The problem with the music


There are lots of people who frequent this site that have spent significant amounts of money to buy the gear that they use to reproduce their music. I would never suggest that you should not have done that, but I wonder if the music industry is not working against you, or at least, not with you.

For the most part studios are using expensive gear to record with, but is it really all that good? Do the people doing the recording have good systems that can reproduce soundstage, detail and all the other things that audiophiles desire, or do they even care about playback?

I know there are labels that are sympathetic to our obsessions, but does Sony/Columbia, Mercury, or RCA etc. give a rats #$%&@ about what we want?

Recordings (digital) have gotten a lot better since the garbage released in the mid 80's. Some of them are even listenable! BUT lots of people are spending lots of money to get great music when the studios don't seem that interested in doing good recordings. Mike Large, director of operations for Real Worl Studios said "The aim of the music is to connect with you on an emotional level; and I'd be prepared to bet that the system you have at home does that better than any of the systems we make records on."

Do recording engineers even care about relating the emotion of the music, or are they just concerned about the mechanics?

What do you think, and can/ should anything be done about it?
128x128nrchy
We are forgetting the issue that the recording people are "THERE," at the original event.

To make an analogy with photography, even a guy with a crappy $199.00 point and shoot digital from CompUSA (at the original event) will go home with better quality images than what's printed in the newspaper the next morning.

Point I'm making, these guys have a great job and even with very good (forget state of the art) equipment, they will capture the artist with more fidelity than most formats the record companies are throwing at us today.

Don't believe me? Get someone in the business to run you off a copy of a analog master tape on half track, 15 IPS or 30 IPS and compare with SACD, Redbook or even the best LP. You will be amazed.

I am currently working on my fifth and sixth master dupes, (Pink Floyd and Art Garfunkel). I never liked Aerosmith until I owned a master dupe, now I listen to the group and hear things I never knew existed.

I am scheduled to record some classical musicians associated with the Dallas Symphony this fall.

It WILL be with a high speed analog tape machine and large diaphragm tube microphones. I can't wait to see if my system can reproduce what I hear live.
Cinematic Systems..

So you are saying that all the recordings are superb and nobody should doubt thier quality, it is just Nrchy's crappy mismatched system?

Sorry, but i find that kind of hard to swallow.

Personally i think your comment was totally off topic and if you want to tell Nrchy he doesent know synergy from his ass that maybe you should do it in a private email than publicly stating it here on this thread.

Looking at this thread it looks more of a discussion about the level of desire in modern recording companys to produce high quality recordings, which i think most people would agree that not all recording agencys put quality of recordings as thier top priority. I could be wrong but i could have sworn that is where the discussion was going.

Plus nobody likes a know-it-all

But that's just my humble opinion. ;)

Mr. Singh
New and Improved Slappy outsourced from India.
Cinematic_systems writes:
I have just bought 50 cd's from megadeth to Keb Mo to Gergiev SACD and they were all excellent.
Are you referring to the two Gergiev SACDs with the Kirov Orchestra on Philips? Sheherazade and the Shostakovich? The former is pretty dire and the latter substandard. Just trying to get a reference point.

Regards,