Flat Earth and Round earth: is it a question of black and white?

quote:

---

Naim systems do great bass and imaging, .... What you don't get is the "white noise" in the background so much which gives a kind of "ambient" backdrop to the recording, that to me is extraneous and superfluous.

---

Steven, maybe you're over simplifying. In a previous thread you talked of the importance of bass definition for good PRaT. Bass weight and definition play a large part in conveying the sense of event to the music. I have to confess that I don't understand your term "white noise", but ambient cues humanize the performance for me.

quote:

---

I have always preferred studio recordings to "live" recordings - with all their inherent distractions from the musical performance, i.e: noise! white noise!

---

For me not so cut and dried, I very much enjoy 'live in the studio' recordings, i.e. one take recordings where the musicians were all playing together at the same time, rather than multi track recordings were the record has been built in layers. The reason I like them is that you get more overtones and harmonics, more ambient cues.

Maybe I'm too round ?

Peter

quote:

---

As I listen to more and more so-called Flat Earth set-ups, eg. CDX/102/140/Credos, I wonder what the fuss is about.

---

To me the flat earth term has nothing to do with whether a system can, or can't "do" imaging, or whether it has massively deep bass etc. Its all about tunes and groove.

The term 'Flat earth' originated as a piss take by certain rather narrow minded hi-fi reviewers as a backlash against manufacturers such as Naim, Exposure, Linn, NVA Rega, and the writings of publications such as The Flat Response and later Hi-Fi Review. Basically all these companies and reviewers felt that hi-fi should be able to play music at the correct pitch, and in time. Many of the products being reviewed in the mainstream UK hi-fi press at the time were totally incapable of this task (Krell, Audio Research etc).

The hi-fi industry stakeholders started to get quite agitated when publications such as The Flat Response pointed out (correctly) that a Nad 3020 holds a tune far better than a Audio Research SP8, and that the newfangled CD technology actually sounded crap etc. This was great fun from the casual observers point of view, The Flat Response was a essential read, and the UK hi-fi press has sadly never been worth reading since its demise.

Its sad to think that 15 years on there is still very little hi-fi around that does actually play music in time and in key. A walk around any hi-fi show will prove that beyond any reasonable doubt. The hi-fi press is bland, frightened, and chained by their dependence on advertising revenue, and continuously touting products that do not work.

Tony.

quote:

---

The Flat Response was a essential read, and the UK hi-fi press has sadly never been worth reading since its demise.

---

Hi-Fi Review wasn't too bad, but it's definitely been downhill since then, which is why I don't buy any Hi-Fi mag on a regular basis anymore.

I do wonder what contributed to its demise though, was it the unfaltering and often aggresively opinionated stance, or was the creation of Motorcycle Review, another mag I used to buy that had an equally opinionated stance, a factor. Even though I was a biker in my mind only this magazine was so far ahead of the competition in terms of design and content that it was a compulsory read for me. Chris Frankland was head of both and certainly both folded soon after its creation.

quote:

---

The hi-fi press is bland, frightened, and chained by their dependence on advertising revenue, and continuously touting products that do not work.

---

Whilst I fear for a significant proportion of the press this is true, I hope the almost universal praise that products such as the 5 series / NAP500 are getting is an indication of at least some small changes in this area. There are certain reviewers out there whose opinions I would still trust, but my favourites seem to have left the fray (e.g. Malcolm Steward for the cosy confines of The British Audio Journal).

Andy.

Andrew L. Weekes
alweekes@audiophile.com

quote:

---

What you don't get is the "white noise" in the background so much which gives a kind of "ambient" backdrop to the recording, that to me is extraneous and superfluous.

---

I violently agree with this, when applied to some live recordings, but (equally violently) disagree when applied to others! I think it's safe to say that a good live recording from a good gig is a huge joy, no matter what else.

"Live in the studio" I also find very effective, again when well done. I think at least part of this is because of the slight "spill" that can occur between tracks, so that a bit of bass leaks onto the drums, for example, in a very subtle way, which IMHO tends to "glue" things together rather well. There is a very interesting interview with Tony Platt, an engineer who has worked with (amongst loads of others) Bob Marley and AC/DC, in the current (April) issue of "Sound on Sound" (yes Tony, the one with that Alesis Andromeda analogue uber-synth on the cover [sweats, shakes, lights another one]) who mentions something akin to this. All very encouraging, since in many ways it seems to be the antithesis of the way many recordings seem to be made nowadays.

Also, I think I read somewhere that Naim routinely apply very low-level pink noise as a backdrop on their own CDs, since the silences that can otherwise result, when experienced, are not a positive factor. Interesting stuff, phsychoaccoustics...

I don't think there are any hard/fast rules, only good and bad implementations. Having said that, I think a good digital recording can be very close to good analogue, but bad digital, because of the way the problems appear, is significantly worse than bad analogue. "...unbelievably easy to screw the whole thing up..." as I remember one luminary saying in a different context .

quote:

---

Chris Frankland was head of both and certainly both folded soon after its creation.

---

... and the petty cash tin was never found, either, I understand (ahem).

Best;

Mark

Flat earth - Dolly Parton, Guns and Roses, Mozart, Cliff Richard, Beatles, Traffic, Bach, Aretha Franklin, Miles Davis, Dave Brubeck, Roches, Copland, Bernstein

Round Earth - Diana Ross, Eagles, Mahler, Mariah Carey, Karajan, Pacabel, Rachmaninoff, Phil Collins.

See what I mean?

Jeremy

Peter

Peter