Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Asking/testing your sonic compas & soundwise memory - just curious


E-minor7

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, BigYellowOne said:

I don’t disagree with anyone who describes guitars with words like “sweet” but I just don’t hear them that way so I’m not always sure what is meant. I’m sure I use words that others don’t relate to as well- maybe “dry” is just as vague to others but it makes perfect sense to me. I guess saying that I didn’t like that description makes it sound like I disagree with it- it’s more so that I don’t relate to it or understand what “it” is.

As an example/aside I would describe the difference between the J45 sound and the Bird sound as primarily a change in EQ, but I don’t hear one of them as sweeter than the other. It’s hard to describe sounds/feelings about sounds without comparison and that makes this a fun/challenging thing to discuss with written word. 

What’s the best way to upload audio? I can put something here- I’ll do some research on how the forum handles files. I’m curious to get your opinion on whether it has the DNA of the classic Hummingbirds. 

Here’s a photo of mine- it’ll be my #1 til I’m in the ground.

 

As we know describing sound is hard, some say impossible. Yet over time it seems certain terms establish themselves as some sort of measure-sticks. But also in the relatively narrow circles of guit-forums people can go wrong of each other. It's all okay - certain folks will check out and stay from exchanges about sound while others keep trying and sometimes even reach a feeling of making sense. Let's remember it all just good fun. 

I once wrote here that                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  the J-45 is a quite direct and raw acoustic with a gentle soul hidden inside - and the Birds are delicate or fine-flavored instruments with a bit of a beat within.                                                      Re-thinking it there something to that definition still - at least in my mind.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  But a bigger difference would be the way they project. 45s being 'roomier' with what I call deep projection - the squares slightly more toward something fast and arch-top-like. The highs are are thinner on the hog squares too if you ask me ~ A person who loves both immensely. 

It easy to understand why you bond so closely with the flier above. I never tire of watching those beauties - neither of playing them. But have to be able to grab a 45 😉      

Try setting something up on SoundCloud. Then posting here is easy. Look forward to hear more.   

 

P.S. - a member unfolded a theory that the thick guard of the Birds added to the nectar. He wasn't off at all. Don't forget the other hog-squares have considerable thinner protection, , , and actually sing a bit different.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

 

  

Edited by E-minor7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phil OKeefe said:

While I have my reasons for doubting that it was, how do you know it wasn't an analog recording that was later transferred to digital for the video?

 

What specifically do you think needs to be improved with modern digital recording? It what way(s) do you feel that modern digital recording is lacking compared to analog recording? Signal to noise ratio? Transient response? Frequency response? Maybe something else? I'm genuinely curious as to what you think was sonically "wrong" or lacking in those recordings. 

 

Personally, unless I am there myself to hear the sound source directly in the actual room while the recording is being done, I find it difficult to fault the accuracy of a recording, simply because there is no point of accurate reference to compare it to.  YMMV.  It might be a truly accurate representation of the sound that was happening in the room, or it might not be - unless you were there, there's just no way to know for certain, and there are loads of variables that can influence the final sound of any recording, regardless of whether it was recorded to analog tape or to digital. 

 

 

Other than the Brüel & Kjær 4006 microphone (which was visible in the videos), how do you know what the exact signal path was for these specific recordings? While the 4006 isn't a tube microphone, it is possible that they used a tube mic preamp. 

 

 

A post full of sharp points. 

There're so many factors that can bend'n'blur the digi-reproduction. And people use them skillfully.

Still one probably would be able to hear the difference played back over 2 'clean' systems - an all analogue and a digital.                                                                                                                                                                                                                  The tape would reproduce a bit more 'wooly' - earthy - midtoney - rounded timbre = all that make listeners call it warmer.  

Add to that the fact that tapes age thus loses sharpness over time. Sonic feinschmeckers would be able to detect this after 8-10-12 rounds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2023 at 11:18 AM, Salfromchatham said:

, , ,by the way I have a few D18s… a newer one, and a 2003 straight braced one. It has the perfect neck… that older standard  series 11/16 Martin neck. I was thinking how that neck would be great on an Adj bird. For me anyways.

This would be a risky probably downright hazardous move into the territory known as the Gibtin Marson swamps. Few if any can help you back from there. 

                                                                                           Don't forget your m-phone some H2o and a small back of rations/pack of raisins.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Phil OKeefe said:

While I have my reasons for doubting that it was, how do you know it wasn't an analog recording that was later transferred to digital for the video?

 

What specifically do you think needs to be improved with modern digital recording? It what way(s) do you feel that modern digital recording is lacking compared to analog recording? Signal to noise ratio? Transient response? Frequency response? Maybe something else? I'm genuinely curious as to what you think was sonically "wrong" or lacking in those recordings. 

 

Personally, unless I am there myself to hear the sound source directly in the actual room while the recording is being done, I find it difficult to fault the accuracy of a recording, simply because there is no point of accurate reference to compare it to.  YMMV.  It might be a truly accurate representation of the sound that was happening in the room, or it might not be - unless you were there, there's just no way to know for certain, and there are loads of variables that can influence the final sound of any recording, regardless of whether it was recorded to analog tape or to digital.

 

 

I was being facetious.

I have pretty decent (Bose) computer monitors and am constantly amazed at the quality of the recordings people make and put up on YouTube.

We've come a long way.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2023 at 6:28 PM, E-minor7 said:

As we know describing sound is hard, some say impossible. Yet over time it seems certain terms establish themselves as some sort of measure-sticks. But also in the relatively narrow circles of guit-forums people can go wrong of each other. It's all okay - certain folks will check out and stay from exchanges about sound while others keep trying and sometimes even reach a feeling of making sense. Let's remember it all just good fun. 

I once wrote here that                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  the J-45 is a quite direct and raw acoustic with a gentle soul hidden inside - and the Birds are delicate or fine-flavored instruments with a bit of a beat within.                                                      Re-thinking it there something to that definition still - at least in my mind.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  But a bigger difference would be the way they project. 45s being 'roomier' with what I call deep projection - the squares slightly more toward something fast and arch-top-like. The highs are are thinner on the hog squares too if you ask me ~ A person who loves both immensely. 

It easy to understand why you bond so closely with the flier above. I never tire of watching those beauties - neither of playing them. But have to be able to grab a 45 😉      

Try setting something up on SoundCloud. Then posting here is easy. Look forward to hear more.   

 

P.S. - a member unfolded a theory that the thick guard of the Birds added to the nectar. He wasn't off at all. Don't forget the other hog-squares have considerable thinner protection, , , and actually sing a bit different.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

 

  

Appreciate the discussion- next time I have my gear set up I’ll do some recording. 
 

By the way, I heard your tunes on SoundCloud in another thread- sounded great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BigYellowOne said:

Appreciate the discussion- next time I have my gear set up I’ll do some recording. 
 

By the way, I heard your tunes on SoundCloud in another thread- sounded great!

                                          The same, sir ^ and thank you very much

                                                                                                                        Enjoy a good weekend 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2023 at 4:33 PM, Phil OKeefe said:

While I have my reasons for doubting that it was, how do you know it wasn't an analog recording that was later transferred to digital for the video?

 

What specifically do you think needs to be improved with modern digital recording? It what way(s) do you feel that modern digital recording is lacking compared to analog recording? Signal to noise ratio? Transient response? Frequency response? Maybe something else? I'm genuinely curious as to what you think was sonically "wrong" or lacking in those recordings. 

 

Personally, unless I am there myself to hear the sound source directly in the actual room while the recording is being done, I find it difficult to fault the accuracy of a recording, simply because there is no point of accurate reference to compare it to.  YMMV.  It might be a truly accurate representation of the sound that was happening in the room, or it might not be - unless you were there, there's just no way to know for certain, and there are loads of variables that can influence the final sound of any recording, regardless of whether it was recorded to analog tape or to digital. 

 

 

Other than the Brüel & Kjær 4006 microphone (which was visible in the videos), how do you know what the exact signal path was for these specific recordings? While the 4006 isn't a tube microphone, it is possible that they used a tube mic preamp. 

 

 

You pose some interesting questions and while I am not attempting to answer those I thought a recent experience of mine could be of interest concerning how far digital has advanced. Just this month I replace my old Denon CD player that was one of the first generation of CD players out there. It was a great machine but finally began to have issues. I replaced it with a Marantz CD60 . Before removing the old player I listened to a CD I was very familiar with and then after listened to the same CD again on the new unit. I was immediately impressed with how smooth the sound was. Yes there was more detail, dimension and all the stuff you would expect but it was just so much warmer. Made me realize that after a while of listening with the old Denon I was getting listener fatigue. And this is not a Marantz commercial, I am sure that the difference would be there with any of the newer unit. Progress has been made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2023 at 9:11 PM, E-minor7 said:

                              What year is yours from ?

 

It's the "1960  Hummingbird Fixed Bridge", as shown in the OP videos. 2020 model year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...