artto:

Oh yes you have Mike. Some of the recordings you heard at my place. Can you guess which ones?

Remember "A Life", the Mark Levenson/RedRose Music SACD of Bill Elgart's percussion recorded in 1975 where you thought my room disappeared? There's a whole series of recordings from Red Rose Music like this. Almost all of the Sheffield Lab recordings are true stereo. For another ear opener try the 1959 Miles Davis recording Kind of Blue. Compare it to later muti-track like Sketches of Spain ~ quite a difference.

Personally I think most "audiophiles" have been brain washed, conditioned if you will, over the years into accepting mult-track recordings as sounding "real", when actually many of them are "better than live", and that's not what High Fidelity (fidelity=true to the original) is about.

Was "A Life" the one with the solo cello? That and I think a Peter Gabriel recording were the ones that stuck out the most for me.

For what it's worth, Bell Labs did research in the 70's that indicated that 7 channel surround (not 6) was the fewest number of channels one could get away with in order to have a full 360 degree soundstage - which would be required to fully reproduce the full ambience of the hall. Of course, one can go a long way in replicating that with room acoustics, but then you're in the business of "adding" something to the recording.

And then there are the ITD recordings that require 4 channel playback...

But I guess that's not really talking about stereo.

As far as "high fidelity", I can't agree with your definition. Take for instance a Picasso. Are any of his paintings not a form of "high fidelity" art because they don't look like anything we can find in nature? For me, the true beauty in art stems from the ability to create something new. If I really wanted to hear the true sound of a cello, then I would just hire a cellist to sit in my living room, or I'd go to a concert hall to see the performance there. I actually prefer listening to good recordings at home because the experience is actually better than in real life...mostly because I get to "see images" that don't exist in nature.

For me, high-fidelity is exactly the way it's defined in the dictionary/encyclopedia...reproduction of a recorded source with minimal distortion.

artto:

I think what we are arguing about here is not a subjective issue. There are "binnaural" recordings. There are "stereo" recordings. And there are multi-mic recordings that are mixed down to "stereo". This is not to say that pleasant sounding results can be achieved better by one technique or the another. But it does mean that if one chooses to use, for instance, multi-mic mixed down to stereo verses "true stereo", something WILL BE LOST in terms of the acoustics, the sense of space and place that is (not) captured, and certainly "perspective" will be lost ~ the ability to ascertain that certain musicians are "over here" while others are further back and so on. For instance, if you were at a concert, it's unlikely that you're going to hear the pianist's fingernails striking the keys. The vocalists don't sound like you're "in their throat" and the drummer doesn't seem to have 10 foot long arms. That's the kind rigamarole multi-mic recording produces more often than not. It takes a lot of time and experimentation to locate the best position for mic location in true stereo recording. The reality is it costs more to pay all those musicians than it does to pay some two-bit A/V guy to setup a mixer and hang a bunch of mics for multi-track and the producer can conveniently go back later and make the corrections he wants with the recording engineer.

 On the contrary, your statements support the subjective argument. You are saying that something WILL BE LOST, as though that were a negative. The acoustics, the sense of space. Those things are important to you. What's more important than a historically accurate reproduction of the music to me is the music itself- and what about the perspective of each individual musician? Bringing this back to drums, I have always found it to be interesting to watch live jazz, and I'll bet the drums can sound very different to the drummer. Matter of fact, they can sound different to different members of an audience, depending on where they are in the room.  I don't care for the room acoustics where the perfomance took place becuase my own room will also change the sound. And to my ears, if there is a riff that comes up (as it frequently does in jazz)  and it may not be captured well enough on a "real stereo" recording. I prefer the multi mic method because it offers the individual musicians' perspectives as well, and weaves all the sounds back together into a stereo mix, which, when well done, sounds really good.

Andy, then what you prefer is the same old crap that apparently most of the general public prefers ~ distortion ~ you belong in the Bose Forum. Hang on to your 8-tracks and MP3, that's all you deserve. Apparently you, like many people, have forgotten what the term "High Fidelity" means.

First and foremost, both the recording and playback system myst be capable of recreating a believable sonic facsimile of the recorded event. After has been acomplished, as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to alter the sound however you want. My point is that most commercial recordings don't even try to acomplish this any more ~ it used to be the norm.

The bottom line is great recordings are hard to come by regardless of how they are made.

And for the record (pun intended), I have about 3 dozen choral/orchestral recordings to my name, so believe me, I'm well aware of the logistical problems associated with trying to make a great sounding live recording. BTW, they're $16 each + S&H if anyone is interested. LOL

Picasso would be interprated as true high fidelity if viewed in its origional form,,Not a photo or in print form....Believe me alot is lost in that reproduction,,,If you ever saw a True origional Van Gough you would see the depth in the brush stroaks lost in a print. Unless you look through a stereo camera shot.  Wendy Carlos "Switched on Bach" is true high fidelity....But not true stereo,,,,It wasnt recorded that way,,    It cannot be played in true auditorium space...  Although She/he tried once and faild miserably.   Multi mic and true stereo can coexhist.... I enjoy both.....As far as hireing a real Chellist or any other soloist in my living room ive done that...  and sounds even better than a reproduction,,,Even when only ONE mic is used in making a recording. Surely you wouldnt use two mics..But ive seen two mics on a soloist done to minimize that persons body motions if too prinounced......   But getting back to,,, why the heck would someone use 16 mics on a drum kit???

Maron Horonzak:

But getting back to,,, why the heck would someone use 16 mics on a drum kit???

So that it won't sound like a real drum kit.

Maron Horonzak:

Picasso would be interprated as true high fidelity if viewed in its origional form

So how is the original recording any different than the original painting? The original sonic event is merely the paint.

Don't get me wrong I really hate some of the drum sounds these days, but you have to ask yourself what exactly your expectations are and what your reference point is. Not everyone is looking for an accurate depiction of a live unamplified jazz ensemble in a small intimate room for instance. Hell, some people aren't even looking for any kind of representation of a live performance at all. Many times the musicians and producers aren't trying to produce one either. Too many variables involved here. My reference is not from some point out in the audience, it's almost always from behind the drums or off to the side of the stage, or somewhere among all the players. To me the vantage of the audience is second best. Just because a drumset is close mic'd with 16 mics and EQ'd, compressed and limited, does not mean that it is wrong necessarily. If that is what the artists intend then that's fine. Also it depends on how those 16 mics are used. I would be willing to bet that many normal people(not here) have never really heard what a drumset sounds like without it being miked and amplified thru a PA. Their reference point IS the standard amplified rock drum sound.

Don Richard:

Maron Horonzak:

But getting back to,,, why the heck would someone use 16 mics on a drum kit???

 

So that it won't sound like a real drum kit.

"The origional sonic event is merely paint"  AND THE ORIGIONAL TALENT...  Look at Jackson Pollack..... HE is the cornerstone of moving away from a pictorial painting outstripping even the Giant himself Picasso...  (but not monatarially)   The true srereo stance has been outstripped in Pop culture recording ,,Even though minimulist micing is still adheared to in classicle circles.....Decca tree mic placement,, most popular minimum compression,,Unless customer/conducter insist otherwise....  But The Pollack approach to recording that shifted to the ENGINEER is still producing good audio talent. But not good music composing,,, In both pop or modern music,,, Listen to Movie soundtracks today.... listen to the background interlude music between subject matter on the NEWS... Gimmicked not to bore,..Listen to the interlude music between subject matter on NPR public radio ,,Sound different???    This year the fine ART business world wide exceeded 35 billion dollers,,,some say higher as not all transaction were reported.

Live drums or Drums through a PA??

If you like the group CREAM at all.. There is a song on the DVD  Cream @ The Royal Albert Hall, called TOAD... AMAZING DRUM SOLO....Enjoy!!  

From Amazon.com 

They step onto the stage of London's Royal Albert Hall: Jack Bruce, Ginger Baker, and Eric Clapton. The capacity crowd, which includes Sean Penn and Jude Law, stands to greet them. Thirty-seven years after their farewell concert, the famously fiery Cream did the unthinkable--they reunited. This double-disc collection (and accompanying CD set) captures highlights from the historic four-day engagement, beginning with a buoyant "I'm So Glad" and ending with a triumphant "Sunshine of Your Love." It would be churlish to suggest that Cream appears exactly as they did in the 1960s (Bruce looks a little frail), but the legendary power trio still has the goods. Bruce is still the essence of soul (a particularly rich vocal on "Politician"), while Baker is as irrepressible as ever (a rare vocal on "Pressed Rat and Warthog," percussive tour-de-force "Toad"). Then there's Clapton, who remains as much a master of the guitar as of understatement. "Thanks for waiting all these years," he quips after a slow-burning "Outside Woman Blues," then adds, "We're going to do every song we know." The track listing is, indeed, generous, despite the absence of such Cream classics as "I Feel Free," "Strange Brew," and "Tales of Brave Ulysses." All told, there are 22 songs plus three alternate takes--and not a bad one in the bunch. --Kathleen C. Fennessy

Product Description
In May of 2005 Cream returned to London's Royal Albert Hall-to the same stage where they had completed what was thought to be their final performance in 1968. It was one of the most eagerly anticipated, hard-to-get tickets in rock history. With the exception of a brief reunion set at their 1993 induction into the Rock and roll Hall of Fame, Cream had not played together in nearly four decades. This DVD documents Cream's momentous London shows. Performances from each of the four nights are featured and much more. Also included are alternate performances and interviews with Ginger Baker, Jack Bruce, and Eric Clapton. Cream formed in 1966 and disbanded in 1968. The band were a prolific and thrilling live act and toured incessantly in their short but remarkable history.Track Listings: I'm So Glad, Spoonful, Outside Woman Blues, Pressed Rat & Warthog, Sleepy Time Time, N.S.U., Badge, Politician, Sweet Wine, Rollin' & Tumblin', Stormy Monday, Deserted Cities of the Heart, Born Under a Bad Sign, We're Going Wrong, Crossroads, Sitting on Top of the World, White Room, Toad, Sunshine of Your Love, Spoonful (Alternate Takes), Sleepy Time Time (Alternate Takes), Badge (Alternate Takes), Sweet Wine (Alternate Takes), Rollin' & Tumblin', We're Going Wrong, White Room, Sunshine of Your Love

artto:

Andy, then what you prefer is the same old crap that apparently most of the general public prefers ~ distortion ~ you belong in the Bose Forum. Hang on to your 8-tracks and MP3, that's all you deserve. Apparently you, like many people, have forgotten what the term "High Fidelity" means.

First and foremost, both the recording and playback system myst be capable of recreating a believable sonic facsimile of the recorded event.

Thanks Artto! I didn't realize I should sell my KHorns and head over to the Bose dealer! My only point was that anything recorded will only be a reasonable facsimile of the original event. If I strum a chord on a 12 string guitar here, the only way it will sound the same at your place is if I took that guitar to your house and strumed the same chord. Not practical when more musicians and more listeners are involved. You prefer to record the live event along with the original acoustics of where it took place. That's fine, and that's your preferrence. Maybe I haven't heard a good "stereo" recording yet. I made a comparison of two records I have, one done with a stereo mike, the other, just direct to disc multi-miked. I like the multi mike better! Are you saying it will sound better on the Bose? And it's not subjective, eh? 

The Bose 901 is a nice sounding speaker I wouldnt knock it,,,, But both multiple mics and minimal mic approach have there merits,,,I,ve done both... But the multiple mic,s that RCA did on a classicle recording (Bartok) useing 32 mics 18 years ago compaired to The RCA Layton recording useing only 3 mics same orchestra same hall many years earlier,,,Show how the sonics degraded...    KABUK Why did you use a multi mic on just the single instrument (guitar)   On the (stereo) mic what was the pattern.... Was it a MS stereo mic or some other pattern??? on the multi mic what was the positions of the mics???? I always keep records or take photos for the record.... 

Maron Horonzak:

The Bose 901 is a nice sounding speaker I wouldnt knock it

Ya, but "nice" isn't high-fidelity.

I,m nice !!!!!!

I am surprised none of you commented onthe song "Toad"..by Cream on the DVD.. FYI it is a good drum solo..

Or the comment on recorded to sound live or recorded to sound live through a powerful PA...

And yes, Jazz drums with a great player... will kick butt on a good system too.  Buddy Rich as a kid was amazing.....

Buddy Rich was always amazing.  A true child prodigy, all he ever did was play drums, and the sob never practiced!  (at least seriously).