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
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.
trentpancakes OP
13 posts
 
That's a silly statement.

So equipment trumps talent? You really think they had a technological edge in the '50s that allowed them to make "better" recordings?

I'm giving all of the credit to great musicians, and being accused of placing the "blame" on someone else. Great musicians make the engineer's job exceedingly simple. When a world-class musician shows up, you stick a mic in front of them and hit record. You play back what you just recorded, and it sounds incredible and moving. The brand of cable used on the mic doesn't change that.
More to discover