Every sound is “colored” in any recording session. Microphones, sound effects (analog or digital) compression (analog or digital) reverbs (analog or digital) noise gates (analog or digital), limiters, type and tape model, consoles, room acoustics, dirty magnetized tape heads…even cables can “colored” a recording piece of music. Electronic matching impedances, capacitances, resistances…and I’m not mention valves….there’s so many variables …
“Un-colored sound”…?! The “original”…?! There’s no such thing. It’s only a myth, an audiophile utopia.

Btw, it's not velvet. It's silk.

It is not a myth.
I have been doing master recordings ocasionally over three decades now and have the understanding of what close to the original means.
I still have some master recordings in my posession.

I was there having the option of ABX with the analog reference comming over the rim of the stage or from the padded rooms in the studio monitoring after tape comparison.

It's not a myth.

But most people would for sure have a hard time geetting close to that ideal with the set-up choises they make and with their sort of understanding of what BEST is.

"dolph"

there has got to be a language barrier here, what I think clint is saying is that if you used a $12 microphone during a master recording whether a person has been doing that job for 30 years or not.

So what I am reading from you dolf, and there could be a language barrier their, is that microphones, or cables or anything like that does not color the original mastering. Is that what you are saying.

I have noticed differences in IC's on a normal store bought recording, I would naturally assume that stuff like that in a recording studio would make a difference in the sound,

elroy

Close to the original will always be a relative term.

Copy is never as good as original.
And that is exactly because of that colouring mentioned that is created in microphones, cables, consoles etc.

With 30 years of messing with B&K, Røde, Neuman, AKG and other microphones, I believe I have gotten as close as possible with the gear.

But the original sound exists. That's not a myth.
That is the sound we hear when we set up for test before the concert, that's the sound, the mood, the environment we want people to illusionate when listening to the recording.

Those listening to the LP, CD or other generations of the recording usualy have never heard the original sound.
But those attending the concert have heard it.
They are supposed the experience a kind of DejaVu and not a "What the f*** did they molest this recording with?"

On the bottom line everything colours.
Even your subjective mood colours the listening experience.

The shortcut to the best reproduction is to get it as little coloured as possible, closest to the original as possible.
This is not obtained by using digital filters, compression, equalization or other modification to suit ones ears the best.

"dolph"

“Original” sound in a live concert………………………….?!
Where?
In a stadium? Or in a concert hall? In a theater? Or in a pub? Tell me where you can get a sound relatively close to the one you so called “original”?

What is the “original” one?
In the concert hall, or in a theater? Or it will be in a stadium…..?

Ah, I know!
The incredible sound the band/orchestra had in the Royal Albert Hall.
But… wait!
Where in the Royal Albert Hall? In the front row? In the back row? In the balcony?

….with what P.A. System? With what P.A. amplification? With what P.A. speakers?

……With what amplifiers? The ones the musicians use to work with in the studio, or the new ones from Orange they bought recently?

…With what microphones ? AKG? Shure? Electrovoice?
….With what instruments?
The ones they played in Madrid, or the ones they played at New York Palladium?

In reality there’s no such thing as the “original” sound.

In the end it’s just a “Hi-End” marketing cliché. An excuse for selling incredible expensive equipment to audiophiles that expecting to reach nirvana by sound…

This is a very interesting but subjective issue – sound.
Maybe that’s why so many people love it so much.

Some times it's a waste of time explaining some stuff to certain people.

I give up.

You can take the horse to the lake but you can not force it to drink.

Continue living in ignorance.
Fine with me.

"dolph"

Whoah, whoah, whoah. what's with all this bickering? why don't we all take a chill-pill and just sit back and start enjoying beautiful music on beautiful gear? one man's "PAIN-IN-THE-EAR" PIONEER is another man's SME, the same way that one man's JOHN COLTRANE is another's MICHAEL JACKSON. let's just stop tearing eachother's personal preferences apart, and focusing on building the most beautiful Hi-Fi systems we possibly can, so we can enjoy our favorite music to the fullest. here's a little something to lighten the mood:

sorry dolph, but i havent seen you supply and evidence to support your argument other than your own opinion.

i for one dont see the benefit of an original recording when it does no good to anyone other than the single person who has it in their possession and the rest of us are rendered to listening to a copy.

Alvaro's point of different venues and equipment is well taken. there is no standard for making an original recording and the factors determining its sound vary widely. taken in this context it would seem that there is little relevance in comparing an original recording to a live performance.

Evidence?????

Tell me, please, who, on this forum or any other forum, managed to create or find evidence concerning the debate of subjective listening experiences and tell me how that ever will be possible?

No change of the sound characteristic or even purchasing the sound of the original in the copy will be benefitial to anyone but the individual appreciating it.

You, obviously, appreciate one sound and I appreciate the sound to be as true to how it originally sounded as possible in a copy.

Please help me understand what you mean when stating: "there is little relevance in comparing an original recording to a live performance"?

The Live performance, in my understanding, is THE original. The recording is the copy.
I merely aim at getting the recording/the copy to sound as close as possible as to how it sounded where the microphones or the console is set up in the area around the stage.
And I would always go for setting up the Microphones or the console where it's best in my Subjective Experience.

Contributors in this thread has been trying escape the confrontation of reality with the excuse of Microphones and consoles, cables and recording heads colouring the sound.
Sure, everything influences the sound.
Again, I use my experience to choose the equipment colouring as little as possible, just as people would choose equipment in their private set-up that colours the least........................ or maybe3 I should rerevaluate my gues on that people would do that, to me, obvious choise because it seems this thread tells me that people prioritate gear that colours and alters the sound deliberately away from how the original sounds.

I find that a weird attitude.
Excuse me, but I do.

"dolph"

like i have said, niklas, we're all doing what we can to build ourselves the best Hi-Fi systems we can. some of us are satisfied, some are near satisfaction, and still others have a long road yet ahead. for my part, i've reached my own definition of sonic nirvana, and i'm quite satisfied with my system as is. yes i could die happily without KRELL or MERIDIAN. everyone has their own ideas of perfection, and this one happens to be mine. i would be quite satisfied with it for eternity. still, i have a couple dreams yet; a PIONEER PL-90 REFERENCE SERIES TT, and possibly a PIONEER CT-91 cassette deck. a pair of PIONEER DSS-9 would be NICE, but it's highly unlikely that i'll ever get a chance to own a pair. point is, i'm so very thankful that my system is so close to the ideal in my mind. so what if it isn't MARK LEVINSON or WADIA. so what if it isn't the most surgically accurate system out there. to my ears, IT SOUNDS DAMN GOOD. a Hi-Fi system should reflect the personal preferences of, and sound pleasant to it's owner, IMO, and my system does just that for me with aplomb. CLINICALLY ACCURATE sound, in my experience, does not always nessisarily equal PLEASANT sound...

exactly. this is the difference between opinion and fact. we all have our opinions and the subjective nature of the medium allows for little else.

isnt that that what i have said?

precisely because the recording is just another copy. the term original then cannot truly apply to any recording.

and how many people can attain this? that is why "original" recordings are meaningless to me, they are only available to somebody else.

isnt that the reality? that everything influences the sound is the entire point. each performance is different, and the original recording is merely a copy and not a 100% true reproduction. why worry about the deficiencies of subsequent copies when they are taken from a copy that is inferior to begin with?

it looks to me that we are in agreement on almost everything. i dont see where we disagree on anything significant.

bingo!

Just to clarify some thoughts:

Imho, sound colorization starts in the recording studio. Even the expensive analog tapes (A reel of 1/2" tape costs more than 50€ and at 30ips is only 16 minutes long ) colors the sound.
Just an example: one of the first things we shoul asked ourselves when recording on tape is what speed we should run the tape, because at 30 inches per second, the high frequency performance improves. However, at 15 inches per second, the low frequency performance improves. Also, at 15 ips the noise increases, so you should think about noise reduction...I know a little of this. As a band member, i'd been for several times in recording studios.
And i'm not talking about full tone calibration after every mixing session...