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
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
sevs
301 posts
 
@tomcy6 I totally relate to what you are saying but let me respectfully disagree with one point. We all are listening to our favorite tunes through the gear we care to afford, only time and our personal "audio gurus" can slooowly change our ways. However, when someone posts a question, it (sometimes) means that this person is ready to listen to something different than "you r good, please continue". 
Steven Wilson remix (using ProTools, I would guess) of Aqualung sounds better (but different) than the original. How did that happen? What they called "juicy" compression in 70-ies now degraded to CDs and LPs sounding the same through hi-end and car stereos. 
My answer to the original question: check your favorite (best sounding) albums at Dynamic Range Database. What do you see? 
I remember myself falling for the "general knowledge" (in early 90-ies) that any CDs without DDD stamp are not worth buying. I wish there was a place, like what we got here and at Steve Hoffman site, to kick me in the butt!.. so that I would start Listening...
One more sentence of "old man's rambling": it was the best day of my life when I listened to Brahms symphonies under Bohm on my hi-end rig, but I still prefer BeeGees through my boombox, the way I remember them when I was a kid. Go figure!

More to discover