Recording Techniques: Advancement or Degradation?

[Clive]

We often talk about striving to get our systems closer to the sound of master tape. There are lots areas, soundstage, imaging, tight bass, airy treble, timing, carrying a tune etc. When recorded music first appeared people simply were aiming for a natural sound with “presence”. It was Ivor et al who relatively recently brought in the tune dem but I digress.
There are some people here who are involved with recording studios and it’s this area that interests me.

There are techniques such as:
- Bouncing / Ping Ponging to mix tracks onto one track to free up tracks,
- Noise Gating to create various effects including tightening up the sound, killing reverb etc

We have the time when 8 track (not the US 8 track...) arrived, then 16 and 24. When multi-track came in this killed off valve mixer desks as solidstate was needed for reliability and space reasons. Tales from that time suggests that many were less happy with the solidstate sound but the creativity multi-track brought won out so we were stuck with solidstate.

There seems to be a strong consensus that the best recordings made are from the 50s and 60s (maybe some in the the 70s too) when technology was simpler and valve based. My experiences bear this out. Of course some modern live or simply record music can be sublime.

I’m not sure where I’m going with this but I suppose the question is, has the pursuit of creative techniques derailed the quality and atmosphere of the recording art?

[Ali Tait]

I agree with you Clive,and certainly the bloody loudness wars haven't helped SQ in recent times. I do think the advent of high resolution digital will eventually be great for recorded sound though. It will take some time, but I think it will surpass everything that has come before.

[Clive]

I hope it will Ali, I suppose one thing that bothers me is that the potential of the higher def technology may not be fully realised. Or put another way, maybe we'll be listening to bands that can't play well but can have their sounds mixed into a good sounding album (this happens loads today already) - these albums should be technically good but will they connect they way a great 50s/60s recording can?

[Welder]

I would agree with you in general as well Clive.
Most studios now are digital; even those that supply masters to the vinyl industry as I understand it.
Fortunately these days most start at 24/96 recording standard and that in theory holds out a bit of hope for higher resolution popular music but it aint happening yet.
A brief look at what’s going on with the “hi res” download sites isn’t so promising unfortunately.
I’m totally confuzzeled concerning the rash of 24/192 kit coming on to the market; where are we going to get recordings at that resolution and bit depth? Seems if anything does get recorded at 24/192 it isn’t going to be popular; at least not with me anyway.

I think it will take a long time before anyone can persuade the recording engineers not to mess about with the final master and let the music go through with minimum interference.

[Clive]

Yes, I think the conclusion I'm coming to is that hi res should be great but I want to listen to a real performance, not one constructed at the mixing desk.

[Ali Tait]

One good thing at the moment is some very good hi.rez remasters coming out. Band on the Run sounds great from a quick listen,and a Duke Ellington I have sounds brilliant. This would be a good way to in the short term at least,though as ever as long as it's done well.

[Rare Bird]

I think i've expressed my feelings regarding recording Sound Quality/Techniques before. For me the best time was late '60's/very early '70's recordings. They were amazing recordings as were the sparce equimpent/techniques they used.I personally think that the progressive advancements in recording techniques by the end of the 60's were gradually killing the sound instead of improveing it the same goes for musical instrument advances, i believe those alone side tracked the musicians originality ...Trident studios in Soho were i think the first to use proper 8 Track multitrack machines, as were the first to use 16 trackers..

The Modern way of doing things with their crystal clear clarity may seem striking (to the majority) by standards back then but to me they just sound shit, horrible thin uncomfortable sounds. As per normal with people, if recording are lazer clear, their hifi are mega bright & detailed that must be best & right eh! on the other hand theirs people who believe in quality & who know what they hear is right & realised the best era for recordings.

You only have to listern to a beatles album from the late '60's to realise what a good recording is. ie: Beatles '' I want you (She's So Heavy)'' from Abbey Road' Never ever ever will you get a modern recording to sound like that

[magiccarpetride]

We often talk about striving to get our systems closer to the sound of master tape. There are lots areas, soundstage, imaging, tight bass, airy treble, timing, carrying a tune etc. When recorded music first appeared people simply were aiming for a natural sound with “presence”. It was Ivor et al who relatively recently brought in the tune dem but I digress.
There are some people here who are involved with recording studios and it’s this area that interests me.

There are techniques such as:
- Bouncing / Ping Ponging to mix tracks onto one track to free up tracks,
- Noise Gating to create various effects including tightening up the sound, killing reverb etc

We have the time when 8 track (not the US 8 track...) arrived, then 16 and 24. When multi-track came in this killed off valve mixer desks as solidstate was needed for reliability and space reasons. Tales from that time suggests that many were less happy with the solidstate sound but the creativity multi-track brought won out so we were stuck with solidstate.

There seems to be a strong consensus that the best recordings made are from the 50s and 60s (maybe some in the the 70s too) when technology was simpler and valve based. My experiences bear this out. Of course some modern live or simply record music can be sublime.

I’m not sure where I’m going with this but I suppose the question is, has the pursuit of creative techniques derailed the quality and atmosphere of the recording art?

I'd say we're talking two disciplines here:

1. Recording a live performance with the goal to capture it as faithfully as possible, in order to transfer the illusion of 'being right there'.
2. Recording and overdubbing with the goal to create sonic experience that is unlike any live performance. In other words, using the recording studio as an instrument.

Which of the two are you talking about?

[Clive]

I'd say we're talking two disciplines here:

1. Recording a live performance with the goal to capture it as faithfully as possible, in order to transfer the illusion of 'being right there'.
2. Recording and overdubbing with the goal to create sonic experience that is unlike any live performance. In other words, using the recording studio as an instrument.

Which of the two are you talking about?
Both really. A recording session in a studio with most of the band playing at the same time would be a good start. This would be very different to the clinical recording of individual instruments and vocals which then get mixed down. I don't believe such recording techniques result in music with soul.

Any recording session should be based on musicians actually playing at the same time and hopefully having fun.

[Haselsh1]

I agree with you Clive,and certainly the bloody loudness wars haven't helped SQ in recent times. I do think the advent of high resolution digital will eventually be great for recorded sound though. It will take some time, but I think it will surpass everything that has come before.

Hallelujah Bro...! I can't wait for some serious quality hires digital. My Genesis reissues are nearly there for me especially 'Selling England by the Pound'. Rejoice...!!! (Well, it is nearly Christmas)

[Haselsh1]

You only have to listern to a beatles album from the late '60's to realise what a good recording is. ie: Beatles '' I want you (She's So Heavy)'' from Abbey Road' Never ever ever will you get a modern recording to sound like that

I couldn't agree more with what has been said here. How we forget our heritage at our own expense.

[magiccarpetride]

Both really. A recording session in a studio with most of the band playing at the same time would be a good start. This would be very different to the clinical recording of individual instruments and vocals which then get mixed down. I don't believe such recording techniques result in music with soul.

Any recording session should be based on musicians actually playing at the same time and hopefully having fun.

There's more to it. Way more. I have a lot of very good CDs made by musicians who create music using only software. Some of these are incredibly good, very enjoyable, and were not made using any of the recording techniques you've described so far.

Then there are hybrid tracks, where the recordings of musicians playing live are intermingled with the sounds made using software.

Things are not black-and-white anymore. Human creativity is unstoppable.

[Clive]

There's more to it. Way more. I have a lot of very good CDs made by musicians who create music using only software. Some of these are incredibly good, very enjoyable, and were not made using any of the recording techniques you've described so far.

Then there are hybrid tracks, where the recordings of musicians playing live are intermingled with the sounds made using software.

Things are not black-and-white anymore. Human creativity is unstoppable.
Creativity is what the tools used today are for, sometimes they are gimmicks sometimes not. But there is casualty. Emotion. Don't get me wrong, there are loads of modern recordings I enjoy but when you hear an older recording with the entire group is playing together at the same time the music takes on a different sense. Its emotion vs impressive.

Maybe there's something shining through to you with the hi res Beatles and Paul McCartney tracks you've been enjoying so much.....get that decent record deck and you will hear the differences I'm talking about, just as you are with hi res. BTW Band on the Run was recorded in Nigeria in a basic studio....

[colinB]

You only have to listen to a Atlantic recording to see the studio was an instrument where as today its an interface. Quality arguments could go both ways.

I find some singer songwriter stuff well recorded and electronica for the most part sounds great. But its rare that i here real instrument timber.
Despite being on old git i still like good indie stuff,for want of a better word.
But i the recordings sound nast, like how radio edits were recorded.

[magiccarpetride]

Creativity is what the tools used today are for, sometimes they are gimmicks sometimes not. But there is casualty. Emotion. Don't get me wrong, there are loads of modern recordings I enjoy but when you hear an older recording with the entire group is playing together at the same time the music takes on a different sense. Its emotion vs impressive.

Maybe there's something shining through to you with the hi res Beatles and Paul McCartney tracks you've been enjoying so much.....get that decent record deck and you will hear the differences I'm talking about, just as you are with hi res. BTW Band on the Run was recorded in Nigeria in a basic studio....

I'm with you on the type of emotion that results from the band playing together in the recording studio. But I'm not dismissing the possibility of creating lots of emotion via other approaches. Mike Oldfield comes to mind. I was listening to his "Hergest Ridge" yesterday and was blown away by the emotions recorded on that album. And yet, he mostly overdubbed everything, using his recording studio as an interface, or whatever.

I think it's like food. Some people are adamant that only slow cooking can produce good tasting food. Others may prefer different cooking styles (like, some may claim that the best food is something like sushi, or raw food, etc.)

What's the right answer? I don't think there is a right answer. It all boils down to personal preferences. And, by the way, these personal preferences change, even for the same person, at different times of that person's life.

Ever since I've upgrade my audio chain with Magneplanar speakers, I've learned to widen my palate, and to appreciate different 'cooking styles' in recording. This is due to the fact that Maggies are pretty much free of any coloration, so they present me with infinite variety of recording styles and techniques that I can now plainly hear. With my previous speakers, everything tended to get colored, and thus sound alike, similar to how everything gets the same tint if you're wearing colored glasses.

The only recording/producing style I can't stomach is the loudness war style (over the top limiting/compressing). Such recordings sound extremely shitty on my Maggies.

I knew that Band On The Run was recorded in Nigeria. That doesn't really matter. What matters is where was it mixed and mastered? Because these 'after the recording' techniques can make or break the sound. The secret is in careful editing (it's basically the same as with movies; editing can make or break a movie).