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
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!

tomcy6's avatar
tomcy6
2,587 posts
 

I agree with you sevs, it’s generally good to expand your horizons musically, but mikeydee says he likes current recorded sound compared to albums from the days of tape and vinyl. I just wanted to give him a little support in that opinion. I think you can find great sounding records of recent vintage, improved in many ways over recordings from the old days (or at least different from). I also understand people who will only listen to AAA recordings. That’s what they like.

The only problem with expanding your musical horizons is that there is too much good music to listen to. I can’t find the time to do it all justice, anyway.

infection's avatar
infection
808 posts
 
Case in point...when I purchase a recording, I'm looking for a recording date within the last five years.


That's ridiculous. 
lowrider57's avatar
lowrider57
5,417 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.

Good comment, @tomcy6 .

Over the years, like many people, I purchased remastered Rock CD’s to replace my original releases only to find that they were fatiguing and compressed.
Now that I have a higher-end transport/DAC setup, I am appreciating the sonics of the original CD’s. In general, there is more separation of instruments, natural decay, and more realistic sounding highs. It’s too bad that as digital production and mastering technology improved, the movement to add high amounts of compression in the recording and mastering chain came about.

I search the Steve Hoffman forum to find the best releases of CD and vinyl and then go to Discogs, where one can find used disks by their release date and country of origin. Now, I’m actually replacing my CD’s again with better versions.

With Classical, I own many modern CD and vinyl recordings, but I seek out older recordings, not only for the great performances and legendary conductors, but for the realism that minimal mic’ing can reproduce. This is probably the only time I look to buy a remaster, since many Classical labels take great care in restoring old recordings.

mikeydee's avatar
mikeydee OP
47 posts
 
We could also take this discussion in a different direction...what is it about mixing, microphone placement, room acoustics, etc. that make for an amazing recording, regardless of time period?  

Those of us around in the late 70s remember Steely Dan's album "AJA" (recorded at Village Recorders in West LA).  It actually won a Grammy for best-engineered album.  The sound quality was amazing (I had it on vinyl).

 Also, different studios to the trained ear sound different.  Those of you who love jazz remember the Blue Note sessions that Rudy Van Gelder recorded in Englewood Cliffs NJ.  You could tell it was his studio by the sound...his piano also had a distinctive sound to it.

Fast forward to the 90s and listen to the Natalie Cole album "Unforgettable"...give it a listen just for the amazing recording, even if you don't like the music.  This was recorded at the Capitol Rotunda in Hollywood, where Sinatra made all of his famous recordings in the 50s.  

And then there's Motown Studio A (I went to see it...now a museum) and let's not forget Sigma Sound, run by Joe Tarsia in Philly (which is now an office building...should have been preserved as a museum as well).  David Bowie came all the way to Philadelphia to record "Young Americans" at Sigma  because he loved the studio's sound.   

So, I get what a lot of you are saying.  My five-year window is robbing me of all of these studios which had a distinctive sound.  You can't get that aspect using Pro Tools or whatever else they use today. 
More to discover