"the studio engineer, the recording, the label, the pressing"
Wait, what’s about MUSICIANS? LOL
it was my pleasure to work on live music sound projects with Jon Ericson, one of Rush engineers..
20 responses Add your response
There are so many factors: the original recording. Once multi-track and overdubbing became commonplace, the natural acoustic of a real performance recorded with all the players in place was often lost. Post-production and outboard effects. Mastering- I've compared many of the same record cut by different mastering engineers. Significant differences in sound. Vinyl pressing- variable. We don't know what's in the plastic in most cases--there are papers in the AES from Khanna at RCA detailing the compounds at the time, but today, considered proprietary. Hard to actually know what sounds best, though I think that original JVC vinyl compound designed for discrete 4 channel records and used by old MoFi for stereo was great- very resilient, quiet. Also QC in pressing- Packaging- some records are damaged by the packaging. Thickness of LP has proved to be irrelevant in my experience. The trope of 180g or 200g vinyl has not led to improvements in sound. I did compare the changes in profile and material from Classic Records during its last phase. And of course, what cartridge/arm combo you are using along with TT and phono stage all play a part in the experience as a consumer. I have mostly old copies in a high playing state- variability in SQ is significant despite top condition, effective cleaning that does no harm, and archival practices in storage/handling. |
I agree. World's best microphones are from 1940'~50's. And new technology can't duplicate them. Many vintage tape players and mics are true masterpieces. I don't like the sound of modern recordings. Alex/Wavetouch audio |
I think the problem is the high level of compression being employed on most modern recordings. It is not that a digital master is inherently incapable of being the basis for a good vinyl record. It all gets down to how the recording, digital or analog, is mastered. I'll give you an example of an analog recording from the sixties that is one of the most popular rock records in history that is so compressed to make it loud that it is just terrible to listen to. I mean distortion city, but fans love it. Led Zeplin, and the sequel Led Zeplin II. So the problem is not confined to digital recordings at all. Let's be clear sighted about this, though, and recognize that records are being made this way because that is what the majority of the intended audience wants. More sophisticated consumers, like audiophiles, are a small fraction of the total market. |
One aspect that isn’t discussed too often. I listen to mainly rock, metal and pop from 60s, 70s, 80, 90s. |
Here are a few from a mostly jazz perspective. Roy Dunann - Contemporary Records. In my opinion the best who ever lived. He is the guy who figured out how to properly mic and record in stereo. Al Schmitt - Another great engineer. He did a lot of work for RCA, later Capitol, and was instrumental in Diana Krall's recording success. Val Valentin = Verve Tom Dowd - Atlantc Ebonie Smith - Atlantc, proving it is not for men only Bill Smith - Capitol That is just the tip of the iceberg. |
I can give you some thoughts, hopefully others will contribute more. The key to the sound of a record is how it is mastered. If you check your Rush records chances are that at least some of them will disclose in the fine print on the back who the mastering engineer is. Since you like the sound of Rush's records it is probable that you would like the sound of other records mastered by the same mastering engineer. Another thing to consider is the record company. Most record companies have a "sound" and you are likely to find that you like other record releases from that same company. For example, I like Blue Note records and most recently ones mastered by Kevin Gray. Hope that helps. |