2. music
  3. 1186972062

Born to Run: Why the Poor Sound Quality?

I have always been disappointed with the sound quality of Bruce Springsteen's Born to Run. Even the CBS 1/2 Speed Master pressing is underwhelming. Is there a good explanation for this? As I recall, Jon Landau produced the album, and he is certainly no slouch, but the recording seems inferior.

It's really a shame that there doesn't seem to be a decent pressing of this classic album
jeffreybowman2k
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,343 posts
 
There isn't a Springsteen recording that's listenable over anything but an in car CD player or FM.
Is this statement audiophile hyperbole or should we take it as plain English? If it's the latter, then something is wrong with your system, you or possibly both, and on paper your system looks awesome.
tomcy6's avatar
tomcy6
2,636 posts
 
Get it on cd, the 30th Anniversary remastered set.

It doesn't sound as if it was recorded in a chapel using a single stereo pair of cardioids, but it sounds fine and communicates the excitement and young adult angst that Bruce intended.

It certainly beats the hell out of the crap he records now.
gpgr4blu
1,096 posts
 
Bruce has gone on record many times as saying that BTR was deliberately muddy to mimic wall of sound. Despite that explanation, I believe that Bruce's studio albums are with few exceptions, among the worst sounding in popular music. The exceptions---Darkness, Tunnel of Love, Human Touch, Lucky Town,The Promise and his latest, Wrecking Ball which actually sounds very good. Of late, I've got to put some of the blame if not most on Brendan O'Brien who produced and mixed a number of albums leading up to "Magic" which is virtually unlistenable on cd and barely so on vinyl as well as "Working on a Dream". Wonder why the only song that sounds good on "Working on a Dream" is "The Wrestler" ? It's cause it's the only one produced by Bruce, recorded by Toby Scott and mixed by Bob Clearmountain. It wasn't part of the Working on a Dream sessions and it shows. Even Ludwig has been unable to make the other stuff sound like music. This later stuff is not wall of sound, but wall of crap.
I thank the day that Bruce let current producer Ron Aniello into the fold. I"m also happy every time I see Clearmountain in mixing or mastering.
astewart8944
499 posts
 
After reading all the above posts I had my family (6 of us ranging in age from 11-49) listen to portions of some older Springsteen CDs, including BTR, and compare them to Wrecking Ball. The system we listened through is a Linn Unidisk 1.1/NAD C375BEE/PSB Imagine T/REL-R328 kit. The decision was unanimous. Wrecking Ball is a much more enjoyable listening experience. You don't have to be an "audiophile" to hear the great contrast. BTR is a muddy recording, and being a long time Springsteen fan I accept the statement above that Springsteen intended it to be so....However, playing Wrecking Ball immediately after BTR makes me wish that the clarity found on the latest recording was present on BTR. Having said that, I'll still listen to BTR and other Springsteen recordings over and over because I don't know a singer/songwriter that captures the ecstasy, agony, pain, pride and ethos of working class America better than Bruce Springsteen.
lenny_zwik
259 posts
 
Hi Onhwy61,

This is intended to be plain English, not hyperbole. And no, there's nothing wrong. They all sound like hash, grating to my ears with little bottom end and the vocals lost somewhere in the mix. All 'cept for maybe the anniversary release of BTR which sounds acceptable. Others have commented on the wall of sound approach, but.... Given S'steen's supposed meticulous approach in the studio, it's surprising.
More to discover