A tribute to a fabulous recording - Benjamin Britten's 'Peter Grimes'

[EricW]

...OK that's a really well considered response to the two clips. Considering the (emotional) divide between those who detest 'digital' and embrace 'analogue' and keep the turntables spinning, can you recognise characteristics in clip 1 or 2 which could perhaps be generally applied as an explanation of why some listeners take-up such rigid positions on analogue v. digital.

What do you think?

To me, clip 2 sounds a bit cleaner and more spacious - I fancy I hear more low level detail. Artistically, I slightly give the nod to clip 1, though both are excellent.

But what strikes me most is how good both are, and how hard it is (for me, anyway) to hear a difference that I find truly significant. In fact, I'm going mostly by initial impressions since I found that the longer I listened, the more I got sucked into the music and the story, and the less capable I became of making any analytical distinctions at all.

[A.S.]

I've listened to both recordings several times now flipping back and forth as quickly as possible. These are my subjective impressions...

Recording clip 1: I preferred the performance of this recording relative to the other. It actually does seem "fuller" sounding ... On the flip side someone could say that recording clip 2 sounds more "spacious" and has more ambience... Regardless, to answer Alan's questions. I prefer clip #1, but to be honest clip #2 sounds more "live" (spacious) to me and has more low-level detail.

To me, clip 2 sounds a bit cleaner and more spacious - I fancy I hear more low level detail. Artistically, I slightly give the nod to clip 1, though both are excellent...

Thanks to the usual suspects for their invaluable input. Moderator says he'd like to move this continuation to the Advanced Forum so that those who take the trouble to contribute, benefit from the shared knowledge. I've agreed to wait for some more input and if none, move this to Advanced (and any other similar threads inviting comparative analysis and member input).

Two responses from which we have to imagine a universal truth is a dangerously small sample, so I'm going to have to use some judgement and positively steer this analysis, which I didn't want to do but have no choice. It's very interesting - but no surprise to me - that the two contributors have both commented that Clip 2 sounds 'more spacious with more low level detail'. To my ears, critically listening to audio, these two clips have certain tell-tale characteristics that define their vintage.

Perhaps I could revert you to my earlier question: which one do you think sounds more like you are actually there at the venue? That is not the same question as which one do you like artistically or which one sounds nicest - again, it's a matter of opinion but I'm curious to know what you think.

[Macjager]

I too listened to both recordings a number of times, switching back and forth, listening to a part of the clip and then listening to the next one, stopping it at the approximate same place, switching back, listening...(An A-B switch would sure be nice if the two clips could be run simultaneously...). I found that clip 1 had less space around the performers than clip 2.

As an analogy, clip 1 sounds like it was produced for a TV show, on a smaller stage in a smaller venue, each actor singing/speaking towards a microphone in close proximity (not like Mick Jagger or Paul McCartney singing into their own mic)... and clip 2 sounded more like it was recorded live at Royal Albert Hall, with only few stage microphones picking up the general sound of the singers onstage, plus one or two out above the audience picking up the actors from there...

cheers

george

[Zemlya]

I am most appreciative of the time you've taken to consider the clips and then to reply. I am only able to make time to continue to contribute (mainly late in the evenings) if, self-evidently, what I write about is of some general worth. If it isn't then I'm talking to myself. And that I do not do. The purpose of the HUG is to build a common-sense archive that will outlive all of us, and that needs input from members.

OK that's a really well considered response to the two clips. Considering the (emotional) divide between those who detest 'digital' and embrace 'analogue' and keep the turntables spinning, can you recognise characteristics in clip 1 or 2 which could perhaps be generally applied as an explanation of why some listeners take-up such rigid positions on analogue v. digital.

What do you think?

Listening to both recordings again, I have to say I really don't know why anyone would come down hard on either side--both recordings sound very good. Again, recording 2 clearly has more dynamic range and a more spacious sound, but sometimes its low noise floor can be distracting. Clearly we hear "more" of the recordings natural surroundings.

Recording 1 does have a warmer sound. It seems more recessed in the higher frequency range. Again, these are just my subjective impressions but this might be the more "natural sound" people on the analog side often refer to?

Some of the best CD recordings I have ever heard were on CD so maybe the aversion has more to do with the current fashions on the production side than the actual medium itself??? And maybe this is why some vinyl actually does sound better than its CD counterpart?

I wish I knew.

[Zemlya]

which one do you think sounds more like you are actually there at the venue?

Without a doubt, clip 2 sounds more like I am there.

[A.S.]

... Again, recording 2 clearly has more dynamic range and a more spacious sound, but sometimes its low noise floor can be distracting. Clearly we hear "more" of the recordings natural surroundings {in clip 2}.

Recording 1 does have a warmer sound. It seems more recessed in the higher frequency range. Again, these are just my subjective impressions but this might be the more "natural sound" people on the analog side often refer to?...

Without a doubt, clip 2 sounds more like I am there.

Great. Now we have some more data to work with. Thanks again. This type of exploration just is not worthwhile as a monologue from me. It absolutely needs input from your side. Obviously, I don't start the discussion unless I have an absolutely fixed end-game but the fun is getting there in a way that we can all hopefully take something away of personal relevance. As a general appeal, if you find this type of discussion interesting, say something! Make a contribution! Get off the fence! Whatever you have to say is certain to be an opinion held by others. There are no right or wrong answers! Whatever you contribute, I'm going to get us to the end point eventually so don't be shy!

So, to paraphrase then: Clip 2 has greater fidelity* because a) it sounds more like being there and b) has more detail, ambience etc. but clip 1 sounds warmer (and) with less top. Is that what we're saying? Any other input for/against that summary?

*Surely the definition of audio fidelity must be that of greater realism, more like the live performance, what one would hear standing at the microphones.

[EricW]

So, to paraphrase then: Clip 2 has greater fidelity* because a) it sounds more like being there and b) has more detail, ambience etc. but clip 1 sounds warmer (and) with less top. Is that what we're saying? Any other input for/against that summary?

I'm going by memory (dangerous, I know) because I'm away from home but that accords with what I heard when I listened this morning. I think clip 1 is more like being at the hall, even if I hear more detail in clip 2. However, at that point, I find it hard to separate purely sonic considerations from artistic ones: for example, do I like the singers better in 1? Does the balance of instruments against voices underscore the voices better and make them easier to hear? I don't know how to separate the two - except perhaps by lots more careful listening.

[A.S.]

I'm going by memory... I think clip 1 is more like being at the hall, even if I hear more detail in clip 2....

A perfectly valid opinion of course - we're dealing with matters of sound which is necessarily subjective with no right and wrong answers.

If I understand you correctly, you preferred Clip 1 as sounding more like 'being there' (in the hall) - I wonder if you mean standing at the microphones/conductor's podium or seated in the hall amongst the audience, hence my original question about what composer/conductor Britten would have heard.

If that is your (entirely resonable) opinion, it is the opposite of feedback #5 where there was a definite preference of clip 2 as more lifelike. So, (I planned for this eventuality days ago) let me present another clip from a different opera to see what you think about 'being there'.

(More later)

[Zemlya]

*Surely the definition of audio fidelity must be that of greater realism, more like the live performance, what one would hear standing at the microphones.

I think a big part of the problem is that people get into a mode of thinking: in this case that digital is bad. I've been there with photography. I shoot 35mm and medium format for my personal work. But I also shoot digital casually. Each has their purpose but I can say with absolute conviction that I shoot film for aesthetic reasons.

Like musicians who create music, photography is primarily (in my case) a creative endeavor in which the tools used, like a painter or musician, result in a subjective rendering that is to be appreciated as one reality—a re-presentation of reality. Even if a musician wanted to use artificial or low-fi gear in their treatment, this should be reproduced without influence from everything downstream the input signal for it is respecting the original intention of its author.

If the primary goal for the reproduction of art is to respect the original intention of its author, then the reproduction of the original input signal in its purest form (film too) is the goal (fidelity). Fidelity is the science and craft of audio reproduction. Is it an art? Maybe, depending on how you define "art", but not in the sense that its objective is to alter or change the original input signal. In its truest sense, hi-fidelity is more of a service to art.

Some photographers will choose lenses with inherent qualities or distortions in their rendering of reality (perspective). So too do musicians add artificial flavouring (distortion boxes, room acoustics, even tube and analogue devices or they use a certain make of instrument for its tone) in an effort to achieve a certain feel or sound.

Imagine if a person was writing an art book on van Gogh. Now imagine that he subjectively believed that van Gogh's painting could be "improved" and "enhanced" through changing the balance of the colour palate. Wouldn't the objective of any reproduced art be to try and reproduce it with as accurate means as possible in an effort to preserve the original authorial intent? Imagine a digital {consumer grade} scanner that added or took away from the retrieved image? Hi-fi has more in common with an expensive {professional} drum scanner. Nothing can compete with the original, but the goal is to stay as true to the original source as possible.

[HUG-1]

Thread closed and continues on Advanced private forum with more audio examples due to lack of response here in the general area.