, but it's actually just a recording of a poor-quality vinyl record from the '50s or '60s slapped onto a CD.
> 
> Also, using bit rates that are too low can cause ringing and glitchy sounds. Once the files are converted too low, the sound will always be ruined. The producer could have crushed the bit rate before putting it on the CD. It's also possible that your hardware is malfunctioning in some way. A certain frequency in the recording could be causing something to ring in an unpleasant way.


You are a fantastic poster! Thanks for, once again, showcasing and sharing your incredible knowledge and insight.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You are a fantastic poster! Thanks for, once again, showcasing and sharing your incredible knowledge and insight.


Thanks! I'm interested in music from every angle: composition, performance, recording, production, listening (obviously), and the physics behind it all, which makes it easier to connect the dots of why and how one aspect of one factor will affect the others


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Have you tried listening at different volumes? That could help narrow down the potential causes. Unfortunately though, a scarily high number of classical recordings I've worked with have hard clipping, which is when the sound is too loud for the recording equipment and causes a very unpleasant glitchy digital distortion. It never goes away once it's recorded like that.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Sounds (lol) to me, like your hearing your headphone amp doing bad things, like previous poster suggests a headphone amp would fix this problem more than likely


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> Have you tried listening at different volumes? That could help narrow down the potential causes. Unfortunately though, a scarily high number of classical recordings I've worked with have hard clipping, which is when the sound is too loud for the recording equipment and causes a very unpleasant glitchy digital distortion. It never goes away once it's recorded like that.


Yes, I did try that, thinking I was blowing the speakers in my Cans. But, I wasn't, it's on the recordings, certainly.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Sounds (lol) to me, like your hear your headphone amp doing bad things, like previous poster suggests a headphone amp would fix this problem more than likely


What exactly does an Amp do? I know it increases the quality of the sound, but how would it fix my issue?


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> What exactly does an Amp do? I know it increases the quality of the sound, but how would it fix my issue?


It increases the power and volume of the sound. Some headphones work better when more power is going to them. But if it's already plenty loud, I don't know if it would have an effect or not. I don't have any experience with pre-amps because everything seems to be plenty loud already.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

The amp, amplifies the sound and drives your headphone. 
If you headphones (which sound like quite good ones) are putting too much load/demand on your existing headphone amp, or in fact you headphone amp is of poor quality- all you well hear thru your headphones is the limitations of that amp................


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> What exactly does an Amp do? I know it increases the quality of the sound, but how would it fix my issue?


Typically the audio signal consists of an electrical potential (voltage). A different pair of headphones may be more demanding if (a) they require a higher voltage to produce the same volume or (b) they have lower impedance and draw more electrical current at a given voltage.

In the first instance you will notice a higher volume setting is required. In the second instance the headphone may produce the same loudness at the same setting, but draw more current than the source can supply, producing clipping and distortion.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

yeah, sounds (lol) like a clipping and distortion thing to me.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Here are the specs on my headphones: Grado SR60e

Transducer Type: Dynamic 
Operating Principle: Open Air 
Frequency Response: 20 - 20,000 hz 
SPL 1mW: 99.8 dB 
Nominal Impedance: 32 ohms 
Driver Matched dB: .1 dB


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I went back and listened with my Apple Earbuds, and I can hear the same sounds now, but they are far less noticeable.


Of course your Grado's are more revealing, but revealing what? The CD? The player? The chances that you would have multiple CD's with the same problem is almost enough evidence that it is your player. Find out! Take a few of your discs and listen to them on another system; a good, full sized system. This has got to be your first step. If the discs turn out to be bad as you've already presupposed ("it's on the recordings, certainly" and "the sounds that are on the recordings will not disappear") you can move on from there. But you must first determine that they *are* on the recordings. You have not! Neither your portable CD player nor listening through play back on your computer is good enough for this.



Captainnumber36 said:


> Maybe I should look into less revealing headphones.


Sorry to say, but from my perspective this doesn't make sense. People spend thousands of dollars on audio equipment to hear everything that was recorded, to get that "perfect window" into the performance.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Your headphone are fine, what are you plugging it in to?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Joe B said:


> Of course your Grado's are more revealing, but revealing what? The CD? The player? The chances that you would have multiple CD's with the same problem is almost enough evidence that it is your player. Find out! Take a few of your discs and listen to them on another system; a good, full sized system. This has got to be your first step. If the discs turn out to be bad as you've already presupposed ("it's on the recordings, certainly" and "the sounds that are on the recordings will not disappear") you can move on from there. But you must first determine that they *are* on the recordings. You have not! Neither your portable CD player nor listening through play back on your computer is good enough for this.
> 
> Sorry to say, but from my perspective this doesn't make sense. People spend thousands of dollars on audio equipment to hear everything that was recorded, to get that "perfect window" into the performance.


Like my car? I don't have many other listening options.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I could also listen from my DVD player to my TV speakers and/or soundbar.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Worth a try, wont cost anything to give that a try but unlikely that you will pick up the level of detail you hear thru headphone but might sound better


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Like my car? I don't have many other listening options.





Captainnumber36 said:


> I could also listen from my DVD player to my TV speakers and/or soundbar.


Your car will not do, neither will your TV. Do you have any friends into music that have a good system? If you don't, think about going to a stereo store, bring a few of the discs in question, and "audition" some speakers. They will be using equipment adequate to the task.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Joe B said:


> Your car will not do, neither will your TV. Do you have any friends into music that have a good system? If you don't, think about going to a stereo store, bring a few of the discs in question, and "audition" some speakers. They will be using equipment adequate to the task.


But, would the clipping/distortions be at the same spot in the music each time and not appear on some discs, but appear on others if it was due to the amp in my portable CD player?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

What if I ripped a CD to my computer, put it on my Phone, and played through that?


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> But, would the clipping/distortions be at the same spot in the music each time and not appear on some discs, but appear on others if it was due to the amp in my portable CD player?


Yes, it is perfectly logical that a portion of the recording that is more demanding of the equipment will cause the same problem on each listening.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> What if I ripped a CD to my computer, put it on my Phone, and played through that?


I think if you tried it with the portable player, computer player, and ripped audio and tried each with your headphones and earbuds. Also, if you rip the audio and then put it in Audacity, you should be able to tell if the recording itself is clipped.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I would point to the portable CD player and then the headphones as the initial culprits to check. Portable CD players have been notorious for having limited sound chips/electronics. The Grados are good headphones, but the drivers could be defective.

IMO, these phones, if not defective, should work fine without an amplifier.

As for the recording(s): Except for the initial CDs that came out in the 1980s, in my experience there is minuscule to no distortion, ringing or other aberrations on by far the majority of classical CDs. Reissues from classical analog tapes from the mid 1960s on (used as vinyl record sources) have been almost universally excellent. The engineers were consistently excellent and when you hear many reissues with tasteful editing of tape hiss etc., the result is rather astounding given how old the originals were. It has always been a travesty of the vinyl era that the sound engineers strived for the highest quality while the vinyl was often of poor quality, especially in the U.S.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I know what your talking about Capt'n. It is the analog recording. Sometimes on high resolution equipment you notice distortion and stuff on analog recordings. Even remastered high-bit sampled ones. The digital remastering, etc. will process the recordings into high fidelity, so you a larger dynamic range, and crisper sound, but instruments in the background will still sound muddy, and louder passages can show limitations in detail. Even in my SACD recordings of old classics still show a bit of distortion in higher frequencies and louder passages. I didn't notice in my DDD MSO recordings, but there is still a bit of loss of clarity on loud passages. Only in the concert hall do you get less, and even then it depends on the acoustics of the hall. The only time I felt I was listening with 0 loss was at a live chamber performance where I had the front seat and didn't depend on the mikes, mixers, etc.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Plus most equipment is semiconductor technology, which sound more bright than on vinyl. Try vacuum tube equipment gives a warmer sound.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I know what your talking about Capt'n. It is the analog recording. Sometimes on high resolution equipment you notice distortion and stuff on analog recordings. Even remastered high-bit sampled ones. The digital remastering, etc. will process the recordings into high fidelity, so you a larger dynamic range, and crisper sound, but instruments in the background will still sound muddy, and louder passages can show limitations in detail. Even in my SACD recordings of old classics still show a bit of distortion in higher frequencies and louder passages. I didn't notice in my DDD MSO recordings, but there is still a bit of loss of clarity on loud passages. Only in the concert hall do you get less, and even then it depends on the acoustics of the hall. The only time I felt I was listening with 0 loss was at a live chamber performance where I had the front seat and didn't depend on the mikes, mixers, etc.


Ya, I'm fairly certain an amp will not fix my problem. I don't feel like going through the trouble of taking samples to a shop and trying out systems just to see if I hear the distortions. I'd also rather not have to spend more money to buy an amp, so I'm almost trying to force myself to believe that it is on the recordings, even though I truly do mostly believe this is the case.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> I know what your talking about Capt'n. It is the analog recording. Sometimes on high resolution equipment you notice distortion and stuff on analog recordings. Even remastered high-bit sampled ones. The digital remastering, etc. will process the recordings into high fidelity, so you a larger dynamic range, and crisper sound, but instruments in the background will still sound muddy, and louder passages can show limitations in detail. Even in my SACD recordings of old classics still show a bit of distortion in higher frequencies and louder passages. I didn't notice in my DDD MSO recordings, but there is still a bit of loss of clarity on loud passages. Only in the concert hall do you get less, and even then it depends on the acoustics of the hall. The only time I felt I was listening with 0 loss was at a live chamber performance where I had the front seat and didn't depend on the mikes, mixers, etc.


If the CD is from analog recordings, this seems like it could be the case. There's the well-known "tape hiss" and "tape flange" as well as the noise and limited frequency and dynamic range of analog media. Analog distortion usually is more tolerable than digital distortion because it's soft clipping rather than hard clipping. I don't want any distortion on my classical though.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

There's no going back to the Apple earbuds or lower quality Cans now, the clarity is just so much better and worth having to hear the revealing aspects of the recording techniques.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Ya, I'm fairly certain an amp will not fix my problem. I don't feel like going through the trouble of taking samples to a shop and trying out systems just to see if I hear the distortions. I'd also rather not have to spend more money to buy an amp, so I'm almost trying to force myself to believe that it is on the recordings, even though I truly do mostly believe this is the case.


You should definitely rip the audio and put it in Audacity. If the sound wave is loud and there are multiple peaks per channel at the same level in a straight line, that means there's probably some bad clipping going on in the recording. If there is only one peak per channel, that could mean the recording isn't to blame OR that it's a recording of the playback of a distorted analog recording.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I'm with DaveM. Look to the portable CD player. It may have a lousy DAC, which can make a real difference in the sound quality. Ripping to a high bit rate MP3 and listening on your phone may tell the story.

I have a wall of CDs and have been listening to them since they became available. Only a handful have really dreadful recorded sound, though of course the quality of staging and miking varies. I can't recall any with the symptoms you describe.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Ok, so I'm starting to think it IS indeed the CD player's poor DAC. I'm listening to music from my Googleplay with my headphones and they sound perfect.

I suppose buying a new CD player is in order, I'm not going to be spending the time ripping all these CDs to my googleplay.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Ok, so I have a Focusrite interface that I use for recording. I have my headphones plugged into those, and that plugged into my computer. I am running the CDs through my external CD drive.

This is my solution, and the sound is not only far superior, the distortions/clippings are gone! Some of the noise I was hearing was the hissing that I was just noticing more at some points on my portable CD player.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Ok, so I'm starting to think it IS indeed the CD player's poor DAC. I'm listening to music from my Googleplay with my headphones and they sound perfect.
> 
> I suppose buying a new CD player is in order, I'm not going to be spending the time ripping all these CDs to my googleplay.


I would re-emphasize that the recording is likely NOT the culprit. Whatever distortion or whatnot was on analog or digital tape sources would ordinarily be too low for your equipment to pick up before the equipment itself distorted.

I came from the era of tape, vinyl then digital. I had an expensive open-reel recorder and all iterations of cassette tape recorders plus amplifiers, preamps, turntables, etc. Distortion (when listening) was always more likely from the electronics than the recordings. Speaking of analog tape, it was amazing how good cassette tape recordings were with the equipment available by the 1990s. And cassette tape was much narrower and travelled at much slower speed than the big sucker recorders used for classical analog tapes.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I've found that most of these problems go away when you listen through Bose noise-cancelling headphones.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MarkW said:


> I've found that most of these problems go away when you listen through Bose noise-cancelling headphones.


Bose isn't a very respected brand amongst audiophiles though. They are very expensive, and the sound is not that good, but I think they are above Beats, quite drastically.

However, I did fix my problem thanks to you wonderful people.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I've used Bose noise-canceling headphones for several years and am quite satisfied with the sound. I bought them because I was doing a lot of air travel, and they really worked for that. At the time, they were winning (easily) most of the comparos of headphones of that type, though they were also the most expensive.

That said, I'd guess you could get somewhat better-sounding phonies for less if you didn't need the noise-canceling feature.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

KenOC said:


> I've used Bose noise-canceling headphones for several years and am quite satisfied with the sound. I bought them because I was doing a lot of air travel, and they really worked for that. At the time, they were winning (easily) most of the comparos of headphones of that type, though they were also the most expensive.
> 
> That said, I'd guess you could get somewhat better-sounding phonies for less if you didn't need the noise-canceling feature.


I think they are tops for noise-canceling, I recall hearing that somewhere.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I find the choral parts are often harsh, shrill, and garbled on recordings, but are clear and wonderful in live performances. Perhaps that is a function of distortion since choral parts are often much louder than the rest of the recording. I have one La Sonnambula (Bellini) set that I painstakingly edited every track to attenuate the volume on the choral parts. Came out very good and is much more listenable.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I find the choral parts are often harsh, shrill, and garbled on recordings, but are clear and wonderful in live performances. Perhaps that is a function of distortion since choral parts are often much louder than the rest of the recording. I have one La Sonnambula (Bellini) set that I painstakingly edited every track to attenuate the volume on the choral parts. Came out very good and is much more listenable.


My Bach B Minor Mass sounds great now!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> The amp, amplifies the sound and drives your headphone.
> If you headphones (which sound like quite good ones) are putting too much load/demand on your existing headphone amp, or in fact you headphone amp is of poor quality- all you well hear thru your headphones is the limitations of that amp................


Yes, that is how I understand it. The higher you turn up the volume, the more distortion, so the object is to get a big enough amp (of good quality too) so that your maximum volume listening level is no more than about half way up the volume control. This is very tough and dirty rule of thumb but you get the picture. Better amps likely support higher volume settings than cheaper amps too.

Now if you are listening to Neil Young, turn it up, more distortion is an enhancement! Hey, there is a solution. Just listen to grunge rock and your distortion woes are gone because they become part of the desired sound. :lol:


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I find the choral parts are often harsh, shrill, and garbled on recordings, but are clear and wonderful in live performances. Perhaps that is a function of distortion since choral parts are often much louder than the rest of the recording. I have one La Sonnambula (Bellini) set that I painstakingly edited every track to attenuate the volume on the choral parts. Came out very good and is much more listenable.


I've done internet searches in the past trying to find out why some choral/vocal distortion occurs on some recordings, primarily with sopranos. Some of the search results turned up audio engineer forums where this was being discussed. From what I read it stated that these distortions, which are on the recordings, are usually caused by the sopranos being too close to the mics being used and overloading the microphones ability to capture the sound (microphone distortion being recorded). There was also another discussion where they were talking about how capturing a large chorus well was a really difficult task. Evidently microphone placement is really tricky when trying to capture a large scale choral work.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Joe B said:


> I've done internet searches in the past trying to find out why some choral/vocal distortion occurs on some recordings, primarily with sopranos. Some of the search results turned up audio engineer forums where this was being discussed. From what I read it stated that these distortions, which are on the recordings, are usually caused by the sopranos being too close to the mics being used and overloading the microphones ability to capture the sound (microphone distortion being recorded). There was also another discussion where they were talking about how capturing a large chorus well was a really difficult task. Evidently microphone placement is really tricky when trying to capture a large scale choral work.


You mean like Renee Fleming


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Joe B said:


> I've done internet searches in the past trying to find out why some choral/vocal distortion occurs on some recordings, primarily with sopranos. Some of the search results turned up audio engineer forums where this was being discussed. From what I read it stated that these distortions, which are on the recordings, are usually caused by the sopranos being too close to the mics being used and overloading the microphones ability to capture the sound (microphone distortion being recorded). There was also another discussion where they were talking about how capturing a large chorus well was a really difficult task. Evidently microphone placement is really tricky when trying to capture a large scale choral work.


I think part of the reason is because it's harder to control the dynamics of vocals, especially a choir, compared to instruments. People often just sing as loud as possible with sharp spikes that clip the recording. Another factor seems to be that, since the beginning of recorded music (and probably before), vocals have been considered the most important part of music, and other instruments are just background noise. Case in point: 99% of vocal jazz records where the vocals are twice as loud as the band. That mindset could easily apply to classical recordings as well. There are probably usually microphones specifically for the choir in an orchestral piece, whereas I would just have 2 mics recording everything which is the normal way and the way I prefer.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Here are the specs on my headphones: Grado SR60e
> 
> Transducer Type: Dynamic
> Operating Principle: Open Air
> ...


I saw 32 ohm impedance and thought, that's low, but it turns out that Apple earbuds have impedance 45 ohms, not much different. But a single number can't describe everything about a headphone response. Maybe there is something about those Grado headphones that the iPhone doesn't respond well to, or maybe the Grado phones are defective, or maybe your iPhone or audio files are defective. Did you tell iTunes to reduce the bitrate when copying audio files to your phone?

Hard to say without hearing what you hear.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I think there's been way too much discussion about "clipping" being a problem. Too much is being made out of it. It's rare on classical CDs... I've heard very, very, very little clipping on CDs over the years in vocals or anything else. It's more prevalent on pop records and sometimes on jazz albums to pump up the sound for more presence. But I just do not hear it as a common problem, and squealing sounds are not part of it. 

The problem I hear far more is bad engineering in the master transfer when, for some reason, the treble is turned up way too high or not adjusted properly, especially in the transfer of vintage analog recordings to digital sound on a CD that can sound shrill, surface or metallic. Clipping at the source is when the recording level is too high (rare with good engineers!), the overall level is too high when transferred to a CD, or there's a rare problem in the manufacturing that can give a distorted sound. 

Nor is there necessarily "distortion" in the transfer of a vinyl record to a CD just because it's from an analog vinyl recording. What one is far more likely to hear is surface noise but not necessarily distortion, or those vinyl records would have been impossible to endure in the first place. But there certainly have been CDs made from simply recording a playing vinyl record where the surface noise can be heard.

When there's a problem with distortion, shrillness, ringing, etc., it's generally not the CD; the problem is with the hook-up or the health of the equipment. If it's a headphone problem, it'll usually be heard on one side only, the defective side, unless both sides are defective, which is usually rare. I have a lot of CDs and I've had only one go bad on me in over 30 years.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> I think there's been way too much discussion about "clipping" being a problem. Too much is being made out of it. It's rare on classical CDs... I've heard very, very, very, little clipping over the years in vocals or anything else. It's more prevalent in pop records. I just do not hear it as a common problem. The problem I hear far more is bad engineering in the master transfer when, for some reason, the treble is turned up way too high or not adjusted properly, especially in the transfer of vintage analog recording to digital sound for a CD that can sound shrill, surface or metallic. Clipping at the source when the recording level is too high (rare with good engineers!) or there's a rare problem in the manufacturing that can give a distorted shrill sound. Nor is there necessarily "distortion" in the transfer of a vinyl record to a CD. What one is far more likely to hear is surface noice but not necessarily distortion, or those vinyl records would have been impossible to endure in the first place. But there certainly have been CD made from simply recording a playing vinyl record where the surface noise can be heard.


Agree more-or-less on all counts. I tend to attribute the shrillness on transferring older recordings to two factors. 1) When the old analog recordings were made there was a tendency to make them more bright than would be natural to compensate for loss of acuity upon transfer to LP. 2) Especially in the early days, transfer engineers had an incentive to emphasize the improvement in the new digital format by making them sound brighter.

There is one other thing that can happen. Some CDs made in first years had "pre-emphasis." The treble was turned up and a flag was set in the track header instructing the player to compensate. I've come across this mostly in old Hyperion and BIS CD's. iTunes recognizes pre-emphasis and applies compensation to ripped files. But depending on what software you use, you can rip a file that has pre-emphasis and if you play it back on a system that does not recognize this you will get a very bright, shrill sound.


----------



## Ivan Smith (Jun 11, 2018)

I'm still using tapes myself


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Ivan Smith said:


> I'm still using tapes myself


Tapes can be great! I have a bunch of cassettes that sound just as good today as they did over 20 years ago. All that's needed is a cassette (or reel-to-reel) deck with a steady transport.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> I think there's been way too much discussion about "clipping" being a problem. Too much is being made out of it. It's rare on classical CDs... I've heard very, very, very little clipping on CDs over the years in vocals or anything else. It's more prevalent in pop records and sometimes on jazz albums to pump up the sound for more presence. But I just do not hear it as a common problem.
> 
> The problem I hear far more is bad engineering in the master transfer when, for some reason, the treble is turned up way too high or not adjusted properly, especially in the transfer of vintage analog recordings to digital sound on a CD that can sound shrill, surface or metallic. Clipping at the source is when the recording level is too high (rare with good engineers!), the overall level is too high when transferred to a CD, or there's a rare problem in the manufacturing that can give a distorted shrill sound.
> 
> ...


Clipping isn't rare on classical CDs in my experience. I've worked with hundreds of classical recordings with hard clipping and evidence of poor sound engineering and production. It seems much more common for classical recordings than for pop and jazz, where it's easier to record multiple takes and sound engineering and production is easier and more subjective and colorful. If a pop recording appears to be clipped, it's more likely that it's compressed rather than distorted.

There are a bunch of different possible problems that can be fixed, but I'm talking about problems that can't be fixed that would let you know whether or not you have an irredeemable bad recording rather than one of an infinite amount of other problems that might be happening.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> Clipping isn't rare on classical CDs in my experience. I've worked with hundreds of classical recordings with hard clipping and evidence of poor sound engineering and production. It seems much more common for classical recordings than for pop and jazz, where it's easier to record multiple takes and sound engineering and production is easier and more subjective and colorful. If a pop recording appears to be clipped, it's more likely that it's compressed rather than distorted.


Can you name some well known classical recordings that have clipping, and mention how you determined this?


----------



## Ivan Smith (Jun 11, 2018)

you mean like the 1812 Overture by Kim Jong-un


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Can you name some well known classical recordings that have clipping, and mention how you determined this?


I'm not sure what a recording being well-known has to do with it. If there are recordings that are well-know, they're usually for composers who I'm not very interested in, but that's beside the point. I listen to and edit too much music to name a bunch of specific recordings with clipping, but the recording of Schnittke's Symphony No. 1 that I have has horrible clipping at the very end

You can tell if a recording is clipped if there is glitchy distortion during loud parts when played at any volume. Then, if you use software like Audacity to view the waveform, you can tell if audio is clipped if some peaks are above the dB limit, also if you normalize the volume of the file and there is more than one peak per-channel. It's empirically observable.

It's really easy for clipping to happen, especially when recording very dynamic classical music. You need to set the volume of the mics so that it's high enough to hear the quiet parts more than electrical noise, but also so that loud parts don't overload the pre-amp which is what causes clipping. Adjusting the volume isn't an exact science, and it's not easy, especially for pieces that range from extremely quiet to extremely loud, not to mention trying to put something like The Rite of Spring on tape or vinyl.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> I'm not sure what a recording being well-known has to do with it. If there are recordings that are well-know, they're usually for composers who I'm not very interested in, but that's beside the point. I listen to and edit too much music to name a bunch of specific recordings with clipping, but the recording of Schnittke's Symphony No. 1 that I have has horrible clipping at the very end
> 
> You can tell if a recording is clipped if there is glitchy distortion during loud parts when played at any volume. Then, if you use software like Audacity to view the waveform, you can tell if audio is clipped if some peaks are above the dB limit, also if you normalize the volume of the file and there is more than one peak per-channel. It's empirically observable.
> 
> It's really easy for clipping to happen, especially when recording very dynamic classical music. You need to set the volume of the mics so that it's high enough to hear the quiet parts more than electrical noise, but also so that loud parts don't overload the pre-amp which is what causes clipping. Adjusting the volume isn't an exact science, and it's not easy, especially for pieces that range from extremely quiet to extremely loud, not to mention trying to put something like The Rite of Spring on tape or vinyl.


I was interested in a well known recording because it would be nice if I happened to have it and could hear for myself. I've used audacity a fair bit and made digital recordings using DAT tape and other technologies and certainly know of the pitfalls of clipping in a digital recording. But I've only come across blatant clipping in a commercial recording on a few occasions. One was an Abbado recording of something by Prokofiev, maybe Alexander Nevsky. Another was a BIS recording of a Tubin Symphony by Jarvi. I don't recall many others. Which recording of Schnittke 1 are you referring to? I think I have one by Segerstam, but there are others out there.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Baron Scarpia said:


> I was interested in a well known recording because it would be nice if I happened to have it and could hear for myself. I've used audacity a fair bit and made digital recordings using DAT tape and other technologies and certainly know of the pitfalls of clipping in a digital recording. But I've only come across blatant clipping in a commercial recording on a few occasions. One was an Abbado recording of something by Prokofiev, maybe Alexander Nevsky. Another was a BIS recording of a Tubin Symphony by Jarvi. I don't recall many others. Which recording of Schnittke 1 are you referring to? I think I have one by Segerstam, but there are others out there.


I think I have the same one. This one by BIS: http://bis.se/label/bis/schnittke-the-ten-symphonies

They must be bad at recording.....


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> I think there's been way too much discussion about "clipping" being a problem. Too much is being made out of it. It's rare on classical CDs... I've heard very, very, very little clipping on CDs over the years in vocals or anything else.


 *Audio clipping* is a problem based on amplification: i.e. problems with the Captain's portable CD player, not the discs he's playing.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Joe B said:


> *Audio clipping* is a problem based on amplification: i.e. problems with the Captain's portable CD player, not the discs he's playing.


That's the point I was making. It's more often the equipment.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> I think I have the same one. This one by BIS: http://bis.se/label/bis/schnittke-the-ten-symphonies
> 
> They must be bad at recording.....


I like their recordings quite a lot because of their minimal setup - a small number of microphones, live mix down to a DAT recorder that was not further manipulated. It produced an exceedingly natural sound, to my ears. But it did result in the occasional saturation. Nowadays they have updated their hardware the saturation problems have stopped.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Audio clipping in classical music recordings with the exception of early original (as opposed to remastered) digital recordings is and was not a major problem. Audio engineers, for the most part, have always been aware of the limits of their recording equipment. Just because one sees some blunting on the waveform of loud passages in Audacity does not mean that it is noticeable to the listener.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Audio clipping in classical music recordings with the exception of early original (as opposed to remastered) digital recordings is and was not a major problem. Audio engineers, for the most part, have always been aware of the limits of their recording equipment. Just because one sees some blunting on the waveform of loud passages in Audacity does not mean that it is noticeable to the listener.


Your point? Of course one can just ignore the clipping or not even notice it, but I can't ignore it and I hear it. In my experience, for the most part, it seems that audio engineers and producers for classical music have no idea what they're doing and are just hacking it out, which is why I have to remaster every recording of classical music I get. Blunting of the waveform can be caused by clipping or compression. If it's clipping, one will hear distortion at the peaks.....


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Here are the specs on my headphones: Grado SR60e
> 
> Transducer Type: Dynamic
> Operating Principle: Open Air
> ...


I have a pair of Grado Statement GS2000e headphones. A lot more revealing than you great SR60e.

I am just not hearing any of the problems you are hearing on your classical CD's. I must have gotten lucky with my classical collection.

I hear OTHER problems with some CDs on some labels. For example, DGG tend to have a diffuse image and ill defined soundstage.

I would love for you to list a couple of the specific CDs you have the problem with, so I can hear it for myself.

Using an amplifier with headphones, especially with your great Grados, will improve every aspect of their reproduction. But you are correct, if the problem is with the source material, an amp will not correct it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> Your point? Of course one can just ignore the clipping or not even notice it, but I can't ignore it and I hear it. In my experience, for the most part, it seems that audio engineers and producers for classical music have no idea what they're doing and are just hacking it out, which is why I have to remaster every recording of classical music I get. Blunting of the waveform can be caused by clipping or compression. If it's clipping, one will hear distortion at the peaks.....


I wouldn't deny that there are recordings produced which are affected by clipping, but I find it hard to believe that virtually every classical recording contains clipping. I don't think record producers and engineers are as incompetent as you seem to believe.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Fredx2098 said:


> Your point? Of course one can just ignore the clipping or not even notice it, but I can't ignore it and I hear it. In my experience, for the most part, it seems that audio engineers and producers for classical music have no idea what they're doing and are just hacking it out, which is why I have to remaster every recording of classical music I get.


Oh, come on now. Audio engineering of classical recordings is a proud profession. These are some of the most talented people in the recording world. And btw, if the clipping is in the source digital recording, you can't remaster it out.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Oh, come on now. Audio engineering of classical recordings is a proud profession. These are some of the most talented people in the recording world. And btw, if the clipping is in the source digital recording, you can't remaster it out.


My main gripe with classical orchestral recordings these days is that it is routine to use a very large number of microphones placed close to the performers, basically giving each instrument its own audio channel. The sound is mixed on a digital console, not by the concert hall. Partly it is done for economic reasons (it facilitates rebalancing, editing, and fixing flubs) and partly because a very immediate sound seems to be the current fashion. I think this accounts for the "harshness" that I often hear in recordings. I much prefer the minimalist techniques (Mercury's 3 omni-directional microphones, the Decca Tree, the old Telarc recordings).


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> Your point? Of course one can just ignore the clipping or not even notice it, but I can't ignore it and I hear it. In my experience, for the most part, it seems that *audio engineers and producers for classical music have no idea what they're doing and are just hacking it out*, which is why I have to remaster every recording of classical music I get. *Blunting of the waveform can be caused by clipping* or compression. If it's clipping, one will hear distortion at the peaks.....


Your statement about audio engineers and producers, to me, is nonsense. I would love to know what equipment you are using for playback that would give you experiences to make you feel this way.

Blunting of the wave form *is* clipping. Its cause is the over taxing of the hardware being used.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Joe B said:


> Your statement about audio engineers and producers, to me, is nonsense. I would love to know what equipment you are using for playback that would give you experiences to make you feel this way.
> 
> Blunting of the wave form *is* clipping. Its cause is the over taxing of the hardware being used.


I wouldn't go quite as far as Fredx2098 (he may not have had his coffee yet), but classical music is generally harder to record well than many other genres. It usually has a wide dynamic range and you need a high level of resolution to clearly hear the difference between, say, an oboe and a clarinet. Certain acoustic instruments nearly always used in classical music but less so in other genres these days, such as the piano or violin, can be especially hard to record well. Without that wide dynamic range and high resolution, classical music can sound dull and lifeless.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Here are the specs for my earbud:

Audio Stereo/Mono
Earpieces 1
Plug Type 3.5mm 3-Cond Stereo
Plug Plating Gold
Cable Length 49 in (1.24 m)
Impedance 32 Ohms
Noise Reduction Rating 20 dB
Fit Left or Right Ear
Loudness 10
Highs 8
Bass 8
Driver Size 13mm
Compatibility Mono and Stereo
Frequency Response 20Hz to 20kHz

I am very happy with this earbud as it is very durable and has a cord that does not degrade like the typical PVC cords do.









https://www.scansound.com/1-bud-gold-single-ear-stereo-earbud-black-with-3-sizes-of-eartips.html


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Baron Scarpia said:


> I wouldn't deny that there are recordings produced which are affected by clipping, but I find it hard to believe that virtually every classical recording contains clipping. I don't think record producers and engineers are as incompetent as you seem to believe.


Not virtually all, but not uncommon in my experience.



DaveM said:


> Oh, come on now. Audio engineering of classical recordings is a proud profession. These are some of the most talented people in the recording world. And btw, if the clipping is in the source digital recording, you can't remaster it out.


That doesn't seem to be the case. If I were to engineer a classical recording, it would be very simple and not take the same amount of talent as recording other kinds of music. All you have to do is put 2 mics in front of the ensemble and make sure it doesn't clip at the loudest parts, and some people can't even handle that apparently.

And yes, I know, that's what I've been saying about a recording being irredeemably bad. I do things like remove huge periods of silence and combining works that are split into movements or acts that are split into scenes and making sure the sound begins and ends smoothly and naturally.



Joe B said:


> Your statement about audio engineers and producers, to me, is nonsense. I would love to know what equipment you are using for playback that would give you experiences to make you feel this way.
> 
> Blunting of the wave form *is* clipping. Its cause is the over taxing of the hardware being used.


I usually use speakers or headphones, not always at the loudest possible volume which would cause distortion. I know the difference between distortion caused by overloading equipment and distortion that's caused by a bad recording. You don't just hear clipping; it's a physical thing that has happened to the waveform during recording that you can see with your eyes in a visual representation of a waveform.

Blunting of the waveform is not clipping. That's compression. Clipping is when the top of waveforms are sharply chopped into a flat line rather than a smooth curve. Compression is blunt, clipping is sharp and damages the sound quality.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Baron Scarpia said:


> My main gripe with classical orchestral recordings these days is that it is routine to use a very large number of microphones placed close to the performers, basically giving each instrument its own audio channel. The sound is mixed on a digital console, not by the concert hall. Partly it is done for economic reasons (it facilitates rebalancing, editing, and fixing flubs) and partly because a very immediate sound seems to be the current fashion. I think this accounts for the "harshness" that I often hear in recordings. I much prefer the minimalist techniques (Mercury's 3 omni-directional microphones, the Decca Tree, the old Telarc recordings).


That's such an interesting subject! The history of how Robert Fine (together with Wilma Cozart who he eventually married) came up with the 3-microphone technique is fascinating. Fine had perfected the use of a single mike for mono recordings and in anticipation of the stereo era (generally 1958 and after), came up with the 3 microphone technique which allowed for a mono recording (which they thought was going to be around for a long time ) or simple mix down to stereo. It's interesting that they actually recorded with 6 microphones, the other 3 being for backup in case of failure of any of the primary 3.

IMO, when properly used, the 3-mike method most closely emulated the concert hall experience, not to mention that the less hardware, the less introduction of artifact from all those microphones used in the multi-technique.

I'm conflicted though because I admit to having liked recordings that are surreal, making me feel like I'm either the conductor or right in the middle of the orchestra. In classical recordings, I particularly like the contribution from the winds. In the 3-mike technique, the winds can get a little lost behind the strings (although the recording venue may compensate for that). I suspect that where you hear the winds bright and distinct, they had their own microphone.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

fluteman said:


> I wouldn't go quite as far as Fredx2098 (he may not have had his coffee yet), but classical music is generally harder to record well than many other genres. It usually has a wide dynamic range and you need a high level of resolution to clearly hear the difference between, say, an oboe and a clarinet. Certain acoustic instruments nearly always used in classical music but less so in other genres these days, such as the piano or violin, can be especially hard to record well. Without that wide dynamic range and high resolution, classical music can sound dull and lifeless.


People pointlessly arguing that an empirically observable phenomenon is not worth discussing in a thread about unwanted noises on a recording may give one the impression that I have not had my coffee. What did I say that went too far?


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

DaveM said:


> That's such an interesting subject! The history of how Robert Fine (together with Wilma Cozart who he eventually married) came up with the 3-microphone technique is fascinating. Fine had perfected the use of a single mike for mono recordings and in anticipation of the stereo era (generally 1958 and after), came up with the 3 microphone technique which allowed for a mono recording (which they thought was going to be around for a long time ) or simple mix down to stereo. It's interesting that they actually recorded with 6 microphones, the other 3 being for backup in case of failure of any of the primary 3.
> 
> IMO, when properly used, the 3-mike method most closely emulated the concert hall experience, not to mention that the less hardware, the less introduction of artifact from all those microphones used in the multi-technique.
> 
> I'm conflicted though because I admit to having liked recordings that are surreal, making me feel like I'm either the conductor or right in the middle of the orchestra. In classical recordings, I particularly like the contribution from the winds. In the 3-mike technique, the winds can get a little lost behind the strings (although the recording venue may compensate for that). I suspect that where you hear the winds bright and distinct, they had their own microphone.


Maybe you already know of this article, if not it is interesting, and has some reminiscences of Fine's kid.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/fine-art-mercury-living-presence-recordings

Interesting that the technique involved adjusting the distance of the microphone to take advantage of the microphone's natural coloration to get the right frequency balance without use of equalization. Telarc (at the beginning) used basically the same arrangement as Mercury did but they didn't sound quite the same because their microphones were more neutral.

For the more "surreal" effect the Decca Tree gave more of a conductors perspective, I think.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Fredx2098 said:


> In my experience, for the most part, it seems that audio engineers and producers for classical music have no idea what they're doing and are just hacking it out, *which is why I have to remaster every recording of classical music I get.*





DaveM said:


> And btw, if the clipping is in the source digital recording, you can't remaster it out.





Fredx2098 said:


> *That doesn't seem to be the case.* If I were to engineer a classical recording, it would be very simple and not take the same amount of talent as recording other kinds of music. All you have to do is put 2 mics in front of the ensemble and make sure it doesn't clip at the loudest parts, and some people can't even handle that apparently.


You mean that it is not the case that clipping in the original source digital that you are ripping or otherwise recording can't be remastered out? Now you are stretching credibility. Clipping in a source digital recording is permanent, forever, siempre, locked in stone and beyond repair!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Maybe you already know of this article, if not it is interesting, and has some reminiscences of Fine's kid.
> 
> https://www.stereophile.com/content/fine-art-mercury-living-presence-recordings
> 
> ...


I have read a number of articles on Fine and his 3-mic technique, but not that one. It is excellent. Thanks.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

DaveM said:


> You mean that it is not the case that clipping in the original source digital that you are ripping or otherwise recording can't be remastered out? Now you are stretching credibility. Clipping in a source digital recording is permanent, forever, siempre, locked in stone and beyond repair!


Yes, and no. There is loss of information which can't be restored, but I think you can soften it. Say someone hits the bass drum too hard and there is a half second of clipping. The flat-top waveform will have huge spurious high frequency components, and very disturbing crackle. You could put a low pass filter on that half-second and replace the crackle with a more innocuous form of distortion.


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> ...Blunting of the waveform can be caused by clipping or compression.





Fredx2098 said:


> Blunting of the waveform is not clipping. That's compression. Clipping is when the top of waveforms are sharply chopped into a flat line rather than a smooth curve. Compression is blunt, clipping is sharp and damages the sound quality.


I do know what clipping is. Because of your comment in the first quote, I thought you were using "blunting" as a word to describe the flat peak "caused by clipping".

I posted because your comment about audio engineers and producers of classical music is so over the top. Your reply to DaveM seems to have the same tone:



Fredx2098 said:


> If I were to engineer a classical recording, *it would be very simple* and not take the same amount of talent as recording other kinds of music.


Please disregard my comments if you have the education, training, and knowledge of currently used recording equipment to make such bold statements. If you don't, perhaps you may want to 'throttle down' the rhetoric a bit.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Yes, and no. There is loss of information which can't be restored, but I think you can soften it. Say someone hits the bass drum too hard and there is a half second of clipping. The flat-top waveform will have huge spurious high frequency components, and very disturbing crackle. You could put a low pass filter on that half-second and replace the crackle with a more innocuous form of distortion.


(EDIT: please ignore the following sentence since that was addressed above and I missed it.) I don't think it's 'yes and no' that the information is lost forever. You can put a band-aide on it, but the peak will never be digitally exactly as it was played. But I'll go back to my original point that the clipping , such as it may be, in classical recordings is not the big problem it is being made out to be. My guess is that what's really happening is that the recording is being made with Audacity, the waveform shows some clipping and now, 'Houston we have a problem!'


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> That doesn't seem to be the case. If I were to engineer a classical recording, it would be very simple and not take the same amount of talent as recording other kinds of music. All you have to do is put 2 mics in front of the ensemble and make sure it doesn't clip at the loudest parts, and some people can't even handle that apparently.


You have the confidence of the blissfuly ignorant! (And I mean that in a nice way.) Of course this is one of the oldest techniques (just google ORTF stereo) and is still in common use. You are more or less guaranteed to get something listenable, but it takes a lot of experimenting with the placement of the microphone and ensemble to get the balances right and will only be satisfactory if the acoustic of the recording venue is suitable. When it is done well it can be very good, but doing it well is not trivial, as you imply.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Recording classical music is soooooooo simple. I believe the younger generation would use the expression ROFL for such a belief.

https://www.surrey.ac.uk/undergraduate/music-and-sound-recording-tonmeister

As far as I understand, there are several sound engineering courses available at various universities. This one uniquely requires musical credentials (A-Level or a very high instrument grade) to apply.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Joe B said:


> Please disregard my comments if you have the education, training, and knowledge of currently used recording equipment to make such bold statements. If you don't, perhaps you may want to 'throttle down' the rhetoric a bit.


I do have that knowledge. What about you?



Baron Scarpia said:


> You have the confidence of the blissfuly ignorant! (And I mean that in a nice way.) Of course this is one of the oldest techniques (just google ORTF stereo) and is still in common use. You are more or less guaranteed to get something listenable, but it takes a lot of experimenting with the placement of the microphone and ensemble to get the balances right and will only be satisfactory if the acoustic of the recording venue is suitable. When it is done well it can be very good, but doing it well is not trivial, as you imply.


I don't know how that can be interpreted in a nice way. If I were ignorant I wouldn't be making claims. I've recorded an orchestra before. It took 5-10 minutes to fully set up and I got a nice recording without clipping. It was trivial, easier than recording other kinds of music which I also do. In my opinion, one of the worst mistakes that can be made by a sound engineer or producer is to think that the process is extremely complicated and intricate.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Fredx2098 said:


> I do have that knowledge. What about you?
> 
> I don't know how that can be interpreted in a nice way. If I were ignorant I wouldn't be making claims. I've recorded an orchestra before. It took 5-10 minutes to fully set up and I got a nice recording without clipping. It was trivial, easier than recording other kinds of music which I also do. In my opinion, one of the worst mistakes that can be made by a sound engineer or producer is to think that the process is extremely complicated and intricate.


One of the difficulties of participating in forums like these is when people with actual real life experiences challenge the preconceived notions of those with little or no actual experiences. It can be frustrating.

Most of the time I enjoy engaging with individuals who know more that I do. That is the way I can expand my knowledge of music. I used to hate Cage until I started following these discussions. The great Cage is a fraud dispute has convinced me that he is really a very creative composer. The more people complain about _433_ the more I appreciate it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Fredx2098 said:


> I don't know how that can be interpreted in a nice way. If I were ignorant I wouldn't be making claims. I've recorded an orchestra before. It took 5-10 minutes to fully set up and I got a nice recording without clipping. It was trivial, easier than recording other kinds of music which I also do. In my opinion, one of the worst mistakes that can be made by a sound engineer or producer is to think that the process is extremely complicated and intricate.


That you managed to create an orchestral recording that is superior to that of professional engineers is purely anecdotal. But you can put it up on YouTube and we can judge for ourselves. Your premise that creating a recording that closely emulates the live experience of an orchestra with wide dynamic range, realistic broad soundstage, balance among the various instruments, compensate for limitations of the venue, reasonable lack of distortion, etc. is a simple process and just takes a few minutes to set up is incredibly naive and a disservice to those who pioneered the classical recording art to the present day.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Fredx2098 said:


> People pointlessly arguing that an empirically observable phenomenon is not worth discussing in a thread about unwanted noises on a recording may give one the impression that I have not had my coffee. What did I say that went too far?


Well, I was agreeing with you that classical music can be tough to record well. Saying that classical music audio engineers and producers have no idea what they are doing and are "hacking it out" overstates the case in my opinion, as there have been some very good ones. Alas, the digital era, though it brought a welcome improvement in dynamic range and elimination of certain kinds of noise and distortion, has not been entirely kind to classical music. Most of my vinyl LPs are in storage due to an impending move, but I have a few that are still handy and played one the other night, and it reminded me what I have been missing with my current digital listening setup.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

arpeggio said:


> One of the difficulties of participating in forums like these is when people with actual real life experiences challenge the preconceived notions of those with little or no actual experiences. It can be frustrating.
> 
> Most of the time I enjoy engaging with individuals who know more that I do. That is the way I can expand my knowledge of music. I used to hate Cage until I started following these discussions. *The great Cage* is a fraud dispute has convinced me that he is really a very creative composer. The more people complain about _433_ the more I appreciate it.


I see what you did there.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

DaveM said:


> That you managed to create an orchestral recording that is superior to that of professional engineers is purely anecdotal. But you can put it up on YouTube and we can judge for ourselves. Your premise that creating a recording that closely emulates the live experience of an orchestra with wide dynamic range, realistic broad soundstage, balance among the various instruments, compensate for limitations of the venue, reasonable lack of distortion, etc. is a simple process and just takes a few minutes to set up is incredibly naive and a disservice to those who pioneered the classical recording art to the present day.


Here are my anecdotes: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hFeXYV3YuUPJ4TfZ00URgWVQzt074Zgk

Full dynamic range, realistic soundstage, balance of instruments, no distortion ever.

The original recording techniques aren't comparable to modern techniques. We aren't using phonographs and wax cylinders anymore.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

fluteman said:


> Well, I was agreeing with you that classical music can be tough to record well. Saying that classical music audio engineers and producers have no idea what they are doing and are "hacking it out" overstates the case in my opinion, as there have been some very good ones. Alas, the digital era, though it brought a welcome improvement in dynamic range and elimination of certain kinds of noise and distortion, has not been entirely kind to classical music. Most of my vinyl LPs are in storage due to an impending move, but I have a few that are still handy and played one the other night, and it reminded me what I have been missing with my current digital listening setup.


I didn't say that all sound engineers and producers for classical music are hacks. I said that there are ways to tell if the engineer and producer were hacks, for example, if one channel is twice as loud as the other and there is hard clipping present, and those things are more common than others think.

What do you miss with a digital listening setup? That's the only way to get a realistic sound. Live music doesn't have to stop every 20 minutes. You might like the sound of vinyl, I do as well, but it's not the most accurate way to reproduce sound.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

arpeggio said:


> One of the difficulties of participating in forums like these is when people with actual real life experiences challenge the preconceived notions of those with little or no actual experiences. It can be frustrating.
> 
> Most of the time I enjoy engaging with individuals who know more that I do. That is the way I can expand my knowledge of music. I used to hate Cage until I started following these discussions. The great Cage is a fraud dispute has convinced me that he is really a very creative composer. The more people complain about _433_ the more I appreciate it.


It seems like there are some people on this site who are musical laymen whose knowledge extends to the concept of listening and names of famous composers, and they get off on starting heated arguments when someone (me) says something that sounds demeaning of the perceived complex inexplicable magic of music. I'm fine with the first half of that sentence, but I wish there wasn't such an argumentative atmosphere. If I am perceived the be the argumentative one, then I'm very confused.

I don't see what someone has to gain by insulting composers and styles of music and the people who enjoy them, unless that person is a vindictive, narcissistic, pretentious snob. I never hated Cage, but I did avoid him for the most part because I'm not a fan of the concept of indeterminate music, and also I'm peeved that he's far more well-known and appreciated than Feldman when his most famous work is 4'33" of silence. Though maybe that isn't comparable to your experience since I never had a period where I didn't enjoy modern/avant-garde music.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> Here are my anecdotes: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hFeXYV3YuUPJ4TfZ00URgWVQzt074Zgk
> 
> Full dynamic range, realistic soundstage, balance of instruments, no distortion ever.
> 
> The original recording techniques aren't comparable to modern techniques. We aren't using phonographs and wax cylinders anymore.


I sampled the first two tracks (not the sort of music I listen to). I'll grant you a perfectly serviceable, inoffensive recording. No particular objection to balance, but soundstage not very convincing, almost sounded like a mono recording. I didn't notice any distortion.

But honestly, it doesn't draw me in to the music. Any recording engineer could make a recording like this just as easily as you did, but that's not what they are hired to do. They are hired to make a more vivid recording that draws people in. And they typically have to work with a more problematic ensemble including strings and winds, and perhaps a soloist, they have to satisfy the conductor, the producer, the label director, and it has to be reviewed well and sound good in 30 second samples. If you like your recording better, fine. But don't pretend that it is because they lack your competence. They have different criteria to meet than you do.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> I didn't say that all sound engineers and producers for classical music are hacks. I said that there are ways to tell if the engineer and producer were hacks, for example, if one channel is twice as loud as the other and there is hard clipping present, and those things are more common than others think.


No, you didn't say "all" are hacks, you said "for the most part" audio engineers are hacks.



Fredx2098 said:


> Your point? Of course one can just ignore the clipping or not even notice it, but I can't ignore it and I hear it. In my experience, for the most part, it seems that audio engineers and producers for classical music have no idea what they're doing and are just hacking it out, which is why I have to remaster every recording of classical music I get. Blunting of the waveform can be caused by clipping or compression. If it's clipping, one will hear distortion at the peaks.....


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Fredx2098 said:


> ... If I am perceived the be the argumentative one, then I'm very confused.
> 
> ..I don't see what someone has to gain by insulting composers and styles of music and the people who enjoy them, unless that person is a vindictive, narcissistic, pretentious snob.


That kind of language will maybe 'unconfuse' you. This forum is about all opinions pros and cons. You may not like the 'cons', but that's part of the exchange of viewpoints.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Baron Scarpia said:


> I sampled the first two tracks (not the sort of music I listen to). I'll grant you a perfectly serviceable, inoffensive recording. No particular objection to balance, but soundstage not very convincing, almost sounded like a mono recording. I didn't notice any distortion.
> 
> But honestly, it doesn't draw me in to the music. Any recording engineer could make a recording like this just as easily as you did, but that's not what they are hired to do. They are hired to make a more vivid recording that draws people in. And they typically have to work with a more problematic ensemble including strings and winds, and perhaps a soloist, they have to satisfy the conductor, the producer, the label director, and it has to be reviewed well and sound good in 30 second samples. If you like your recording better, fine. But don't pretend that it is because they lack your competence. They have different criteria to meet than you do.





Baron Scarpia said:


> No, you didn't say "all" are hacks, you said "for the most part" audio engineers are hacks.


Any situation can be contrived to be more complicated than it has to be. I'm not saying those recordings are the best in the world, but they are better than the objectively bad recording quality that I referred to. I don't recall ever hearing a published classical recording that was up to my standards, but they're not all garbage. At least half of the recordings I've worked with are very poor quality though. It's not a rarity. Obviously most people can live with it, don't care, or don't even know there's something to care about.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

DaveM said:


> That kind of language will maybe 'unconfuse' you. This forum is about all opinions pros and cons. You may not like the 'cons', but that's part of the exchange of viewpoints.


I like exchanging viewpoints. I do not like when someone asserts their opinions as the only correct ones and insults people who disagree with them.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Fredx2098 said:


> I didn't say that all sound engineers and producers for classical music are hacks. I said that there are ways to tell if the engineer and producer were hacks, for example, if one channel is twice as loud as the other and there is hard clipping present, and those things are more common than others think.
> 
> What do you miss with a digital listening setup? That's the only way to get a realistic sound. Live music doesn't have to stop every 20 minutes. You might like the sound of vinyl, I do as well, but it's not the most accurate way to reproduce sound.


I know that, of course. Digital audio, especially the best digital audio of today, has major advantages over vinyl LPs. But there is digital distortion as well. I guess that's why I enjoyed the 1963 pure analog LP so much. And to be honest, with most of my LP and CD collection in storage, I've been listening to a lot of crummy mp3 files and streaming, or at best Apple lossless. 
Nothing beats live music, of course.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> Any situation can be contrived to be more complicated than it has to be. I'm not saying those recordings are the best in the world, but they are better than the objectively bad recording quality that I referred to. I don't recall ever hearing a published classical recording that was up to my standards, but they're not all garbage. At least half of the recordings I've worked with are very poor quality though. It's not a rarity. Obviously most people can live with it, don't care, or don't even know there's something to care about.


FWIW, I've heard a bunch of commercial recordings that I find much less satisfactory than your recording (I deplore DGG's "4D" era). What microphone setup did you use, ORTF?

But it is hard to believe you've _never_ heard a published recording up to your standards? What are you listening to? Have you heard any Telarc recordings? During the Renner era they used 2 microphones with custom built electronics and are reputed to have spent days tweeting the microphone setup and orchestral seating plan to get the balances just right. You surpassed them after 5 minutes of effort, plopping your two microphones in front of the orchestra?


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

fluteman said:


> I know that, of course. Digital audio, especially the best digital audio of today, has major advantages over vinyl LPs. But there is digital distortion as well. I guess that's why I enjoyed the 1963 pure analog LP so much. And to be honest, with most of my LP and CD collection in storage, I've been listening to a lot of crummy mp3 files and streaming, or at best Apple lossless.
> Nothing beats live music, of course.


Digital distortion is what I've been going on about. Analog distortion is more tolerable than digital distortion, but I would prefer no distortion when listening to classical music. Getting an analog recording of a piece of classical music with no distortion or noise that is noticeable during quiet parts is impossible as far as I know.

There's another thread where I talked about this, but mp3s aren't crummy. Studies show that any difference in audio quality above a 128kbps mp3 is imperceptible. As soon as there are enough bits per second to create a constant wave in the air, anything more is superfluous. A standard mp3 is 320kbps which is already over twice as much as necessary. If a file is above 128kbps, what makes it sound good or bad is everything else related to the recording, production, reproduction, and listening.


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I do have that knowledge. What about you?


No I don't, nor have I ever claimed to. It just struck me as rather bold to 'foot sweep' classical audio engineers and producers the way you did. But if you have the kind of expertise, more power to you.

Sorry, I'd write more, but I've got the Pentagon on the phone and the Joint Chiefs are bugging me for a plan of action if things heat up further with Iran. Got to go!


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Baron Scarpia said:


> FWIW, I've heard a bunch of commercial recordings that I find much less satisfactory than your recording (I deplore DGG's "4D" era). What microphone setup did you use, ORTF?
> 
> But it is hard to believe you've _never_ heard a published recording up to your standards? What are you listening to? Have you heard any Telarc recordings? During the Renner era they used 2 microphones with custom built electronics and are reputed to have spent days tweeting the microphone setup and orchestral seating plan to get the balances just right. You surpassed them after 5 minutes of effort, plopping your two microphones in front of the orchestra?


I used an XY setup.

When I say I haven't heard a recording that's up to my standards, I'm talking about a recording and production that's perfect in every way: both channels having approximately the same loudness, both channels peaking at around the same level, amplified so that it's as loud as possible without clipping, no extremely long periods of silence, sound that appears and disappears smoothly without a noticeable digital pop when the sound starts and ends, etc. There are recordings that come close, but I always have to do a bit of tweaking.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Joe B said:


> No I don't, nor have I ever claimed to. It just struck me as rather bold to 'foot sweep' classical audio engineers and producers the way you did. But if you have the kind of expertise, more power to you.
> 
> Sorry, I'd write more, but I've got the Pentagon on the phone and the Joint Chiefs are bugging me for a plan of action if things heat up further with Iran. Got to go!


Maybe I should've worded it differently, but I wasn't insulting all engineers and producers. I was just saying that terrible recordings of classical music aren't rare in my experience.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I finally figured it out! It's your ears!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Baron Scarpia said:


> ...During the Renner era they used 2 microphones with custom built electronics and are reputed to have spent days *tweeting* the microphone setup and orchestral seating plan to get the balances just right.


They had Twitter then? (Sorry, couldn't help it. )


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Fredx2098 said:


> Digital distortion is what I've been going on about. Analog distortion is more tolerable than digital distortion, but I would prefer no distortion when listening to classical music. Getting an analog recording of a piece of classical music with no distortion or noise that is noticeable during quiet parts is impossible as far as I know.
> 
> There's another thread where I talked about this, but mp3s aren't crummy. Studies show that any difference in audio quality above a 128kbps mp3 is imperceptible. As soon as there are enough bits per second to create a constant wave in the air, anything more is superfluous. A standard mp3 is 320kbps which is already over twice as much as necessary. If a file is above 128kbps, what makes it sound good or bad is everything else related to the recording, production, reproduction, and listening.


Well, there are studies and there are studies. 128 kbps is generally considered radio-quality these days whereas 192-256 kbps especially with VBR is considered CD quality to most people's ears. Personally, I stick with 256 VBR.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Fredx2098 said:


> Digital distortion is what I've been going on about. Analog distortion is more tolerable than digital distortion, but I would prefer no distortion when listening to classical music. Getting an analog recording of a piece of classical music with no distortion or noise that is noticeable during quiet parts is impossible as far as I know.
> 
> There's another thread where I talked about this, but mp3s aren't crummy. Studies show that any difference in audio quality above a 128kbps mp3 is imperceptible. As soon as there are enough bits per second to create a constant wave in the air, anything more is superfluous. A standard mp3 is 320kbps which is already over twice as much as necessary. If a file is above 128kbps, what makes it sound good or bad is everything else related to the recording, production, reproduction, and listening.


Yes, mp3 files aren't necessarily that bad. I meant, a lot of what I've been listening to recently is pretty low fidelity by today's standards.
By the way, some of the best analog recordings I've ever heard were early ones on the Everest label. Unfortunately, though Everest founder Harry Belock was an engineering genius and a perfectionist, his spare no expense approach quickly ran the company aground, and his accountant ended up buying it and turning it into a budget label, reissuing the original LPs with cheaper equipment and much lower fidelity. So you need to get the original LPs, several of which I have. But you knew all that already, I suspect.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Some listeners say they can't tell the difference between 128 bps and a higher bitrate. Maybe that's true... but I always assume from personal experimentation that _ the greater the bitrate, the greater the details_... And there are the intangibles of sound, whether conscious or not, that can be conveyed better by a higher bitrate. 128 bps is the absolute minimum for me, considering that the digital format is bad enough as it is.  I believe that one can only notice the difference in bitrates from a CD that one is familiar with, and that's why blind tests are absolutely misleading and a complete waste of time. If one wants to understand the impact of bit rates, burn a disc at 64 bps, then 96 bps, then 128 bps, and keep going up. If one cannot hear a difference in the sound and details, well then, others can. _The greater the bitrate... the greater the details,_ or else everything would be recorded at 128 bps to begin with. Imagine a world in only 128 bps sound. Sorry, but no. 256 bps is about as low as I prefer to go, but that's only about 1/3 of the bits that are still available in a lossless format. Digital can fool the listener into thinking that a certain amount of sound quality is not being lost when it actually is, but the listener doesn't know it.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> Some listeners say they can't tell the difference between 128 bps and a higher bitrate. Maybe that's true... but I always assume from personal experimentation that _ the greater the bitrate, the greater the details_... And there are the intangibles of sound, whether conscious or not, that can be conveyed better by a higher bitrate. 128 bps is the absolute minimum for me, considering that the digital format is bad enough as it is.  I believe that one can only notice the difference in bitrates from a CD that one is familiar with, and that's why blind tests are absolutely misleading and a complete waste of time. If one wants to understand the impact of bit rates, burn a disc at 64 bps, then 96 bps, then 128 bps, and keep going up. If one cannot hear a difference in the sound and details, well then, others can. _The greater the bitrate... the greater the details,_ or else everything would be recorded at 128 bps to begin with. Imagine a world in only 128 bps sound. Sorry, but no. 256 bps is about as low as I prefer to go, but that's only about 1/3 of the bits that are still available in a lossless format. Digital can fool the listener into thinking that a certain amount of sound quality is not being lost when it actually is, but the listener doesn't know it.


Having higher quality can cause the placebo effect for someone who doesn't know about the physics behind it, which I guess is good for them, unless they want to have a large amount of music on their computer, or they can just use CDs because they're limited by length and not file size.

It's not bits per second, it's kilobits per second. So for a 128kbps mp3 file, that means there are 128,000 clips of audio per second. I can definitely hear the difference between 128kbps and lower bit rates, but not between 128kbps and higher bit rates. Still, I convert to 160kbps. Sure higher bit rate technically has more detail, but there's no point. We can't see microscopic things with naked eyes, so cameras and pictures don't need to be able to capture those microscopic detail.

Regardless, a bad recording is a bad recording. Recording something at the highest sample rate possible isn't going to automatically make it sound good or better than an mp3. In my opinion, high bit rate audio and lossless files are only useful during the production process, because lossy files change the shape of the waveform slightly. Also, if you keep rendering files in lossy formats over and over, that will affect the sound.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Fredx2098 said:


> Also, if you keep rendering files in lossy formats over and over, that will affect the sound.


So if I rip a CD to 128 kbps, then using those files burn a disk for the car it seems I am okay, but then to rip that burned disk to 128 kbps maybe is not so good. I don't go that far but just wondering. Kind of the phtocopy effect if one keeps using the a copy to make the next copy. We have all see those blurry photocopies that are jokingly referred to as tenth-generation-XEROX.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Fritz Kobus said:


> So if I rip a CD to 128 kbps, then using those files burn a disk for the car it seems I am okay, but then to rip that burned disk to 128 kbps maybe is not so good. I don't go that far but just wondering. Kind of the phtocopy effect if one keeps using the a copy to make the next copy. We have all see those blurry photocopies that are jokingly referred to as tenth-generation-XEROX.


Yes, that seems to be the case. I'm not sure how many times you need to render the files until you can hear quality loss though. I should test that out. I don't think two times is enough to cause a drastic change because I think I've done that before.

That was more a part of what I was saying about lossless audio being useful for the production process. For example, if you record something and export it as an mp3, then you record something over that and export the mix as an mp3 and keep doing that, it's gonna sound weird. I don't think that happens with lossless files, at least not to the same extent.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

There are a number of studies attempting to determine the bitrate at which most people will not be able to distinguish between a compressed file and a CD/WAV/flac. These go back starting at a time when memory was expensive and 'mini' players such as the first iPod Nano (2005 with as little as 1 gb) were coming out. Minimal file size was generally more important back then. At that time, I remember a recommendation that a 64 kbps WMA was serviceable so I created a number of 64 kbps music files from my WAV files.

Since then, as iPhones, iTouches and the like have 128gb and above, file size isn't as important, but since a CD WAV can occupy more than half a gigabyte, people with large collections still want to compress. A consistent finding from studies to the present is that 128kbps is the minimum acceptable bitrate and will be serviceable to many people.

But more than one study, such as the one below, have found that if a number of different music sources and samples are used, some people can hear improvement in the result if bitrates above 128kbps are used. They point out differences in isolated situations such as the decay of a cymbal hit/crash or the sound from certain brass instruments. The study below suggests 192 kbps with VBR as being the best compromise, a point beyond which people are unlikely to see improvement no matter the source.

I don't look on any individual study as definitive, but there is enough information that 128 kbps is not the absolute turning point beyond which one can't distinguish from a CD that I'm not going to settle on 128 kbps just to save memory space. I settled on 256kbps VBR to give myself a little extra cushion of certainty.

https://lifehacker.com/5921889/concluding-the-great-mp3-bitrate-experiment


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Fredx2098 said:


> Regardless, a bad recording is a bad recording.


This argument has been raging for years, as you all probably know. But for me, this is the key point. You can't improve on the original master tape or digital file. It has been demonstrated to me pretty convincingly that higher bit rates, even above 256, can potentially make an audible difference. But ime, the limitations of the original source material, however high-rez its format may be, are the limitations that matter by far the most.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2018)

fluteman said:


> This argument has been raging for years, as you all probably know. But for me, this is the key point. You can't improve on the original master tape or digital file. It has been demonstrated to me pretty convincingly that higher bit rates, even above 256, can potentially make an audible difference. But ime, the limitations of the original source material, however high-rez its format may be, are the limitations that matter by far the most.


There is at least one form of distortion that does not entail loss of information and can be fixed. If the recording has been mastered with an unbalanced frequency response you can restore it with equalization (as long as attenuation is not so extreme that the signal falls into the noise). But for most things that make a bad recording (poor microphone placement, harmonic and intermodular distortion, saturation, nonlinear response, tape noise) can't be corrected, since information is lost.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Baron Scarpia said:


> There is at least one form of distortion that does not entail loss of information and can be fixed. If the recording has been mastered with an unbalanced frequency response you can restore it with equalization (as long as attenuation is not so extreme that the signal falls into the noise). But for most things that make a bad recording (poor microphone placement, harmonic and intermodular distortion, saturation, nonlinear response, tape noise) can't be corrected, since information is lost.


Yes, all true. And I don't belittle what can be accomplished with equalization. I have heard amazing improvements in recordings dating back to the days of wax cylinders, mainly due to equalization. But I stand by my point. Also, you mention "poor microphone placement", but I wonder if microphone placement is at best an intelligent compromise in many instances, especially with acoustical classical music.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2018)

fluteman said:


> Yes, all true. And I don't belittle what can be accomplished with equalization. I have heard amazing improvements in recordings dating back to the days of wax cylinders, mainly due to equalization. But I stand by my point. Also, you mention "poor microphone placement", but I wonder if microphone placement is at best an intelligent compromise in many instances, especially with acoustical classical music.


Microphone placement is to some extent a matter of taste. I prefer a minimal setup and think the recording produced when the microphones are placed too close to the instruments tends to be grating. That is my main gripe with most classical recordings made nowadays.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Recordings are a representation of music but they are not the music itself. Even the best recordings don't capture everything that happened or represent the recording venue. In my opinion most modern recordings have an opposite problem -- they are better than reality. If you attend a concert and listen to the music then hear a recording of the same music at home it will sound "better" on the recording. This wasn't always true and recordings didn't always sound better than reality.

Any recording since the LP was done electronically and added something that probably wasn't in the original performance or venue. This is the source of any distortion, shrillness or brightness you hear. For years DG recordings were treble bright and bass light, a common occurrence in Karajan's era. London/Decca and EMI/Angel tried to do better, sometimes succeeding, sometimes not.

Some sound problems are not universal, meaning they don't effect everyone equally. When the super audio remake of Howard Hanson's "Romantic" symphony with the composer leading the Eastman Rochester Orchestra was released on Mercury, some critics complained of a high pitched buzz or whir in the recording. I bought it, played it on my 5.1 system (it was a three channel recording), and heard no such utterance. Some people heard it, I did not. This was, I suppose, because of the type of equipment used.

If classical music is following other popular art forms in this century the recording technology is better but the recordings themselves may be in general worse than in the "golden era" of analog. This is also true for film, which has common problems with sound once played outside a theater equipped with all manner of speakers and woofers. The way a lot of people listen to classical music today diminishes sound value, as well.

So part of the problem is recordings engineering, part is diminution in our time, and part is the way or the equipment through which music is replicated. In the biggest picture it's always wise to understand a recording is to music what a book or article is to conversation: a replication, not the same thing.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

The best way to experience classical music is to actually be part of the orchestra/ensemble. It's such a wonderful experience.


----------

