View Full Version : Is absolute simplicity the key to the highest fidelity recordings?
Someone somewhere else wrote this recently in reference to recording live music in the most accurate, faithful, and therefore best sounding way possible, which I agree with entirely:
A FIGURE OF EIGHT SET OF GOOD RIBBON MICROPHONES hung above and just behind the conductor (as he has the best position of all) wired directly to a minimalist desk with *NO* eq straight onto a 1/4 inch or 1/2 inch two track 15ips EMI or Studer tape deck. Or even more preferable direct to the cutting head though those are few and far between.
The example used was with classical music, but I presume the same could be achieved with live acoustic jazz or rock music, and many other genres. The recording process used above of course is from a bygone era, more is the pity.... :(
However, given that the above process seems so *simple*, why have we over-complicated things today and consequently the recording sound quality of our favourite music has suffered as a result? Basically, why aren't recordings done this way anymore as a matter of course?
Excuse my ignorance here, as I've never been inside a studio in my life, nor have I ever recorded any live music, so I've no idea what's involved or what the commercial priorities are these days in terms of the music business, but I can state quite categorically that the finest recordings I own (in terms of sound quality) are those I have on vinyl from around the 1956-58 era, on labels such as Capitol, RCA Victor, Decca and EMI, which would've likely resulted from the process as described above.
No other recordings I have from a more modern era come close as far as sound quality is concerned (and here I mean in terms of breathtaking realism)!
Your opinions on this, chaps, would be appreciated :cool:
Marco.
Rare Bird
04-03-2010, 15:59
the finest recordings I own (in terms of sound quality) are those I have on vinyl from around the 1956-58 era,
An era where there was no sound destroying studio recording tactics..Who the hell invented over dubs for christ sake. :rolleyes:
You can't record "Magical Mystery Tour" or "Sgt Peppers" or "Abbey Road" (just to name three) with eight microphones directly in a deck. ;)
But I guess this is valid for folk/jazz/classical. In fact, this is the way these styles are recorded, anyway... no ?
Hi Dimitri.
You can't record "Magical Mystery Tour" or "Sgt Peppers" or "Abbey Road" (just to name three) with eight microphones directly in a deck.
Could you explain why? Bear in mind that as far as this stuff is concerned, I'm a complete novice - in fact, less than that! :eyebrows:
I'd just like to know a little more about it.
Marco.
Marco sometimes there is a difference between great recorded music and great music as Demtri hinted most of the great rock and pop albums are using a lot of trickery
I hope we can get people from the record Industry to contribute to this thread as I think it could be an interesting learning experience and as always I am willing to learn
An era where there was no sound destroying studio recording tactics..Who the hell invented over dubs for christ sake. :rolleyes:
There wouldn't be much in the way of prog without overdubbing and all the other studio wizardry that followed it.:)
HighFidelityGuy
04-03-2010, 16:56
It's been a while since I've been in a recording studio and I never really did a great deal of proper recording but I would say that this level of simplicity is only suitable for a small range of musical genres or artist types. I could imagine it would work ok for small ensembles or specifically acoustic performances.
Anything that involves electric guitars, drum kits and loud stuff like that would be tricky to record in this manner. This is because it's very difficult to get a rock band to play all their instruments etc at the correct level all at the same time so that it sounds balanced though one mic (or mic pair). That's why bands usually lay down each part individually to a separate track and then all the tracks are mastered into the final 2 channel recording that gets pressed to CD.
As most music these days is either electronic based or involves bands, the modern way of recording is more suitable. However, there are of course still some genres that could be recorded in a more simplistic way but most studios wouldn't be setup to allow that, so they'll just use what they know.
Luckily there are some studios that fit in the middle like Chesky (http://www.chesky.com/) who go out of there way to allow the best possible recording quality for a wide range of music.
There's also the problem that many modern "artists" can't sing or play their instruments for toffee, so they need all the modern digital trickery to make them sound half decent. These are usually the artists that sell the most records, so these are the artists that the big studios cater for.
:)
Hi Dimitri.
Could you explain why? Bear in mind that as far as this stuff is concerned, I'm a complete novice - in fact, less than that! :eyebrows:
I'd just like to know a little more about it.
Marco.
Yes, well, I'm not a real specialist either, Marco. But in most complex pop/rock albums (like Andre and John mention) there are tens of instruments played at different moments, recorded separately, then mixed together on two tracks. I don't have the details, but (to give you an idea) even 24 track were not enough to record a 4-member-band...
Perhaps if the groups had tens of musicians and/or recorded only one instrument played by each, they could record "live" but... a lot of albums are quite complex. Some songs have 3-4 different electric guitars, sometimes at the same time (I think you have six simultaneous guitars on Hotel California). It's very difficult to record them "directly" on two tracks. You need a lot of mixing.
But, still, your initial subject is right: classical/jazz can (and should) be recorded "with breathtaking realism" as you say. There's no reason for not doing so, as far as I know. ;)
You seem to say that post-1960 recordings are not "realistic", though ? :scratch:
To my ears, no where near as realistic sounding as those early recordings, Dimitri - they are *very* special indeed, even though most are in mono... Perhaps it's the valve microphones and mixing desks that's the decisive factor (over and above simplicity)? :)
Thanks for all the info so far, chaps - most interesting! I will comment more later.
Marco.
Ali Tait
04-03-2010, 18:10
I agree here Marco,there are some fabulous recordings from that era.As for modern recordings,try opus3.They use all valve gear from mic to mixer.Stunning recordings,no dubs or trickery of any kind,the music is recorded "live" straight to tape.
Hi Ali,
Thanks for that - I agree, too! :eyebrows:
Which genres of music recordings do Opus3 produce - is it solely classical?
Marco.
The Grand Wazoo
04-03-2010, 18:17
Marco,
I'd say the answer to your question is yes the method described is the key to the highest fidelity recordings.
That's the way the best recordings of acoustic music I've heard were recorded.
The other things that folk are talking of are studio cut & paste constructions & cannot strictly speaking be faithful to the original as the original rarely exists. To record a live electric rock band in the above way is possible, but not often done I think. Maybe because it doesn't sound particularly good?
Is the best sound in a rock venue the one the guy who's doing the mixing hears? Probably.
Listen to some of the old Blue Note & Verve jazz recordings - you can feel the acoustic of the room. Close your eyes & you can almost see the players there with you.
Go! by Dexter Gordon is one of my favourites for being at the recording venue.
Hi Chris,
The other things that folk are talking of are studio cut & paste constructions & cannot strictly speaking be faithful to the original as the original rarely exists.
Sorry, excuse my ignorance again, but surely there exists an original of ANY recording? Or am I missing something?
To record a live electric rock band in the above way is possible, but not often done I think.
Why not if it would produce better results, sonically? Is it because of cost?
Maybe because it doesn't sound particularly good?
I see. Why would that be?
Is the best sound in a rock venue the one the guy who's doing the mixing hears? Probably.
So is this the universal source then for the original, and if not why not if it's the best sound?
Listen to some of the old Blue Note & Verve jazz recordings - you can feel the acoustic of the room. Close your eyes & you can almost see the players there with you.
I completely agree with you. I've got loads of Blue Note jazz stuff on vinyl and it always sounds stunning! Again the 'magic' era seems to be the late 50s, which I believe is when most of this music was recorded.
So what do you think was going on in the late 50s which produced so many amazing sounding recordings (of undoubtedly great music) - what was the 'magic recipe' during that era?
Sorry for all the questions, btw, but I'm genuinely interested and trying to learn here :cool:
Marco.
Rare Bird
04-03-2010, 19:04
There wouldn't be much in the way of prog without overdubbing and all the other studio wizardry that followed it.:)
Very Early prog don't have much of that shit ;)
Rare Bird
04-03-2010, 19:11
Yes, well, I'm not a real specialist either, Marco. But in most complex pop/rock albums (like Andre and John mention) there are tens of instruments played at different moments, recorded separately, then mixed together on two tracks. I don't have the details, but (to give you an idea) even 24 track were not enough to record a 4-member-band...
Perhaps if the groups had tens of musicians and/or recorded only one instrument played by each, they could record "live" but... a lot of albums are quite complex. Some songs have 3-4 different electric guitars, sometimes at the same time (I think you have six simultaneous guitars on Hotel California). It's very difficult to record them "directly" on two tracks. You need a lot of mixing.
But, still, your initial subject is right: classical/jazz can (and should) be recorded "with breathtaking realism" as you say. There's no reason for not doing so, as far as I know. ;)
You seem to say that post-1960 recordings are not "realistic", though ? :scratch:
Dimitri:
Listern very carefully to ELP 'Tarkus' sound quality wise & then listern to 'Brain Salad Surgery', the latter is full of shit overdubbs etc, it kills the sound, 'Tarkus' is simple clear & rich, almost raw, you can hear every instrument & vocal as clear as day with heaps of space around everything. 'Brain Salad Surgery' is closed in & dull by comparison, you cannot hear each individulal drum in the way you can the earlier 'Tarkus'..Albums started showing this by 1973.
Or even more preferable direct to the cutting head though those are few and far between.
As far as Lp cutting is concerned that's a very bad way to do it.
The cutting electronics & enginner needs to look ahead to see what's coming in both frequency and volume in order to vary (increase/decrease) the 'space between the grooves' (cutting pitch? I can't remember what it's called).
It can be done live on the fly if the cutter is very experienced and is following the score, but if he doesn't leave enough room between the grooves, a loud sound or deep bass note will cause the groove to merge into the groove next to it, and ruin the cut.
When they used to record direct to disc, they got round the problems by having two, three, or even four cutting lathes running at the same time, so If one engineer got it wrong, hopefully the others would get it right. If all three or four screwed up, one would have to start the recording again from scratch and try again.
Also, recording to tape first means that you know what the maximum level is and therefore can cut to the correct volume and not overload the cutting head.
Also, grooves are more easily damaged/contaminated by dirt, and laquers are quite soft until they are electro-plated etc, so it's better to have your master on tape than LP.
All that accounts for the reason why direct to lacquer recordings are far and few between.
Kris.
Listern very carefully to ELP 'Tarkus' sound quality wise & then listern to 'Brain Salad Surgery', the latter is full of shit overdubbs etc, it kills the sound, 'Tarkus' is simple clear & rich, almost raw, you can hear every instrument & vocal as clear as day with heaps of space around everything.
Indeed, Andre - and the above doesn't just apply to prog! :)
As far as I'm concerned, what you describe above should be the universal standard on all recordings out with of 'chart music' and all other commercial pap (as there are other agendas there), but clearly it isn't, as quality varies massively even in recordings of 'proper' music, and I'm unsure as to why... Surely every studio (where possible) should be striving for excellence in terms of sound quality - is it really so difficult to achieve?
Marco.
Hi Kris,
As far as Lp cutting is concerned that's a very bad way to do it.
Bear in mind that I was quoting someone else, who to my (uneducated mind in these matters) seemed to be talking sense.
Thanks for the clarification :)
Marco.
The Grand Wazoo
04-03-2010, 19:28
Sorry, excuse my ignorance again, but surely there exists an original of ANY recording? Or am I missing something?
What I mean here is that these recordings are made without there ever being an actual single performance of the music. Lay down the drums & bass, then some rhythm guitar, then some vocals, then some more drum fills, then the lead guitar, the the nose-flute, then the cowbells, then the string quartet etc etc.........
Why not if it would produce better results, sonically? Is it because of cost?.........
.......Maybe because it doesn't sound particularly good?
............I see. Why would that be?
I may be completely wrong, but an awful lot of gigs who sound crap if recorded faithfully. Take away the event, the visuals & the atmosphere & you'd not really want to listen to it at home! Levels are often badly matched.
So what do you think was going on in the late 50s which produced so many amazing sounding recordings (of undoubtedly great music) - what was the 'magic recipe' during that era?
My opinion?
Labels owned by people who cared about the music (even if they didn't always care about the performers).
Lack of gadgetry - if it doesn't exist, you can't use it & you don't think you have the 'magic wand' to make bad recording practice & bad musicianship into a good recording.
Pride in workmanship.
All valve.
All analogue.
Ali Tait
04-03-2010, 19:38
Hi Ali,
Thanks for that - I agree, too! :eyebrows:
Which genres of music recordings do Opus3 produce - is it solely classical?
Marco.
Classical,blues and jazz I think.A few of Eric Bibb's albums were recorded by them.These are how I found out how good they were.
Levels are often badly matched.
In a live situation recording with a simple M/S (figure 8 + omni) or Blumien (sp?) (two figure 8s crossed at whatever chosen degrees which I feel is best as it captures the ambience more) one needs to match the levels of the performers by moving them closer to or further away from the mic.
It's mostly a lost art these days now that each performer has their own mic and the levels are matched on the board. Also it's easier to move a fader rather than move a performer!
Classical,blues and jazz I think.A few of Eric Bibb's albums were recorded by them.These are how I found out how good they were.
Yep, I've got most of Eric Bibb's albums, and only realised now you've mentioned it that they're on Opus3 :)
Marco.
Another example comes to mind : Joe Jackson's "Big World" (1986) album was recorded live (although it was a "studio" album") with just very few invited audience.
Although it should have been perfect, this album doesn't sound particularly "well recorded" to my ears. I think that minimal mixing is not a sufficient guarantee of a perfect sound.
On the other hand, Robert Wyatt's "Rock Bottom" (1974) was heavily mixed (he did a lot of mixing himself, if I recall properly). But the quality of the recording is exceptional.
I have to agree with Marco, there's more than just the way an album was recorded. It's quite possible that the recorders/mixers quality and the passion, interest and professionalism in the recording/mixing process is essential. ;)
It's mostly a lost art these days now that each performer has their own mic and the levels are matched on the board. Also it's easier to move a fader rather than move a performer!
So the reason for some low standards in recording nowadays is generally a mixture of apathy and lack of skill?
Why doesn't that surprise me - it applies in so many areas of modern life! People rarely put quality before convenience these days in anything - it's all about 'the bottom line' or the 'cheap and cheerful', with professionalism and high standards taking a nosedive as a result :rolleyes:
Marco.
Could you explain why? Bear in mind that as far as this stuff is concerned, I'm a complete novice - in fact, less than that! :eyebrows:
To name a few reasons..
the phases of drums
Distorted guitars need to be over-dubbed to stop them sounding thin and shrill
Too many instuments share the same frequency band
Different instruments have different volumes and dynamic ranges
Too much natural reverb can spoil the sound and alter the soundstage
etc.
Hi Chris,
My opinion?
Labels owned by people who cared about the music (even if they didn't always care about the performers).
Lack of gadgetry - if it doesn't exist, you can't use it & you don't think you have the 'magic wand' to make bad recording practice & bad musicianship into a good recording.
Pride in workmanship.
All valve.
All analogue.
Nail > head! What concerns me most though is the apparent lack of pride in workmanship and labels owned by people who care about music. There is no excuse for that, so why do you think standards in those particular areas have seemingly declined so much?
Marco.
Hi Marc,
To name a few reasons..
the phases of drums
Distorted guitars need to be over-dubbed to stop them sounding thin and shrill
Too many instuments share the same frequency band
Different instruments have different volumes and dynamic ranges
Too much natural reverb can spoil the sound and alter the soundstage
etc.
I see, but if recording engineers really wanted to, and time wasn't an issue, isn't there a way round that and at the same time simplifying the procedure and retaining as much fidelity as possible to original sound - or am I talking bollocks here? :)
Marco.
I have to agree with Marco, there's more than just the way an album was recorded. It's quite possible that the recorders/mixers quality and the passion, interest and professionalism in the recording/mixing process is essential. ;)
As Reg Presley said 'You gotta sprinkle a little bit o' fairy dust over the bastard!'
but if recording engineers really wanted to, and time wasn't an issue
A lot of recording engineers don't have the artistic licence to do what they want. Instead they have to do as they are told. The client knows what he wants, the client pays the bills, the recording engineer has to do what he's told. If he's very famous or very bold/stupid, then he'll say NO, we'll do it my way.
Independent and small record companies tend to give the Tonmeister (professional recording engineer) more artistic freedom.
However sometimes even the best most respected pros have do do what they are told (e.g the Iron Maiden CD which sounds crap because it's compressed to hell)
A lot of recording engineers don't have the artistic licence to do what they want. Instead they have to do as they are told.
However sometimes even the best most respected pros have do do what they are told (e.g the Iron Maiden CD which sounds crap because it's compressed to hell)
Thanks for that, Kris - noted. So who is barking all these orders at people to drive down standards and what are the reasons behind it?
Basically, I'm trying to understand the mentality of why any client of a recording studio would deliberately want to create an inferior product, other than to save money - is that what this is ultimately all about? Or is it merely pandering to the lower standards and apathy of the undiscerning masses?
If it’s not just about that, then surely if you have the ability to make a product really good, you would do that, rather than deliberately make something bad and/or not really care about how good it turns out? Essentially, why settle for mediocrity if you don't have to?
It’s that "pride in workmanship" thing Chris alluded to earlier. Is this attitude largely absent these days in recording studios, and if so, why?
Perhaps my thinking is overly simplistic here, but as someone who values quality in all things in life, and always strives for excellence in anything I produce in my own business, I find it difficult to rationalise or understand any other type of business model :)
Marco.
Hi Marc,
I see, but if recording engineers really wanted to, and time wasn't an issue, isn't there a way round that and at the same time simplify the procedure to retain as much fidelity as possible to original sound - or am I talking bollocks here? :)
Marco.
If you mean original sound as the studio version then you just can't do that live.
How do you record an acoustic guitar or a vocal with a drum kit pounding away a couple of feet away from it ?
It would need to be seperately mic'd and if you're going to close mic each instrument then you might as well just track it in a studio booth or direct feed it to the mixer and remove the ugly room reverb from the sound.
It's possible to get really good live recordings of bands but they won't be the same as the studio versions.
You just can't record certain instruments, stereo mic'd, together in a room and hear them both clearly... unless you like the Ultravox - Vienna type kick drums :)
Hi Marc,
It would need to be seperately mic'd and if you're going to close mic each instrument then you might as well just track it in a studio booth or direct feed it to the mixer and remove the ugly room reverb from the sound.
Thanks for that. So why isn't the above common practice if a) it *can* be done, and b) if it'd more likely give better results - or is this what generally happens anyway? :)
If so, why do so many modern recordings sound shit?
It's possible to get really good live recordings of bands...
Then every studio should strive to achieve that!
Marco.
An era where there was no sound destroying studio recording tactics..Who the hell invented over dubs for christ sake. :rolleyes:
I think the chap who did was a bit of a legend..........Les Paul
Stratmangler
04-03-2010, 21:04
Something you are forgetting Marco is that a lot of newer artists cannot cut it in the studio - if you saw the rerecording of Sgt Pepper documentary you'll know what I mean - some of them can't pull out a performance, which is essentially what I think you're getting at.
The Opus3 Eric Bibb recordings are all one take performances - there is no mixdown occurring as all the performers were recorded with stereo cross pair microphones. Sometimes there were upwards of a dozen musicians on the studio floor.
If you want a great one take of a rock band in full flow try "Going Mobile" off The Who's epic Who's Next album.
The main track is acoustic guitar, bass and drums, all recorded together in one take with live vocal by Pete Townshend. All the instruments occupy their own track on the tape, but it's a live performance, with overdubs and fairy dust added afterwards.
If you want to hear something really chilling then listen to "Riviera Paradise" from Stevie Ray Vaughan's "In Step" album. The track mentioned was the last Stevie Ray was to record, and it was again predominantly a live performance. The tape literally ran off the spool just after the last note had died away. Overdubs and fairy dust added later.
Chris:)
Thanks for that. So why isn't the above common practice if a) it *can* be done, and b) if it'd more likely give better results - or is this what generally happens anyway? :)
Marco.
Ok..
You have to understand how studio recordings are made to give a certain sound.
to use an example i'll use the kick drum and bass guitar.
On a studio recording you are hearing really heavily EQ'd sounds. A kick drum uses alot of frequency range (as well as dynamic range). It has a deep thud, which is the body of the sound along with the clicky attack sound.
A bass guitar also has a similar character and also has a deep sustained note along with a higher pitched pluck sound.
If you just record the two of them then the sound will overlap and you will have two instruments fighting for the same audio space. It won't sound nice.
To get around this you need to filter (low EQ cut) the bottom end of the kick drum out so you can let the bass guitar take up that space in the sound field.
Now you'll have a bit of a problem with the pluck of the guitar being masked slightly by the upper part of the kick drum so you cut out a bit of the kick and boost the bass pluck, and then finally boost the kick drum impact click higher up in the midrange.
Once that is done then you need to make sure that all the notes of the guitar are audible, we are humans and due to the dynamic range of the kick, a slightly lower pluck of your guitar and it will vanish behind the kick drum, while a slightly louder pluck will overpower the kick - so we compress the sound so the volume range stays within the correct levels.
Now imagine having that problem with 2 lead guitars , hi hats, vocals , pianos , organs , synths, etc etc..
Each instrument needs it's own frequency space and if that isn't possible then you need to place it in a stereo space by panning.
It's quite difficult to explain this in laymans terms , especially since I have no idea of your knowledge of mixing,EQ and compressing etc.
Hope that was clear for you ?
Most classic rock and pop songs are items of artifice rather than simplicity. For example the version of 'Strawberry Fields Forever' that was released as a single consists of bits of many different 'takes' spliced together. I doubt if you could produce anything like that sound with the band playing together. The same goes for 'Good Vibrations' and 'River Deep, Mountain High'.
Some producers have a 'house' sound; with the likes of Joe Meek, Trevor Horn and Phil Spector you get their trademark effects whoever you are. Other producers will produce the sound the artist wants and will essentially be 'invisible'.
There isn't a single right or wrong way of producing music. Sometimes simplicity and a 'live' feel is best, sometimes something more complex and artificial is better. The proof is in the end product.
Thanks guys - that's much clearer now :)
What I'm essentially getting at though is this:
If you want a great one take of a rock band in full flow try "Going Mobile" off The Who's epic Who's Next album.
The main track is acoustic guitar, bass and drums, all recorded together in one take with live vocal by Pete Townshend. All the instruments occupy their own track on the tape, but it's a live performance, with overdubs and fairy dust added afterwards.
If you want to hear something really chilling then listen to "Riviera Paradise" from Stevie Ray Vaughan's "In Step" album. The track mentioned was the last Stevie Ray was to record, and it was again predominantly a live performance. The tape literally ran off the spool just after the last note had died away. Overdubs and fairy dust added later.
Noted - cheers :cool:
*SO*..............
If The Who and Stevie Ray Vaughan can do this, why can't other artists and/or the studios involved in producing the recordings? Incidentally, I'm not talking here about musical talent - I'm talking about recording techniques, which would appear to guarantee a certain 'magic'...
Marco.
Stratmangler
04-03-2010, 21:22
Strawberry Fields - the radio interview with George Martin was fascinating. The mellotron and the lead vocal were in different keys, and somehow they managed to slow one down enough and speed t'other one up enough to get them to produce some kind of viable performance. Genius.
Chris:)
If The Who and Stevie Ray Vaughan can do this, why can't other artists and/or studios? Incidentally, I'm not talking here about musical talent - I'm talking about recording techniques, which would appear to guarantee a certain 'magic'...
Marco.
Because there's more than one type of 'magic'?
Stratmangler
04-03-2010, 21:27
I'm talking about recording techniques, which would appear to guarantee a certain 'magic'...
Marco.
Fact is though that it's very difficult to polish a turd !!
If the performance isn't there in the first place there is no amount of studio trickery can compensate for that.
Chris:)
Because there's more than one type of 'magic'?
Ok I get that, Joe, but the type of "magic" - let's call it 'uncanny realism' - I'm referring to is what Chris alluded to earlier, and what I hear in many recordings on vinyl from the late 1950s...
Recordings just don't sound like that these days, but I think I now know why.
Marco.
Hi Chris,
Fact is though that it's very difficult to polish a turd !!
If the performance isn't there in the first place there is no amount of studio trickery can compensate for that.
I agree.
I guess what I'm looking for is the recordings I have on both vinyl and CD of my favourite contemporary music to sound as good as those I have on jazz albums and such like from the late 1950s - in essence to get the sheer 'realism' I love of that sound throughout my music collection...
Yes I know - one can want, eh! :eyebrows:
Marco.
Rare Bird
04-03-2010, 22:44
Simplicity within recording was the key to the best sound, as the years went buy & studios advanced hence the quality lacked. I know someone on here will disagree with exceptions but they better be valid exceptions for me to buy it! ;)
Here's a very interesting related article:
http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html#INTRO
Marco.
The Vinyl Adventure
05-03-2010, 02:11
Do you have a copy of the first president's of the USA ablum marco, it's well worth owning anyway, but as far as I can tell it's aslo recorded in a very simplistic way with great results ... There are part where I'm pretty certain you can hear the effect other instruments have on the snare drum, it sounds very live!
A couple of people mentioned using different recording techniques that suit the music or say something about the band, that's very much the case with the first pusa album - simple fun music recorded in a simple fun way.
I think that another example of this must be all the shiiiiite (said in a mancunian accent) indi music that is recorded like oasis.. It all sounds the same, and not just because they all only use 3 chords...
I did music tech at college, unfortunately I can remember only a fraction of it, and nothing realy useful to this convo
Hi Hamish,
No I don't have that album, but I'll look out for it. Got any links? :)
Continuing discussion of the thread topic, could I ask people to carefully consider the points raised here by Chris and me (particularly what I've highlighted in bold) and offer their opinions on the matter:
My opinion?
Labels owned by people who cared about the music (even if they didn't always care about the performers).
Lack of gadgetry - if it doesn't exist, you can't use it & you don't think you have the 'magic wand' to make bad recording practice & bad musicianship into a good recording.
Pride in workmanship.
All valve.
All analogue.
Nail > head! What concerns me most though is the apparent lack of pride in workmanship and labels owned by people who care about music. There is no excuse for that, so why do you think standards in those particular areas have seemingly declined so much?
Do we agree that in general there now exists a "lack of pride in workmanship" and also a lack of people who really care about music in today's recording studios, compared to how it was in the 50s and 60s, and if so, why??
Could it be because computer technology has in many cases 'dumbed down' the value of music and turned it into a disposible commodity, thus robbing it of the worth to people it once had?
Maybe that's why there are less recording engineers and studios now that really care about music because they're catering in general for a less demanding and discerning audience - and it is *this* which is driving down standards?
Marco.
Hi Hamish,
Do we agree that in general there now exists a "lack of pride in workmanship" and also a lack of people who really care about music in today's recording studios, compared to how it was in the 50s and 60s, and if so, why??
Could it be because computer technology has in many cases 'dumbed down' the value of music and turned it into a disposible commodity, thus robbing it of the worth it once had?
Maybe that's why there are less recording engineers and studios now that really care about music because they're catering in general for a less demanding and discerning audience - and it is *this* which is driving down standards?
Marco.
Have you ever thought that it's not them and it's you?
As you say, millions of people actually don't mind listening to recent albums and their production so maybe you just prefer the old production methods to the newer ones.
Old recordings tended to have background noise, used equipment which coloured the sound, used less tracks ,used less compression and effects, recorded in rooms without acoustic treatments and mastered to work on vinyl.
Maybe you just prefer this type of sound over the new perfect quality but clinical/uncoloured recording, similar to a way where some people prefer old valve amps and large warm type speakers.
Hi Marc,
Have you ever thought that it's not them and it's you?
Lol - anything's possible of course, but I honestly don't think so :)
I'm not exactly alone in this view - I'm quite sure that the majority of people here would agree with my sentiments, based on their own similar experiences.
As you say, millions of people actually don't mind listening to recent albums and their production so maybe you just prefer the old production methods to the newer ones.
I think that's beyond question, but perhaps if the millions of people you're referring to heard what the old production methods were capable of, and on systems which can successfully resolve the differences, they'd agree with me? ;)
Old recordings tended to have background noise, used equipment which coloured the sound, used less tracks ,used less compression and effects, recorded in rooms without acoustic treatments and mastered to work on vinyl.
Based on my experience to date of good old and new recordings, I'd strongly disagree with the bit in bold, so I'm afraid we'll have to agree to differ on that matter.
And, by the way, I don't favour classic 1950s recordings on vinyl because they're 'warm & cosy' sounding - quite the opposite, in fact: they're amongst the most vividly detailed and dynamic sounding recordings I've heard, which is *precisely* what I'm looking for from both the recording quality of my music collection and the equipment which reproduces it!
Maybe you just prefer this type of sound over the new perfect quality but clinical/uncoloured recording, similar to a way where some people prefer old valve amps and large warm type speakers.
Lol - 'the new perfect quality uncoloured recordings' you're referring to are by no means the universal standard available now; many are sadly far from that. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of very good recordings around now on both vinyl and CD, just not to my ears of quite the same standard as what was achieved in that respect in the golden era of high quality all-analogue recordings of the 50s and 60s.
Incidentally, I own neither an old valve amp nor "warm type speakers".
Marco.
saltleyseagulls
05-03-2010, 10:31
Perhaps members should read the thread where these quotes and links are coming from.
http://thehifisubjectivist.noadforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=63&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
Hi Saltley,
Welcome to AOS!
Indeed - and people are welcome to do so. That's where I got the idea for this thread :)
Perhaps, before contributing further, you could pop into the welcome area and introduce yourself properly by providing your real first name, basic location details, and what your system consists of, including music tastes, as we ask of all our new members?
For your convenience, here's a link to the relevant area of the forum: http://theartofsound.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15
You can use the infomation contained in threads there as a template for what is required.
Cheers! :cool:
Marco.
Stratmangler
05-03-2010, 10:42
I rather liked this comment
High (price) End and High (quality music) End and the two are not necessarily mutual.
Chris:)
I think it can be done, and sometimes is... look at the quality of some classic audiophile recordings, like 'The Colour of Spring' (Talk Talk) and some of Sting's solo stuff. And it's not limited to big-budget artists - I've some albums by people like Jackie Leven, Duke Special, Brian Houston - all small label (or self-published) artistes who've made excellent albums sonically (and musically too)... I think now though, for many artistes (and more importantly producers, and the record companies that fund them) ultimate quality isn't a prerequisite. Good enough will do.
In the TV world, technical standards have dropped massively over time, as the need for more and more content delivered via ever-decreasing quality transmission has proliferated. Now the production of an album is similar in execution to the production of a TV programme, and it's all too easy to pander to the lowest common denominator. Remember we're in a small minority here - the few who care about decent sound quality and love music enough to spend money seeking that quality out. So why should the record companies spend maybe twice as much (after all, the law of diminishing returns applies as much to recording as it does to playback) to make a recording 'just so' when 90% of the listening public won't even notice, let alone give a toss? In fact, given the appalling quality most are happy with, and the need to mix for radio (and increasingly now low bitrate compressed formats) it's often a wonder that anything good gets through.
I'm convinced too that there's often a problem with either the hearing of the mixing and recording engineers fading over time (Rick Rubin for starters) and equally at the younger end of the spectrum, newcomers to the studio not knowing some of the basics about sound recording. Now this may lead to exciting 'pushing the envelope' stuff - a bit like Martin and the Beatles back when recording engineers wore lab coats - but it can also lead to some execrable sh*te!
There's a maxim that I'm fond of - 'Fast, Cheap, Good - Pick ANY TWO...' and I think therin lies the answer for much of the lessening of quality in today's world, of which audio and picture quality are just two.
My 2 pence worth!
Jason
Hi Jason,
Excellent post - I agree with much of it :)
Remember we're in a small minority here - the few who care about decent sound quality and love music enough to spend money seeking that quality out. So why should the record companies spend maybe twice as much (after all, the law of diminishing returns applies as much to recording as it does to playback) to make a recording 'just so' when 90% of the listening public won't even notice, let alone give a toss?
Thing is, and perhaps someone else or you here could educate me, how much difference in cost is there likely to be between achieving a standard of "good enough will do", and "just so", in terms of recording quality?
What I'm really getting at is if achieving high standards of recording quality in studios is simply an out-and-out matter of cost, or if it's more to do with engineers not being bothered to 'go the extra mile' in terms of making the most of their abilities - abilities that could be executed without necessarily raising the costs of making recordings (in effect the worker making better use of his tools, as it were)?
If it's mainly, or even significantly the latter, then in my view that tells us quite a lot about our general attitude to and expectations of music these days compared to how it was in the likes of the 50s and 60s, 70s and even the 80s - all generally before computers got a significant foothold in our lives!
I would therefore ask people to consider specifically this point which I raised earlier:
Could it be because computer technology has in many cases 'dumbed down' the value of music and turned it into a disposible commodity, thus robbing it of the worth to people it once had?
Am I the only one here who thinks this?
Marco.
Stratmangler
05-03-2010, 12:26
What I'm really getting at is if achieving high standards of recording quality in studios is simply an out-and-out matter of cost, or if it's more to do with engineers not being bothered to 'go the extra mile' in terms of making the most of their abilities - abilities that could be executed without necessarily raising the costs of making recordings?
I don't think cost necessarily comes into the equation. Actually giving a damn does.
Most recording engineers' and mastering engineers' hands are tied by the client, usually a record company.
Record companies merely want their product to get noticed on the radio - quality doesn't come into it.
Chris:)
Indeed, Chris - and isn't that a sad indictment of today's society? :(
It never used to be so! So what's gone wrong - why are people now satisfied with generally poorer standards?
Marco.
Marco,
I think it's a bit of both. Record companies, especially in today's climate, are under pressure to cut costs, and I think the 'good enough' mentality plays in to that a lot. I know in my line of business (TV) that there's been an increasing move to use 'self-shooting' directors. Now this may be utterly appropriate in some circumstances, and often the programmes that result can be compelling viewing, but when it's emplyed as a cost-cutting measure then quality can suffer. The extra quality, creativity and technical perfection a dedicated cameraman/woman can bring is lost. It's the same with recorded sound, I fear. I don't think that computer technology per se has resulted in this - indeed, as I argued before in another thread a while back, the increased access to high-quality digital recording has opened up the field to all comers in many ways - but this is a two-edged sword. Again, in my world, the advent of cheap non-linear editing packages has meant a proliferation of 'editors' who've learnt the package, but can't tell a story for toffee, and make numerous technical 'muck ups' (sp) along the way. Ditto for cameras... so the 'old lags' bought up on tape systems that know their onions find themselves passed over by producers wanting cheaper and cheaper labour, as budgets get ever tightened.
I think it has more to do with the disposable nature of media consumption nowadays. I've albums that I bought with my hard-earned 30 years ago, that still sound good today - I had a physical thing in my hand that demanded care and attention. Nowadays the nearest many get to physically owning something is the hard drive on which the bits are stored, and if you loose it, no matter - just download another. If pride of ownership goes, the next link in the chain - that of manafacture - inevitably suffers. People will happily buy crappy shoes made in China that last a year - no worries, if it breaks (and it will) then just get another. In fact it'll probably be out of fashion before then anyway... but ask these same people to spend maybe five times that amount on a handmade pair, that will (with care) last a lifetime - don't be ridiculous!
We're so used to quantity of media now, rather than quality, that the notion of 'fidelity' is almost anachronistic. My parents had maybe 30 or 40 albums. I've got maybe twenty or thirty times that amount. My friends kids have unlimited access to the world's media output via Spotify, BitTorrent, Limewire and the rest. Their priority isn't about quality of consumption, just choice - but to them, the idea of sitting down to listen to an album, start to finish, is just bonkers. I fear, rather like the slow food movement, we're pushing against a tide that is moving very much against us.
One thing in favour of our position though - as people discover the inherent dissatisfaction in the model of mass consumption, so the appeal of bespoke quality becomes apparent to them, in whatever product you're talking about. There will always be a market for quality, it's up to the consumer to make their preference clear in a capitalist society, and support those who would strive for that - even if it means paying a little extra.
Jason
The Vinyl Adventure
05-03-2010, 12:50
I think perhaps the modern age has done that to everything! everything from music to the stuff it's played on to tv programs, tv's, food, even houses and public buildings. Pretty much everything that is mass produced is created in way that takes little account of quality and longevity and takes more account of the cost to profit ratio's.
Persoannaly I think blameing the computer age is short sighted and chose to blame capitalism ...
If stuff can be made quicker and easier by less highly trained people in less time, then it will be .... I wonder if there is the same amount of high quality music recorded these days as there was 50 years ago... It's just that now mass Market stuff is churned out so quickly that it has become the overwhelming majority of what we hear?
The Vinyl Adventure
05-03-2010, 12:53
Erm yeah, Jason said it better than me...
Erm yeah, Jason said it better than me...
Naah, just had more time on my hands to type waffle!!!! :)
Jason
Stratmangler
05-03-2010, 12:56
Blaming things on computers is not appropriate - things were on the slide long before computers exploded into the public's awareness.
Many youngsters do not seem to have the ability to sit down and concentrate on anything for more than a few seconds, let alone a full album's worth of music.
I think the sad fact is that most people just don't give a monkey's chuff tbh.
I have very fond memories of the anticipation of a new release by one of one's favourite artists - it just doesn't happen any more.
Hearing "Wish You Were Here" for the very first time was for me an emotional experience.
Same with "A Trick Of The Tail" - I was gobsmacked that Genesis could come back with such a strong album after losing such a key member.
Unfortunately music does not fire the public's imagination in the way that it once did.
Chris:)
What's more, you can't whistle the tunes any more, and some of those blokes look like girls with their long hair and poncey clothes.
Great answers, chaps - and most interesting to hear your thoughts on this somewhat thorny subject! :)
I shall comment later, but it may be much later - like after the show pie show at Scalford Hall on Sunday, as I'm now likely to be rather busy until then :cool:
In the meantime, I would ask you consider why this is (undoubtedly) the case:
Their priority isn't about quality of consumption, just choice - but to them, the idea of sitting down to listen to an album, start to finish, is just bonkers.
Many youngsters do not seem to have the ability to sit down and concentrate on anything for more than a few seconds, let alone a full album's worth of music.
Could it be that technology has intruded on our lives to such an extent that our younger generation expect more and more for computers to do everything for them, and so they no longer have the attention span needed to think for themselves in everyday activities, and thus get bored much easier listening to music than we used to?
Chew on that one people! ;)
Laters,
Marco.
Rare Bird
05-03-2010, 18:03
I think we need to take a long step back & realise that technology is the culprit as to why our recording have gotten worse over the years. Today studio engineering is completely off my quality meter cos it's just sheer convenience & nothing else.The reason recording were at their best up to the very early 70's is the studio equipment was pure & simple no high tech gagetry, no racks with outboard gear just bare essential, a few engineers are going back to using the realy old stuff as they know full wel it sounds best, maybe it could be very hard for them to use this gear being use to the new fangled clobber i dunno, i don't see why to be honest maybe just a bit more work.
A prime example of this was a programme on TV a year or so back about the re recording of 'Sgt.Peppers' with a select few modern musicians going into Abbey Road & re-recording the album the original way with original equipment, the old engineers found it simple as they would, the modern musicians used to computer based studio fell flat on their faces, they couldnt keep up with the session run!
The simple equipment & recording techniques really were the key to the best open sound of a recording, i love the rawness.
Sorry to use Beatles 'Sgt.Peppers' as an example but it's what everyone knows...Abbey Road would used one of the then simple EMI mixers along with the Studer 'J37' 4 track multitrackers, in my view the greatest sounding recording equipment ever used..two Studer 'J37' 4 track machines had to be strapped together to form 8 track, wasnt a true 8 Track as you couldnt really over dubb thank the lord, over dubbs are a good thing as a techniqe but will kill the sound, a good harmless effect at this time was Automatic double tracking which was invented by Abbey themselves..Simular but this is not overdubbing..
To overcome the shortage of available tracks bouncing tracks would be performed, this wasnt really a big problem back then, it worked fine for simple small rock band recordings..Just out of intrest, i remember a couple years ago when the Beatles 'Yellow Submarine' Songbook CD was being put together they had a lot of problems working with the original masters because of the bounced of tracks, they had to Sync tapes together to get what they wanted from the masters, but thats their modern problem really, not a problem back then.
Here some picures of machines that gave us proper recordings
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a222/LIVING-SIN/EMIREDD51-1.jpg
EMI desk
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a222/LIVING-SIN/J371.jpg
A single Studer 'J37' machine
Rare Bird
05-03-2010, 18:11
Could it be that technology has intruded on our lives to such an extent that our younger generation expect more and more for computers to do everything for them, and so they no longer have the attention span needed to think for themselves in everyday activities, and thus get bored much easier listening to music than we used to?
Chew on that one people! ;)
That's true they havent there as thick as pig shit.
The Vinyl Adventure
05-03-2010, 18:13
The equipment doesn't make the choise for it to be used though...
Rare Bird
05-03-2010, 18:20
This topic aint about modern equipment but you know & i know modern equipment is used for easyness & cost.
Why do you use a digital Camera over an analogue 35mm? Easyness & cost thats why, even though an analogue camera is far superior
The Vinyl Adventure
05-03-2010, 18:34
Ok, but it's not the fault of the equipment that it's used, also it's the way the equipment is used that is at fault. I would have thought that modern digital equipment if used correctly is capable of equally high quality sound as old school analoge stuff ... It might be different sounding but I'm sure with the right amount of skill in using it, it would be capable... The problem is that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys, and I suspect that is the issue, recording companys arnt willing to pay for highly trained staff or indeed train people highly or even if the people are trained, pay for the time it takes to do it all properly!
(Let's not get into the digital vs film photography thing, Im yet to be convince that film is "far superior" to digital, personnaly I think they have equal but perhaps different merits if used correctly. I'm still gonna prove to shaun that digital can provide a greater dr than that of film)
Rare Bird
05-03-2010, 18:38
I like saying this: Try creating a perfect circle digitally on a computer. It's impossible, if you can't perform a simple task like that digiatally!
btw: analogue film is superior to digital, it's just the industry have rammed shit quality analogue film down our neck all along
The Vinyl Adventure
05-03-2010, 18:48
Yeah, I understand that digital is always going to be stepped, it's never smooth but if the resolution is high enough can those steps be heard ... I don't know the answer to that, I'm not gonna claim I do ... But I would guess the answer is probably not
to put this into a perspective that I do understand, shaun, who loves film and only uses it for his stunning landscapes does what the majority of film users do these days and that is scan his negs into his computer using a high rez scanner to obtain very high quality digital prints. Now I'm sure they are different chemically printed ones but are they worse... Shaun? In terms of detail from one type of print to the other, without a magnifying glass, or even with one can you see a huge difference... And if it's only with a mag glass, then it can't be seen in the real world... And that's my point!
Use the right equipment and use it well be it analogue or digital if the Rez is high enough I'm sure a quality that is high enough to satisfy even the most deserning is obtainable
The Vinyl Adventure
05-03-2010, 19:39
Andre, we are fools, we Nearly turned this into the unspeakeable argument of digital vs analogue... Sorry all ;)
Rare Bird
05-03-2010, 19:51
Andre, we are fools, we Nearly turned this into the unspeakeable argument of digital vs analogue... Sorry all ;)
Thats why i started the post 66 the way i did i knew it was coming ;)
The Vinyl Adventure
05-03-2010, 19:58
Let's just draw a line under it and pretend it didn't happen :)
Let's just draw a line under it and pretend it didn't happen :)
Too late! You're both barred!
The Vinyl Adventure
05-03-2010, 23:25
Il take the blame, I led him on.....
Rare Bird
05-03-2010, 23:47
:lolsign:
Rare Bird
06-03-2010, 00:03
Il take the blame, I led him on.....
Hamish mi owd sausage threads drift on AOS don't worry, not the first time..btw: you got some spare cash i can have i'm very short regarding some sealed NOS open reel pre recorded tapes i'm wanting... a grand will do, i think ;)
The Vinyl Adventure
06-03-2010, 00:27
well yeah... its just the topic we drifted to...
as for the money... spare cash... ha!
Rare Bird
06-03-2010, 01:13
Don't worry everyone knows Analogue is far superior to Digital so no skin off my bones, the quicker i get back there completly the way i wannit the better...
:lol:
:D
The Vinyl Adventure
06-03-2010, 01:22
Bah! Whatever!
....
(the ultimate conclusion to that sensible convo)
Rare Bird
06-03-2010, 01:40
Proof is in the pudin owd cock ;)
Next please :lol:
The Vinyl Adventure
06-03-2010, 01:50
Gad dam it, ya wanna fight about it or summat ;)
I'm not even saying digital is better, all I'm saying is that within the levels of unaided human perseption I can't see how if correctly implemented there can be any difference. Maybe I am wrong, but my main point of all this nonsence is that modern recordings that sound bad are not because of the use of digital equipment but because of it being used poorly. If it was used to it's upmost and analogue was also used to it's upmost, then maybe just maybe analogue would win by a hairs breadth, but in that situation if you could hear I difference in a blind test then I would lend you a bloody grand... Alright, how's that for you, You win! but im still right!
Rare Bird
06-03-2010, 02:07
I'm not saying digital is completely bad, i opened a topic ages ago stating that recording a vinyl album onto a CD-r bears virtually the same results as the original record (Nearly)..You don't wanna go betting on blind tests you'll loose. ;) ...You don't have enough experience in Analogue to claim it's hairs teeth difference, yes granted most CD's you buy sound shit because of how they are presented,that was the whole goal of my test, but even the best CD issues are noticaby different to a great Analogue recording of the same regardless of how great your equipment is...I'm not gonna go too much into it cos that means i'm being hypocrytical as i use CD as a main source, don't get me wrong i far from enjoy CD's infact i hate the fackers...Not be long before i don't have to entertain then anymore. Now behave yourself you argumentative sod ;) :D
The top & bottom who wants a counterfeit sound
The Vinyl Adventure
06-03-2010, 02:39
I really don't have enough experience of anything to have this argument in terms of hifi ... I shoudlnt really say anything as I can't abide people who argue without significant knowledge, and to be fair, I rarely argue about anything ... But in this case I think my previous statement (bar my bet, which I accept is a little silly, specifically this bit
my main point of all this nonsence is that modern recordings that sound bad are not because of the use of digital equipment but because of it being used poorly
- is valid in the context of the thread... And that was all I was saying in the first place - don't blame the kit, blame the people who arnt paid enough to get the best out of it! :ner:
I don't have a lot of experience in terms of this hobby, but I can quite easily state what I see to be obvious and that is
a large portion of modern recordings sound crap because there has obviously been no effort to make them sound good - this must be down to record companies not being willing to pay for them to sound good, as some modern cd's (Regina spektors 'begin to hope' for eg) does sound very good. The reasonable high standards are obtainable, but they are infrequently reached... So like I say, it's not the equipments fault, it's the people useing it.
Have you noticed it's always just you and me left at the end of the night in this place Andre (bar the odd yank) ... We should one day fill the place with noncense for the early birds to clean up ;)
Rare Bird
06-03-2010, 02:54
We should one day fill the place with noncense for the early birds to clean up ;)
I do anyway. ;)
Probarly the best recorded album i heard is VM Bhatt and Ry Cooder A meeting by the River Its all recorded by analogue and is simply stunning, but real care was taken to record this album
For me the biggest sin in modern recording is the loudness war and this simply geared at radio play Bring back real dynamics
Neil Young - 'Tonights the Night' - one of my favourite ever records both music and production-wise, dripping with magic and atmosphere. Recorded in a two room outhouse on his farm - they just knocked a hole in the wall with a hammer and fed the cables through to the desk. No fancy kit, all analogue, mostly single takes with all the crap left in. Now that's a quality recording...
Rare Bird
06-03-2010, 16:27
Isnt it true that Elton John switched the Analogue recording again?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.