How dumb have music listeners and musicians become?

[MylesBAstor]

+ !
+1

As far As i can recall some incredible Mercury recordings were made with the aid of a Van... a van!!! I wonder what kind of monitoring equipment did they have in the van and yet ..

The Mercury releases you're referring to were the recordings done in the USSR where they had to ship all the equipment overseas. These recordings included Balalaika Favorites, Rachmaninoff's Third and Prokofiev's Third both with Janis and the Borodin String Quartets performance of Shostakovitch's Quartet No. 4 and 8. That picture BTW is of Robert Fine at the controls of their 35mm recorder.

Now I couldn't find what they did for monitoring but normally Mercury used three Altec loudspeakers for monitoring recordings.

 

[FrantzM]

Oh I know! The point I was trying to make did not go well then

My point was that it is impossible to infer the quality of recordings by the monitoring room picture you posted.

 

[FrantzM]

Want to know why our recordings sound so bad?

AIR Lyndhurst Studio One.

View attachment 2934

Myles

I'll drop the entire Mercury reference if you would, including erasing the post. I will however maintain and agree with soundproof that it is impossible to infer the quality of this studio recordings from the picture you posted...

 

[MylesBAstor]

What Does a Recording Engineer Really Do?

 

[fas42]

We've mentioned a few times having recordings as a reference point for comparing qualities in different area of the audio world. I'm starting to feel strongly that the album '21' by Adele is going to be excellent for this: everyone knows it, has it or has access to it, has an opinion on it, agrees that the vocalist's voice is of a high order; but then forms very strong opinions on how good it is, in terms of the recording quality. A "perfect" "bad" or "difficult" recording, to see where everyone is coming from ...

Frank

 

[treitz3]

Frank, that album [I have the CD] is definitely NOT one we need to compare our respective systems with. I have to keep the volume down in order to put up with it. At low volume, I can STILL hear the the artifacts of said album that make me want to shoot the folks that recorded, mastered and released the album to begin with. It simply sounds like *fill in the negative adjective of your choice*.

 

[fas42]

Tom, what exactly is the "problem" from your point of view; in other words what are the artefacts that are wrong, that are equivalent to distortion for you? And please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to say that your system is "wrong" in any way, just trying to get to a common language, understanding of how people perceive sound, in terms of how it's recorded and reproduced.

Thanks,
Frank

 

[treitz3]

Frank, I will be happy to offer you my observations of said album. That said, not tonight. I have a date with the pillow and that same pillow has to be prepared for Valentine's day [my time] in about t-minus quickly. Hang loose and I'll be happy to offer my observations. It's just not gonna be tonight. I'm sure you understand.

 

[fas42]

Yessss, quality time on Valentine's day could be good ... :b:b

Frank

 

[RogerD]

If I could only get my hands on one of those....

 

[MylesBAstor]

If I could only get my hands on one of those....

Someone told me that there's only two or three of these machines left?

 

[MilkMan]

Q: How dumb have music listeners and musicians become?

A: How smart have doorknobs become?

 

[treitz3]

Tom, what exactly is the "problem" from your point of view; in other words what are the artifacts that are wrong, that are equivalent to distortion for you? And please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to say that your system is "wrong" in any way, just trying to get to a common language, understanding of how people perceive sound, in terms of how it's recorded and reproduced.

Hey Frank, I had some time to listen to up to song 5. I had to turn it off after that and put in something that sounded a bit more pleasing to these ears. I dig her music but it sounds better in the car with a boatload of ambient noise and I'll reserve listening to it again for just that. Listening to it in the car. Anyhoo, at a volume level of about 8:30 [which was about all I could stand] on the dial, I gave her CD another whirl so that I could offer my observations to you. Forgive my way of typing this out. I just started writing things down on a piece of paper and whatever hit my fancy to write down is how it's gonna be offered in this observation.

First off, it's mixed hot. There are little to no dynamics in the recording whatsoever. The bass riffs hit too hard with too much unnatural reverb or butchering, maybe both. The background singers sound fake at times. There is very little detail and things just sound congested. Nothing was really palpable. Horrible imaging when compared to a well recorded album. Impact?.....I don't think they know the definition or that it even exists. I can detect a slight noise during the recording and the noise floor on certain instruments and singers is high. The piano sounds like arse and is not at all accurate with no detail or naturalness to it at all, whether it is played by itself our during a busy passage.

In general, there is very little stereo separation and none of the voices sound natural. In fact, nothing really sounds real and it sounds as if it is restricted. There are no microdynamics, subtleties or inner detail, let alone texture to most everything in the recording. There is an unnatural balance of frequencies and absolutely no definition in the drums. At times, I wonder if they actually used a drum or if they did, what the hell was wrong with them? No natural rolloff of many instruments and speaking of the instruments, at times they are in front of Adele. I don't understand why she's so far back sometimes. The bass guitar has no texture whatsoever, you hear the notes [not very clear] but that's about all you get. One last thing. It's like there is no crescendo throughout the first 5 songs. Everything seems to be on or at the same level. Overall, a very bad recording.

Simply comparing it to the Sarah McGlachlin CD I was listening too last night, Adele's recording is a joke. Sarah's piano was very fluid, natural, had a seemingly infinite amount of subtleties, nuances, texture, rolloff and you could even hear when the pedal was lifted up and down...and this happened whether or not the piano was the only thing playing or the passage was a busy one.

Interesting read here, lots of credit went into the recording and mixing. "Dynamics", according to Tom Elmhirst, was the main issue with the song "Rolling in the Deep". Maybe Tom Elmhirst should get Burmester's CD and listen to Hugh Masekela's "Stimela" and find out what dynamics really are.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/it-0911.htm

 

[fas42]

Excellent response, Tom, thanks for that! To sum it up, what you have concerns with are the mixing decisions, how the individual sounds were actually combined into a finished product. Which as you say, was very carefully considered and deliberately fashioned by somebody who's got some credibility in the industry -- I was going to point you to that link, but you beat me to it!

But nothing in what you said above mentions distortion, even though there is a strong implication of that when people speak of "bad" recordings. So would you say anything in that recording was distorted in the normal sense that people use that term, apart from elements where it's clear that the mastering added a deliberately distorting effect? If you listen to a piece that is 100% assembled from synthesised sounds, everything is manipulated from beginning to end, would that be a "good" or "bad" recording? And if some of those were good, and other's bad, what would the differentiating factors or aspects that would lead you to that decision?

I am certainly aware that people listen to sound in different ways; I was once amazed that someone with a good reputation in the reviewing world picked a system with classic hifi sound over one that generated a greater sense of space, and that to me had less distortion, as being superior. So in one sense I'm trying to achieve a greater understanding of what people are looking for in audio sound; personally, the texture is everything: if the recording is very open, nuanced, I appreciate that for what it is; on the other hand if it is very dense, aggressive, "congested", if the system replaying can sort that all out clearly, so that it is totally understandable acoustically then I appreciate that just as much. Of course many systems can't replay the latter sort of recording cleanly, it sounds "distorted", but from what you're saying your system didn't have a problem here. It is fascinating to see how people listen to sound in different ways ...

Frank

 

[treitz3]

Frank, that album [I have the CD] is definitely NOT one we need to compare our respective systems with. I have to keep the volume down in order to put up with it. At low volume, I can STILL hear the the artifacts of said album that make me want to shoot the folks that recorded, mastered and released the album to begin with. It simply sounds like *fill in the negative adjective of your choice*.

Hello, Frank. Thanks for the kind words. I'd like to point out that I didn't mention distortion ^^^ as quoted again above ^^^, just artifacts. Probably an incorrect usage of the word but I think you still got what it was I was getting at. I don't believe I could point out any unintended distortion, mainly because as a consumer [listener] I have no idea what may or may not be intended. What I did hear is a, to me, horribly recorded album and a complete butchering of one heck of an artist.

As for what it is I'm looking for in sound? Glance down at my signature. That right there spells out [I would like to think] quite clearly what it is I'm looking for with regards to reproduced sound.

If you listen to a piece that is 100% assembled from synthesised sounds, everything is manipulated from beginning to end, would that be a "good" or "bad" recording? And if some of those were good, and other's bad, what would the differentiating factors or aspects that would lead you to that decision?

Man, I hate to say this....it depends on the recording. Some folks can pull this off and it can sound great. Others, IME, not so much. The differentiating factors are or could be seemingly infinitely variable and would still be subject to listener preference. Simply put, even rather bad or unpleasant sounds [whether synthetic or real] can sound great on a well recorded piece.

One more thought. You mentioned distortion. It could be said that between the original tape/performance and the end result of Adele's CD was nothing short of "distortion" [complete butchering] from the original. Albeit a different application of the word "distortion".

 

[fas42]

As for what it is I'm looking for in sound? Glance down at my signature. That right there spells out [I would like to think] quite clearly what it is I'm looking for with regards to reproduced sound.

I guess this is where it does get difficult, because the key word in there is "accurate". If the recording was heavily manipulated, which Adele's was, as the piece by the mixer points out, then accurate replay, as Tim would say, will give you back exactly what was encoded. Which you may not like very much, but it was a decision by the artist, the producer and company, etc. I am now not quite sure what you mean by "real" sound, unless that is what you would have experienced had you been listening in the same space as the performer, and not through "perfect" monitors or headphones in the recording studio.

Man, I hate to say this....it depends on the recording. Some folks can pull this off and it can sound great. Others, IME, not so much. The differentiating factors are or could be seemingly infinitely variable and would still be subject to listener preference. Simply put, even rather bad or unpleasant sounds [whether synthetic or real] can sound great on a well recorded piece.

One more thought. You mentioned distortion. It could be said that between the original tape/performance and the end result of Adele's CD was nothing short of "distortion" [complete butchering] from the original. Albeit a different application of the word "distortion".

Still seems to come down to good ol' preferences, such a hard thing to grab hold of! And again, there are the words "a well recorded" piece: is it purely subjective; minimal manipulation; capturing of high levels of ambience, real or artificial? A hard one ...?

But, then you say, with Adele, it was all that manipulation in the mixing. Which Tim would say, is a crucial component of the recording, that's what was intended. And if all the musicians were completely disparately recorded, then there was never an original, valid recording anyway -- there never was an original performance, just purely a particular version of an assembly of sounds, which suits some people and not others.

Maybe, down the track, what can occur is to have the raw feeds of all the mics available online, 24 or however many tracks, people can then do their own, customised mixes, totally unique to themselves. Then there most certainly will no longer be a "true" recording; it's whatever you want ...

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think its problems are in all steps of the process except for the performance. It has problems in the recording, probably the mixing, definitely the mastering. I've heard a lot of badly compressed modern records, but this one goes a step beyond. I'm listening to the opening track right now, a solo piano and voice piece. If there is an opportunity for beauty, this is it, and it is just murky and flat. Yeah, I just listened to a bit of several tracks. Flat. Pinched. Distant. Murky. A complete waste of 320kbps . Just switched over To Madelyne Peroux, which is even a bit loud by old school standards, but in a completely different league. Whoever recorded this gifted woman (Adele) so poorly should find another avocation.

Tim

 

[treitz3]

I think its problems are in all steps of the process except for the performance.....If there is an opportunity for beauty, this is it.....Whoever recorded this gifted woman (Adele) so poorly should find another avocation.

I could not agree more.

I am now not quite sure what you mean by "real" sound

What I mean by real sound is just that. A lightning strike, a train passing by, birds chirping while walking along a park path. An unamplified acoustic performance, a choral ensemble or orchestra. A car crash, a plane flying overhead, a stomp dancing performance, a gunshot, the capacitor charging up on an old tube TV, my wife's beautiful voice and whatever else real sound might present. I am in search of the accurate reproduction thereof.

 

[fas42]

This is getting to be quite fascinating. The tracks aren't overly compressed, not in the normal sense anyway: if you put them up in Audacity and such like they look pretty reasonable: I've seen much, much worse. But there is a lot of manipulation going on of the component elements of the track, which would be disturbing for many.

What I've certainly experienced is that listening to the track snippets via a compression algorithm, MP3, is disasterous. Haven't heard 320, but the on the fly decoding at other rates is pretty horrendous. As mentioned before, going hi res offline fixed up the SQ dramatically; I would be interested if other people get like results ...

So my choice of this as a reference recording, in the sense of a measuring stick, may have some value after all ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

What I mean by real sound is just that. A lightning strike, a train passing by, birds chirping while walking along a park path. An unamplified acoustic performance, a choral ensemble or orchestra. A car crash, a plane flying overhead, a stomp dancing performance, a gunshot, the capacitor charging up on an old tube TV, my wife's beautiful voice and whatever else real sound might present. I am in search of the accurate reproduction thereof.

Fair enough, if you're the person recording, and then replaying, that event. But if the event you wish to experience has had the capture of it locked up in a certain form, as a "historical" (even if just last year) recording, what is the real sound then? Say, the most magnificent, in terms of playing, version of a classical piece has been poorly recorded, in your terms. So, what should one do about it ...

Frank