Herb Alpert comments about sound "quality"

[Steven J. Gross]

Herb once mentioned in an interview that he liked to play (his) music the way a typical fan would, as I recall, so that he could really understand the way it played out on average sound equipment.
Of course as a rule I am positive he is a cutting edge equipment fanatic.
Can anybody remember those comments? I remember thinking that was an interesting perspective.

 

[Mike Blakesley]

There was an article about him in Rolling Stone once, just after "Rise" hit, where it said he had a modest system in his office so he could listen to music like the typical fan might.

There was a photo included which showed him with an inflatable trumpet that about half the air had leaked out of. Funny photo. I have it somewhere.

 

[Steven J. Gross]

Mike, you are really good!!!
I wonder if Herb misses those La Brea offices and studios? Probably was a great place to hang out everyday. Like your theater- it is more than a office!

 

[Captain Bacardi]

There was an article about him in Rolling Stone once, just after "Rise" hit, where it said he had a modest system in his office so he could listen to music like the typical fan might.

As I remember, it was the same Altec speakers that he had when he first recorded "The Lonely Bull".

There was a photo included which showed him with an inflatable trumpet that about half the air had leaked out of. Funny photo. I have it somewhere.

I thought it was more of a cushion than an inflatable trumpet. But I'm not that familiar with inflatable things...


Capt. Bacardi
...crossing that line again, online...

 

[kenny]

I actually have a photo from an article of Herb in his office from 1967 or '68 where he is listening to test pressing on a turntable next to his desk. Above the turntable is an car 8 track player which I would imagine was for checking the sound of 8 track tapes as well. Maybe now he'll listen to the remasters as mp3s on an iPod.

 

[Rudy]

This is no big deal--just about every recording engineer in the business listens over a variety of systems. They have their big studio monitors at the mixing desk, but they will often play their mixes back through smaller mini-monitors, or even car speakers, to see how it will sound over modest systems or the radio. Of course, this is more for mass-market recordings. More specialized recordings will use a higher-end speaker as a reference point.

 

[Mr Bill]

...But I'm not that familiar with inflatable things...

Wouldn't Mrs. Bacardi be saddened to hear how little you think of her?

--Mr Bill

 

[Mr Bill]

This is no big deal--just about every recording engineer in the business listens over a variety of systems.

Yep. When I worked in post-production up in L.A. our audio room was equipped with a 5.1 system, cheesey little speakers and a regular TV. THe sound engineer had a thre position knob to play his work over any of the three. Something that may sound great on 5.1 may be completely inaudible over the TV's tinny speaker, so you have to mix to a "compromise."

--Mr B

 

[Captaindave]

This is true...

Many years ago, I had the opportunity to make an album with a group that I was playing with at the time. We recorded it in a "professional" recording studio - what was professional then is no doubt much more "primitive" than today. However, that studio had also been used for the recording of several artists who had made some records that had achieved considerable success on the national Top 40 charts of the sixties and early seventies...

When it came time to do some overdubs and listen to the mix, balance, and sound, the engineer had both a set of Altec Lansing A7s - the old "Voice of the Theater system - in the room with the console, as well as a small speaker system that might mimic a car radio, or the type of radio to which a typical teenager at that time might be listening.

The purpose was to give both perspectives, and then be able to work the final mix and sound to reflect the sound that the average listener would hear. Since the average listener would not be listening to the record with a pair of A7s in a small room, the other method was used for a "real world" perspective...

 

[Rudy]

P.S....in creating new threads, PLEASE use accurate subjects. We've just recently posted about this in Forum Biz. Thanks!

http://forum.amcorner.com/viewtopic.php?t=4404

Now, back to our scheduled programming...

 

[Steven J. Gross]

P.S....in creating new threads, PLEASE use accurate subjects. We've just recently posted about this in Forum Biz. Thanks!

http://forum.amcorner.com/viewtopic.php?t=4404

Now, back to our scheduled programming...

..sorry about that! Modified the post accordingy.

 

[Rudy]

Thanks, bro!

 

[Captain Bacardi]

Wouldn't Mrs. Bacardi be saddened to hear how little you think of her?

Well, let's not go there!



Capt. Bacardi

 

[Timeframe]

This is true...

The purpose was to give both perspectives, and then be able to work the final mix and sound to reflect the sound that the average listener would hear. Since the average listener would not be listening to the record with a pair of A7s in a small room, the other method was used for a "real world" perspective for a "real world" perspective...

But today's sound is EONS beyond what anyone could dream of when these records were produced. Kids (and adults) today are walking around with CD-quality Ipods, MP3 players that are capable of producing music that far exceeds even the quality of the BEST HATJB masters. SDTV is digital stereo, and HDTV is capable of 6-channel sound. Wouldn't these facts mandate that the engineers who remaster the CDs get the best "sound quality" from the masters?

Steve

 

[Vinylalbumcovers]

Not to contradict, but mp3 is most definitely not CD-quality sound. Even in the best circumstances, all they can do is come close. mp3 compression works on the principle of taking away elements of the sound that you can't hear in order to make the file smaller. The problem with that is that, while you can't really hear what mp3 compression removes, you can perceive it.

For instance, turn on your TV and turn down the sound. While you hear nothing, you can perceive that the TV is on because of the incredibly high-frequency whine that it emits. Mp3 compression (and CD's in general) are incapable of reproducing perceptible signals like that. CD's "stonewall" at 20,000 Hz and perceptible frequencies are much higher than that. That's why CD's sound "cold" to some people. CD sound is uncompressed WAV sound. Mp3 is compressed and even chillier than CD sound.

All unsolicited dissertations aside (), I agree that typical playback equipment is far superior to what existed many years ago. I know when I do a mix, my only other reference point is my car. It has your typical Toyota stock CD/cassette player with four-speaker setup and it suffices a less-than-perfect listening environment. If I believe I've finished a mix and I like what I'm hearing through my monitors, I'll next take it out to my car CD player to check the mix. If it passes that test, it's good to go.

Ed

 

[Timeframe]

Of course you're right Ed. I should have used perceived "CD Quality", depending on one's ears when describing MP3s. I'd be curious though if anyone could take a single mono-track, compress it to an MP3, even use Variable Bit Rate for best quality, and then in a 2 channel Stereo scenario, play the MP3 version in one channel, and the original audio in the other, and then capture the 'difference' as the mono output between the two. What would one hear?

I guess I'm just wanting "audiophile" obsession from the engineers who do the remasters.

What would be wrong with attempting to make the masters "sound" better? I somehow get the impression that most folks here are HA/TJB "purists", and wouldn't want the original masters "messed with". I respectfully disagree. I'm basically a 'rank' amateur digital audio engineer, and I've 'messed" with the CD recordings I have, demolished the "multi-channel" mono, and burned my own cd of favorites. It makes one heckuva difference.

If I can do things like this as an amateur, imagine what the "pros" can do.

Steve

 

[Brasil_Nut]

Herb once mentioned in an interview that he liked to play (his) music the way a typical fan would, as I recall, so that he could really understand the way it played out on average sound equipment.

Although I had the pleasure of touring the Lot when I was 18 (back in 1979) with Diana Baron (of Artist Relations), other than a quick peek, I didn't get to enter Herb's office. That said, he did have what appeared to be a "regular" turntable and deck adjacent to his desk, to the left of the alcove.

Jon

 

[Rudy]

Not to contradict, but mp3 is most definitely not CD-quality sound. Even in the best circumstances, all they can do is come close. mp3 compression works on the principle of taking away elements of the sound that you can't hear in order to make the file smaller. The problem with that is that, while you can't really hear what mp3 compression removes, you can perceive it.

Sony's ATRAC compression is similar, as is the compression they use at iTunes--like MP3, it is a "lossy" compression, throwing away sounds that are not easily heard. The only lossless audio compression that comes to mind is FLAC.

One thing: we need to remember that just about all of these early TJB recordings were only recorded to three-track machines (that's all Gold Star had back then), therefore there is no legitimate way to create anything other than a three-channel presentation out of it. Theoretically, a multichannel version of TJB recordings would include only the left, center and right speakers (just like the current multichannel of Miles' "Kind of Blue"); anything else would be creating "phantom" images, often using phasey effects to do it (insert bad memories of fake stereo here), or just panning or folding-in the existing tracks so they are closer together or in different locations. Most music collectors I know just want the original recordings they are familiar with, cleanest possible copies available, best medium available, with no additional processing at all. Not so much a matter of being a purist, but more about getting us the sound on disc as accurately as possible, without any revisionist engineering. (See Richard Carpenter...or George Lucas, for that matter.) Once we get these at home, we can do with them what we please.

 

[Captaindave]

I am going to tread into very unfamiliar territory here, but speaking for myself, I think that maybe the reason some of the "purists" - I am one - probably would want the masters left alone is because of the historical interest and authenticity to what exactly was recorded back when it was originally done. Probably some of us purists see the recordings as "timeless classics" that are best left undisturbed, even if for the purpose of trying to improve them. Kind of like trying to add some color to an original work of art from the past. I can say for myself that I probably don't care if the sound is bettered or improved. What I want to hear is the sound of the original recordings as they were/are. Call it nostalgia perhaps, but I think that altering them in any way is sort of like changing something that needs to remain just as is...fixed in time and preserved intact and unaltered.

What I want from the reissues is the original albums on the CD format. I don't really care what modern technology might be able to do to the sound.

However, I know I don't speak for the audiophile crowd, but I've "been there and done that," so to speak, and don't own that kind of equipment anymore...

Just my opinions...

 

[Timeframe]

Hey Captaindave, I'm sorry, but it took me so long to write this response, your post appeared in the interim. Rudy and you can both hear me out on this. Thanks


Thanks for the input Rudy. While your response is well understood, I'd like to point out that soundfield generators have experienced the same quantum leap in technology and quality as recording techniques from those early stereo years.

The truth we all know is that these A&M 3-channel recordings were not really what you'd call "stereo". Each channel wholly contains one track of music, with no blending of the content of the other channels that would naturally occur if you'd recorded the music live with a 3 mic "minimalist" setup. This multi-channel mono sounds exactly like that - 3 mono channels arranged L-C-R across the soundfield.

In the MIDI work that I do as a hobby, I've found a very similar phenomenon. I use "sampled" material that is considered the state-of-the-art in sample technology, along with GigaStudio. Most of these samples and the ones I use are recorded in a rather "dry" locale. I think this is necessary because if each sample had its own stereo acoustical environment, I'd have 50 different kinds of reverb/decay coming from the 50 or so different channels of sampled sound - a real sonic mess.

In my rendering process from MIDI to sound, the first rendering pass is multi-channel mono on a GRAND scale. The solution that I use to create a soundfield for my "virtual" symphony orchestra described below would appear to serve these A&M recordings as well.

I'm sure that there are some "engineer" types here on this forum that are probably very familiar with the technology I'm going to talk about, but I'm also sure that there are some that are not.

I've read extensively that Sound Engineers now can emulate the aural effects of that particular location based on "impulse" recording. To make it simple, it was explained to me that they stick a bunch of microphones in a symphony hall or other music venue, and literally record a sound "pulse".

What kind of pulse? I forgot to ask.

From that one pulse, across all those microphones, engineers (and software designers) can extrapolate a "signature" for that particular locale: Pre-echo (pre-reflections), post-echo (post-reflections), phase-relationships between specific locations in that venue, frequency specific decay times, and about any other "pycho-acoustic" measurement you can think of - Left to Right travel times and decay, the same for Right to Left, the L-R difference, the R-L difference, it's a fascinating study.

Anyway, when I apply the "Meyerson Symphony Center" impulse to the digital processing of one of my 50 multichannel mono MIDI renderings, what comes out, after tweaking, sounds like a "reasonable facsimile" of the music as if it were being performed in Meyerson Symphony Center in Dallas.

I've experimented with some of my favorite HATJB music, and while not perfect, and while it contains some sonic anomalies, I think that it sounds an improvement. The mixes I've done were primarily done on BIG speakers, and sound great in my car stereo, and on headphones.

Steve

 

[Rudy]

However, I know I don't speak for the audiophile crowd, but I've "been there and done that," so to speak, and don't own that kind of equipment anymore...

You'd actually find that many of them prefer the original, unaltered recordings as well. My goal in listening is to get a disc in my system that is as close to the originals as possible. Vinyl, SACD and DVD-Audio do that for me, as do well-mastered CDs. Yes, vinyl does get a bum rap in this forum often, but in many cases, some members have just never heard a really good vinyl playback rig.

You'll also find some listeners consider mono to be outdated and lifeless. And yet, these earlier TJB albums were originally mixed and intended for mono, not stereo reproduction. Larry Levine did all of those fine mono album mixes, as well as the 45RPM singles. Back in the 60s, stereo was still considered a format that was a fad which might not succeed. A lot of times, the stereo versions just didn't have the same impact as a well-mixed mono, which is usually what radio played.

 

[Vinylalbumcovers]

I agree, Rudy. On many of the old stereo mixes, the bass gets completely washed out in the translation. Old "stereo" certainly wasn't what it is now. If you listen to "Up, Up, and Away" by the Fifth Dimension, that single mix is so irritating to me that it's virtually unlistenable. The engineer threw all the instruments on one side, the men on one side, and the women on the other. YUCK! It was part and parcel of the limitations of the technology back then...

Ed

 

[Captaindave]

Well, it makes sense...back in the sixties when I was driving around in my 1965 Ford Galaxie 500, I had only one radio speaker in the center of the dashboard of that car...and the radio was AM only.

That was the source of the sound in the car...

In the house, my father had bought a "home entertainment center." Anyone remember those? It was a Magnavox. In the center was a black and white TV. On the top left was a turntable, and on the top right was an AM/FM tuner and the general controls for tone and volume for the system. There were speakers built into the front and sides of the unit.

It was intended to serve as a piece of living room furniture.

At my wife's - then my girlfriend - house, there was a "coffee table" stereo. It was a coffee table. But it had a radio and turntable mounted in a drawer in the table. And, speakers on the sides.

My ears had grown accustomed to that kind of sound quality. Imagine the surprise when I first heard Herb Alpert and the TJB in concert. All I had known was the home entertainment center...

Haven't things changed?

 

[Timeframe]

Haven't things changed? Smile

My point exactly. Without changing a single note, or tempo, just modding the environment, and just to emulate a live performance.

Steve