I agree most facets of technology that have advanced; however, gold remains gold. I would not want the constraint of only listening to the output of the last 5 years. I have an ultra refined Spectral/MIT/Goldmund system with exceptional AC power/ isolation; and, countless discs/cd's over 5 years old sound fabulous to me. Case in point; with my freshly brewed coffee,sitting on the cozy sheepskin throw in my favorite chair I'm presently enjoying a CD titled "Moments Musicaux" Musical Moments of Autumn 1999 and Spring 2000 of the Zig Zag Territoires label from Paris(now of Outhere Music in Belgium). The care put into the recording quality shines through and provides as much enjoyment ,to me,as any good disc. I think of musical enjoyment of classical and jazz recordings more like quality classical automobiles or fine art. If you are transported in a 1980 Rolls Royce I don't think you would find any significant increase in comfort in newer cars.When we observe an 'old' masterwork we cannot but see the effects of age if we're up close;but, does this detract from the art? As they say today-- "just sayin". I think with that I'll put a touch of French Brandy when I'm nearly finished my coffee. "Cheers to the Music!"
Recording quality...
A lot of time here is spent discussing equipment, which is to be expected. But even the best gear will not mask a lousy recording. Let's face it, some labels use better recording equipment, microphone placement, mixing and so on to create stunning sound. Other labels just don't sound as good.
Case in point...when I purchase a recording, I'm looking for a recording date within the last five years. I realize that some classic recordings took place years ago recorded with analog equipment, but it will still sound old on anything modern you play it on. I'm not a big fan of remastering either. Look, I realize that we can't bring back Miles Davis or get Pink Floyd back together to do a modern recording, but imagine if we could.
Once, when I was a kid, I was lucky enough to witness a live recording session in a real studio. This was in the late 60s, when real musicians played real instruments. They used these gigantic Scully tape machines with inch-thick Ampex 456 tape running at fast speed and a mixing board, which was the most modern recording equipment of the time. Today, that equipment belongs in a museum, considering the modern tools that recording engineers have now.
My point here is that great equipment is nice, but paired with a recent recording using modern tools, the sound is so much better. Just my humble opinion. What say you to this?
Case in point...when I purchase a recording, I'm looking for a recording date within the last five years. I realize that some classic recordings took place years ago recorded with analog equipment, but it will still sound old on anything modern you play it on. I'm not a big fan of remastering either. Look, I realize that we can't bring back Miles Davis or get Pink Floyd back together to do a modern recording, but imagine if we could.
Once, when I was a kid, I was lucky enough to witness a live recording session in a real studio. This was in the late 60s, when real musicians played real instruments. They used these gigantic Scully tape machines with inch-thick Ampex 456 tape running at fast speed and a mixing board, which was the most modern recording equipment of the time. Today, that equipment belongs in a museum, considering the modern tools that recording engineers have now.
My point here is that great equipment is nice, but paired with a recent recording using modern tools, the sound is so much better. Just my humble opinion. What say you to this?
- ...
- 34 posts total
Echoing @wlutke I am increasingly finding that as I improve the resolving ability of my system (both analog and digital) I am able to hear more in every recording. There is more musical information available in the vast majority of recordings, of whatever vintage, than most of us are able to access. Whether it’s the subtle timing cues of the interplay of different players, or the delicate decay of an instrument into the hall, this sort of information is there even on 80 year old mono recordings, or 20 year old DAT tapes. Agree. I think what bothers listeners who did not grow up listening to vinyl is the presence of tape hiss on recordings. In the digital age, many are searching for the blackest background at the expense of dynamics and nuance in the music. |
@wlutke, thanks for the kind words! @folkfreak, "There is more musical information available in the vast majority of recordings, of whatever vintage, than most of us are able to access." It seems it may take each of us a certain amount of time on our journey to reach this realization (whether by gear, wiring, tweaking or whatever), but I think that is the very heart of it and that it is a notable milestone in the hobby. |
"Shadowfax" on the Windham Hill Record label; this recording was made on a modified MCI JH 16 recorder at 30 inches per second, and mixed to a Studer Mark III half-inch two track recorder, using no noise reduction, limiting or compression. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sauQ6TsdT_c Studer MarkIII half inch two track; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1k1SZ2R6ME Enjoy the music. |
- 34 posts total