Are there recordings that need Round Earth systems?

You'll get a playback of what's there. If you want to shoot what's there to hell (and if you don't like what's there you might), then you could be better off with an overweight 'merken setup. Or a graphic equaliser, at a hundredth of the cost!

Pete.

quote:

---

I was wondering if there are recordings that need a Round Earth system to sound their best.

---

No

To me, there are two different kinds of issues that intertwine in this sort of consideration. One is true for all systems, Flat Earth, Round Earth, or Orbital...That is, some recordings will happen to fit better within the context of a given system, in a given room, and at given volume levels. Thus, it is somewhat of an oversimplification to say that "something sounds great", when it really, to be complete about it, sould be "dovetails well with a given system", but that is far too anal for all but the most repressed to even think, much less use in public! There is however, something to be said for a precise use of a mutually agreed upon vocabularly when discussing audio and music. The Don of the American high end press, Harry Pearson has been working for years to introduce greater precision into the reviewing lexicon, and it can be a great aid.

As far as recording styles and system synergies go, often harshly recorded music will be less objectionable on slower, fatter sounding systems, many of which are round earth, but not exclusively. If by "Round Earth" one means optimised for soundstaging, then the tonal balance of a system is not truelly speaking the only issue, but matters such as phase accuracy, and time coherence come into play. If you are curious, the American high end equipment that is most like Naim in certain respects (speed particularly) is California based Spectral Audio, and their chief engineer, Keith Johnson is the highly acclaimed recordists for "Reference Recordings". If you wanted to try one of his recent recordings, they are fairly widely held to be the best modern recordings of acoustic music with the intent to preserve the subtle, and very low level cues that can, in a high resolution system, lead to a panaramic image. Amoung his better recent releases, try RR-96CD "Rachmaninoff:Symphonic Dances" or RR-93CD "Copeland: Third Symphony, etc."

In my experience, Naim systems can do this sort of thing quite well, but I do find it to be highly dependent on the speakers in use, and their placement. Certainly, in many of the older Linn/Naim systems with the much beloved Kans, Isobariks, etc. the near wall positioning truncates the potential depth of field to a degree that would not be the case in many American high end systems where the speakers are typically positioned well out from the boundaries.

I am now of the opinion that these sorts of distinctions are more fluid than they once were, but to quote the great Art Dudley, who hopefully will return to some audio forum sometime soon, "Your mileage may vary."

[This message was edited by bdnyc on TUESDAY 10 September 2002 at 06:43.]

Thank you for your response to my thread. I am sorry for speaking euphemistically using “Round Earth” to imply tone controls to adjust the system to the recording. I was wondering if recording techniques for older records were designed for the systems that were widely used at that time. I agree that Naim systems do a wonderful job with speed and accuracy in reproducing today’s recordings but, I feel this coincides with a change in the recording industry’s approach to their products.

This issue arose during a sampling of some raw new recordings I listened to with the owner of a small recording company. It struck me how the dynamics and clarity of the recording was superior on my system as opposed to listening to his, while some older recordings was more pleasing on the other system.

"I was wondering if there are recordings that need a Round Earth system to sound their best."

no

smiglass, yours is an interesting question and deserved more considered responses than a simple 'no' you have received from some. Perhaps posting in the hi-fi corner might have helped. I would certainly support using naim cd/amps with both old and new music, however i would suggest that not all music sounds best with Naim speakers. My experience with SBLs is that they were great with modern recordings, particularly where deep bass was involved but with some older recordings the bass and lower mid would seem to lose weight leaving vocals clear but lacking substance. The final straw was after buying the remastered 'Beatles 1' and familiar tracks simply sounding wrong. The result was selling the SBLs and buying what I felt to be a more balanced speaker for all types of recordings (spendors). I don't think this is is a case of the spendors hiding the flaws in older recordings but just that they have a softer, warmer balance and are therefore better suited to older recordings. I still believe the SBLs are the better speakers for some music. Are not all speakers a compromise? I have not yet found a speaker that handles all types of music well.

John3
That is exactly what I was referring to. You have described my experience very well. I have some remastered recordings of sixties albums that seem to have lost the bottom end. Your point regarding the speakers may be the answer but I think the engineers of that era may have taken into account the use of bass boosting controls to compensate because Naim equipment reproduces what is really there and apparently it is not. Also, I think one must take into account improvement in recording equipment over the years and technique: analog to digital recording, multitracking, and improved microphone transducers. I fully endorse the use of Naim equipment for all recordings but wanted to know if anyone else had the same experience.
Also, you are probably right about placing this in the Hi-fi corner but I saw it as a recording question.
Smiglass

quote:

---

Originally posted by smiglass:
I was wondering if recording techniques for older records were designed for the systems that were widely used at that time.

---

Very unlikely IMHO: recording techniques have generally been designed to capture the session as well as possible (within a given budget, at least) where they take place without particular reference to what happens to them afterwards. (Of course, there are different ideas as to how to go about that, just as there in domestic replay!)

Pete.

Yes but...
A really good system will show up the flaws in the recording and the mix and can IMO make the music less enjoyable. Wait! Before ju jump at my opinion. This doesn´t mean that the piece of music has lost it´s qualities. It´s just that the imperfection of the mix gets my attention more and distracts me from the piece of music I´m listening to. That doesn´t stop me from realising what a great tune I´m actually listening to but sometimes it´s most certainly is irritating.

Correct me if I´m wrong wich happpens, but weren´t Motown of the sixties mixed to sound good in the car radios that were used at that time??
They were probably not near any hifi gear at that time either.
If you listen to the Phil spector boxed "Back to mono" you will find a string of fantastic songs with the wall of sound he was creating. Due to the poor quality of the recording I often stop after 2 cd´s eventhough I truly appreciate the songs. I Actally find that this box is more listenable on my daughters ghetto blaster.
The songs though are still there and shine as they always will.

Gunnar

Yes, I think Motown recordings of the mid-sixties were mixed to sound best on a car radio, which was AM.

Quote:

Originally posted by smiglass:
"I was wondering if recording techniques for older records were designed for the systems that were widely used at that time."

George Martin has stated that in the early sixties american pop records (the finished product, typically a 45 rpm singel at that time) had much more bass than he managed to put onto them without the crap "dansettes" misstracking.

The late Hifi magazine "Audio" once had an article on how Motown made there records in the sixties. If I remember correctly it said that they used a sharp (24 db/octave) hi pass filter to take away the lowest bass when cutting the records.

JohanR

For the authors of the posts above who have found some much beloved music from the 60's to be too thin sounding for comfort, this is very much the case when CD remastering is involved. For example, on my system, which is not ultra high resolution, but clearly fairly revealing, I find that CD reissues of some of the best loved music of the era, such as The Beatles, The Who, Motown and Stax, etc. can seem anemic on CD, when on LP they have a fat, slippery quality to the bass that is positively entrancing. With rhythmic music that is driven by powerful bass lines, especially those originally mixed for the LP era, at a time when it was never assumed that listeners might have turntables that could track extreme bass excursions, it is my understanding that the mastering engineer would often trade off bass extension for greater playing time for the side, and greater dynamics for higher average output levels. This overlaps one of the worst contemporary practices, the use of extensive compression in the recording and mastering process. In the US publication Stereophile, one 60's era veteran, I think perhaps it was Steve Cropper, but I can't recall exactly who it was at the moment, anyway, they said that digital sounded to them like there was no foundation to the music, like it just sort of floated in space, dissembodied. This may be related to what you are noticing.

The larger topic is what the designers are assuming, and trying to achaive. In general with high end gear, that project is "truthfulness", which is not always the same thing as "beauty". In my experience, systems that can reveal a great deal of information are kind of starved by recordings that do not have sufficient levels of information to really come to life. When, as at Naim, the designers are also extremely interested in dynamics and the intensity of emotion in a performance, recordings that have those attributes muted in some way will also leave much to be desired.

For me, my favorite 60's material just seems to demand to be heard on LP for me to best appreciate it, although many of the better CD reissues now are taking the trouble to use the best extant tapes, and keeping production values high. Now doubt CD's have gotten hugely better, as have the best players such as the better Naims, but CD seems a tighter, more controlled bass than LP generally, and in a high strung system, that balance can veer to far to the extreme of thin and edgy for many listeners. If this is the case for you on many CD's you hold dear, you may want to experiment with another player, or perhaps different supports under the player. If it is just a few bad CD's I wouldn't bother too much. And if you do have both vinyl and CD, give a comparitive listen, you might surprise yourself, particulary if you haven't listened to your records in a while. For me, the record is still the best home medium. Not the most convenient, not the most available, not perfect my any stretch of the imagination, but better than many would expect, particularly if they are new to the wonderful world of high performance audio.