... Massed violins in their upper registers (1500-3500 Hz) OFTEN [emphasis added] jump out from the mix and sound a bit harsh, unlike what one hears live. As I read it the information provided does not exclude the possibility that it may be a recording issue, as Rok2id suggested. Have you found this to occur with orchestral recordings that you know to have been recorded with "purist" microphone techniques (e.g., 2 or 3 well placed mics), and that you can say with confidence have been well engineered in other respects? Or have all of the recordings on which you have perceived this problem been heavily multi-mic'd, with the forest of microphones that are typically used for orchestral recordings released by many of the major labels? Regards, -- Al |
FYI, here is a review from 1990 of the Chesky CD I recommended earlier for use as a reference recording, by Robert Hesson of Stereophile. Regards, -- Al |
I second Frogman's very well put comments, as well as the recording-related comments by Rok2id, Mapman, Charles1dad, and Opus88. If you don't feel certain at this point as to the degree to which the problem may be the result of deficiencies in the recordings, such as heavy multi-miking and excessive processing, my suggestion is that you can resolve all doubt by investing in a copy of Chesky CD31, featuring Dvorak's "New World Symphony," Jascha Horenstein conducting the Royal Philharmonic. It is unfortunately out of print, but is available from various sellers at highish prices. It is the best sounding CD of a symphony I have ever heard (although most of the orchestral recordings in my collection are on vinyl), notwithstanding the fact that it was recorded in 1962. Great music and a fabulous performance as well! Regards, -- Al |
01-04-13: Brownsfan
I think a reference recording, recommended by the group as being innocent of the offending attributes has a great deal of value. If Charles1dad has a recording of violins that exhibits good coherence, lack of grain, and lack of excessive brightness in his system, and the OP finds the recording still has issues in his system, then it is system related and not an inherent fault of digital reproduction. If, on the other hand, this recording is found by the OP to be satisfactory, then he is going to have to live with the fact that he has somehow selected a bunch of bad recordings. The idea is to help the poor fellow narrow things down without running a series of megabuck experiments. Very well said, Brownsfan, as is the rest of your post. And given that what is specifically in question is violin reproduction in the context of orchestral recordings, I think that the CD I suggested earlier would be an absolutely ideal choice for use as a reference recording. In fact, I would suggest that those who consider the CD medium to be inherently incapable of providing high quality reproduction of orchestral music just might find themselves in a state of amazement upon hearing it. I should add to my earlier comment, btw, that the recording engineer was the legendary Kenneth Wilkinson, with production by Charles Gerhardt. Regards, -- Al |
01-04-13: Tarp38
I can sympathize since I, too, have noticed that digital can be cruel to high strings. A good deal of this problem can be atributed to early digital recording techniques. I never buy a classical CD recorded earlier than the mid to late 1990's. Telarc has a long digital recording history. One can easily hear the improvement in string high sound from the mid '90's on. While I do not have any of the 1980's Telarcs on CD, I have a great many of them on LP, and IMO many of those have excellent sonics. And in the cases of those that don't, the primary reason is usually overly swimmy acoustics, which are clearly attributable to the microphone techniques and placements that were used on those particular recordings. Try, for instance, another recording of Dvorak's "New World Symphony," Telarc DG-10053, Leonard Slatkin conducting the St. Louis Symphony, which was released in 1980. I don't think anyone would ever accuse the string sound or anything else on that recording, at least in the LP format which I have, of being strident or otherwise less than excellent. The performance, though, is not my particular cup of tea. Regards, -- Al |
01-04-13: Rrog
The OP states listening to a ton of orchestral music. I find it hard to believe all of these recordings are bad. Ron, note that he used the word "often." That would seem to imply that they don't all sound bad. Which was what led me to suspect that the recordings that do sound bad may sound that way primarily as a result of excessive multi-miking and processing, which is very common in the case of classical orchestral recordings. Regards, -- Al |
01-05-13: Rrog
The problem with a reference recording is it can sound completely different on every system it's played on. Does that make one system bad and another good? I don't think so. Every system I have assembled gets the most from a separate group of recordings. I think it takes many many recordings to analyze a system. It would be nice if we could use one recording, but it's not that simple. True enough, Ron. But in this case we are trying to address a single very specific problem. And IMO a problem that WILL occur with many classical orchestral recordings no matter how good the system is, as a consequence of excessive multi-miking and processing. And IMO a problem that will NOT occur with a well engineered, minimally miked, minimally processed recording unless there is a specific problem or problems in the system. As Frogman said earlier, it is entirely possible that part of the problem is in the recordings, and something in the system is making it worse. Listening to a known good reference recording would help to isolate the degree to which the system and the recordings may be contributing to the problem. It would also minimize the likelihood that the system will be end up being changed in a manner that compensates for the problems in the mediocre recordings, but degrades or limits its performance with high quality recordings. It is, of course, a traditional audiophile dilemma that improving the quality of the reproduction of good recordings may in some ways make run of the mill recordings sound worse. And each listener needs to optimize that tradeoff in accordance with his or her own preferences. But it would seem likely to be an exercise in futility to try to optimize that tradeoff without including one or more recordings that are of impeccable quality, and that can be counted on to not contribute to the problem that is being addressed. Regards, -- Al |
01-09-13: Jult52
I think the bottom line is that this issue - which I think is a significant one since it involves the principal frequency range for melodic presentations by the principal orchestral instrument in classical music - is a result of a confluence of sound engineering problems, format issues (redbook) and stereo system deficiencies. Very well said, IMO, as are the other recent responses in the thread. Although it is probably clear to everyone, to be sure I just want to point out that a reclocker is not something that would be applicable to a one-box CD player such as the OP's Marantz CD5004. And I note that in John Atkinson's measurements of the player he states that: The CD5004 offered superb rejection of word-clock jitter, with the odd harmonics of the LSB-level, 229.6875Hz squarewave lying at the residual level, and only pairs of sidebands at ±60 and ±120Hz visible to the sides of the 11.205kHz tone in the narrowband spectrum of the Marantz's output while it played the Miller/Dunn J-Test signal (fig.7). I haven't given a numeric figure for the player's jitter level, as it was below the Miller Analyzer's resolution limit....
The Marantz CD5004's measured performance indicates that its intrinsic resolution is better than is needed by the CD medium. That it can offer this level of performance for just $350 is astonishing. Of course, given that the sonic quality of a one-box CD player may be limited by a great many factors in addition to internal jitter, this certainly does not exclude the possibility that the player Frogman suggested may significantly ameliorate the problem. Although I still suggest that step 1 should be an assessment of a high quality reference recording, that can be counted on to not be a contributor to the symptom that is being addressed. Regards, -- Al |
