2. music
  3. 128451-93588

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?
128x128mikeydee
ivan_nosnibor's avatar
ivan_nosnibor
1,047 posts
 
@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.

orpheus10
8,668 posts
 

"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.
lowrider57's avatar
lowrider57
5,417 posts
 
Studer MarkIII half inch two track;
Wonderful tape machine; excellent servo, lots of headroom. I miss analogue tape.
tomcy6's avatar
tomcy6
2,587 posts
 

mikeydee, you’re not crazy. I know what you’re talking about. Newer albums can have a clarity and level of detail that many older recordings do not have. Recording technology and techniques have improved in some ways over the years, and have declined in some ways too. Some albums are recorded with the improved tech and technique, some with the damaging tech and technique.

Recording tape does deteriorate over time and with repeated playback. This can be heard on many older albums.  Also, there were many badly recorded albums released 40 to 50 years ago.  Many gems but a lot of junk, just like today.

Some people are not offended by moderate compression and there are plenty of more recent albums (last 30 years) that have been recorded with reasonable or even admirable levels of compression.

There is a lot of good music that has been recorded digitally and is available only on cd. If your ears can’t take that, that’s OK, but you’re missing some good music.

So mikeydee, enjoy what you enjoy and don’t let anyone tell you that you should be enjoying something else.

alpha_gt
155 posts
 
I agree that older recordings can be as awesome as any new recording, and even better. Many newer recordings can sound quite spactacular on the surface, with digital effects and compression in play. But I would hate to limit myself to the last 5 years because I haven't heard any music I would care to listen to in these past 5 years
More to discover