2. misc-audio
  3. 1375840071

Does it bother you?

I'm a recording engineer who has worked in some of the world's top facilities. Let me walk you though an example signal path that you might find in a place like, say, Henson Studio A:

1. Microphone: Old. Probably a PCB inside. Copper wiring.
2. Mic cable: Constructed in house with $1/ft Canare Star Quad, solder, and a connector that might have been in the bottom of a box in the back.
3. Wall jack: Just a regular old Neutrik XLR connector on the wall.
4. Cable snake: Bundles of mic cables going to the control room.
5. Another XLR jack.
6. Another cheap mic cable.
7. Mic preamp: Old and lovely sounding. Audio going through 50 year old pots.
8. Patchbay: Another cheap copper cable is soldered into a patchbay where hundreds of connectors practically touch.
9. TT Cable: Goes from one patch to the next in the patch bay. Copper. No brand preference.
10. DB25 connector: Yes, the same connector you used to connect a modem to your computer in 1986. This is the heart and soul of studio audio transfer.
11. DB25 cable to the console: 25 strands of razor-thin copper wire, 8 channels of audio, sharing a ride.
12. The mixing console: PCB after PCB of tiny copper paths carry the audio through countless op amp chips.
13. DB25 cable to the recording device: time to travel through two more DB25 connectors as we make our way to the AD converters or tape machine.
14. AD conversion: More op amp chips.
15. Digital cable: nothing fancy, just whatever works. USB and Firewire cables are just stock.

...and this is just getting the audio into the recorder.

Also:

None of this equipment has vibration reducing rubber feet, it's just stacked haphazardly in racks. Touching.

No fancy power cables are used, just regular ol' IEC cables.

Acoustic treatment is done using scientific measurements.

Words like "soundstage" and "pace" are never uttered.

Does it bother you? Do you find it strange that the people who record the music that you listen to aren't interested in "tweaks," and expensive cables, and alarm clocks with a sticker on them? If we're not using any of this stuff to record the albums, then what are you hearing when you do use it?
trentpancakes
nonoise's avatar
nonoise
10,834 posts
 
There are some recording engineers who go to great lengths to make a decent recording: Todd Garfunkle of MA Recordings, Pierre Sprey of Mapleshade, whoever does ECM, etc.

Just because you came across someone who runs a crappy recording studio only goes to show just how stymied his results are. He's not in it for the sound. It's just a business for him.

You can go to any job site where new home construction is being done and see first hand all the shortcuts and shoddy work being done and when finished, you'd be hard pressed to see any faults. Only after living there for a couple of seasons will reveal the poor workmanship.

When it comes to music, a great system will reveal the limits of the recording at first listen. All of those limits you tallied up show up in the final product. A better run and managed studio would put out a superior product.

Unless you're satisfied with poor recordings, you don't have a leg to stand on, if that is your reference.

All the best,
Nonoise
jmcgrogan2's avatar
jmcgrogan2
6,346 posts
 
08-07-13: Trentpancakes
Robsker, the reason why those recordings sound better is because the musicians playing the music were better.

LOL! It's always the other guys fault. Mechanics blame the Engineers, and vice versa. Thanks for the comic relief pancakes.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,182 posts
 
" the reason why those recordings sound better is because the musicians playing the music were better. "

That's a silly statement.
trentpancakes OP
13 posts
 
LOL! It's always the other guys fault. Mechanics blame the Engineers, and vice versa. Thanks for the comic relief pancakes.

Then what do you think it is? Do you think it was because they used more audiophile-grade equipment in the '50s? Silvered wires, cables on stilts, dampening stones, and things like that?

Or do you think it's because you had in those early jazz recordings an unparalleled level of talent sharing the room?

I'd like to hear your rebuttal instead of an ad hominem.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,182 posts
 
It was largely because hifi and stereo was new and sound quality was a novel marketed feature back then, hence more of a primary selling point and profit maker then than it is today.
More to discover