Thread: Dire Straits' "Brothers In Arms" to be released as 20th Anniversary SACD!!

Posts: 43
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5

Post by Binder June 2, 2005 (41 of 43)
sgb said:

For the record, nearly every XRCD I've sampled sounds to me like there's some monkey business going on there. The worst example was Hell Freezes Over (in the pop vein).

I'm not so sure I can go that far. I only have a small sampling of XRCD's. In fact, BIA is the only non-Audioquest remastering I have in my collection. And being that the Audioquest masters are superb does give JVC a bit more to work with. 'Cause I really do like the Audioquest/JVC XRCD's!

Post by LC June 4, 2005 (42 of 43)
Binder said:

LC, I must strongly dissagree with your entire statement. While of course BIA is not a live album, the live performance that the particular artist creates certainly is the paradigm to be emulated.

This would be the crux of our disagreement. I think it is far from "certain" that the live performance is "to be emulated" by a recording. In fact, I think it's simply false. A live venue offers all sorts of possibilities and all sorts of restrictions. The artists and engineers do what they can to make the most of it. A recording format (stereo or multichannel) offers all sorts of possibilities and all sorts of restrictions. The artists and engineers do what they can to make the most of it. I think that's all one can say. Check out OM's review of Björk: Medulla (Limited Edition) for some perspective on this.

Even if "all the (direct) sound up front" is the way Knopfler wants it in a live performance (as opposed to his being forced to arrange it this way by the impracticalities of the alternatives), there is no artistic or philosophical reason why he is obliged to observe the same configuration in a multichannel recording. Or at least, you have not provided one. You've just asserted that this is the way it is.

I more or less agree with you, by the way, about "the true beauty of MC." However, I think that this virtue of the format is completely neutral with respect to the artistic use to which the extra channels should be put. If a multichannel recording is well executed and played back, the walls will melt away whether you're listening to a mix (or remix) that uses the capacity aggressively and experimentally, or one that is more observant of the traditions, limitations, and realities of live performance and stereo playback.

Post by OM June 4, 2005 (43 of 43)
Binder said:

While of course BIA is not a live album, the live performance that the particular artist creates certainly is the paradigm to be emulated. Be it Rock, Blues, Chamber etc., unless the artist has instruments arrayed about the venue, the music is in front, hall ambience in the rear. Far from being a waste of MC capacity, this treatment should be considered an abuse.
The true beauty of MC, IMHO, is the ability to melt the walls of my listening room away to create a seemingly much larger space I am in, thus heightening the suspension of disbelief. This, again IMHO, is the holy grail that we as music loving audiophiles seek so highly.

Just as a matter of curiosity, how long has it been since you last attended a live rock or pop performance? If one were to follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, we should all simply buy a multi-kilowatt PA system and all recordings should be in mono. Last I recall, the "soundstage" at a live rock or pop concert could only be described as "blow your f***ing eardrums out". In fact, the moment you introduce amplification of any sort to a performance, you can pretty much toss any notion of soundstage out the window. Unfortunately, unplugged electric guitars are just a little too quiet for the fans at the back of the stadium.

The modern live experience is by no means ideal and it certainly doesn't represent some "gold" standard. Most audiophiles seem to exhibit a near dogmatic adherence to this notion of "live", paying little thought to exactly what that means for most forms of music and performance. I see no need to argue the specific merits of a good surround mix in the case of pop or rock. I can only say one thing: Listen.

Now to address what I view as the only circumstance under which your argument carries weight: acoustic performances. There is no doubt that surround mixes are wonderful for recreating a performance space. If the desire of the artist is to place you in the same room or hall as the performers (though a single "room" is not even guaranteed to exist) it's a fantastic means of doing that. That by no means makes it the only option for an acoustic performance. It isn't even an inherently superior one.

I suspect that performances have traditionally taken place on a stage out of necessity, rather than as the result of an artistic choice. Now that we have a way of bypassing practical considerations, why not allow the artist to communicate with you in whatever way they see fit? Here's a good example of an unconventional mix for an acoustic recording:
Los Angeles Guitar Quartet: Guitar Heroes
Apparently this mix has one guitarist in each of the four L/R speakers. Presumably this was recorded using near field microphones (just like a lot of acoustic recordings). You tell me how four guitars jammed into the front three speakers with fake ambience in the surrounds would make this a superior or more "genuine" listening experience.

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5

Closed