I believe this is all marketing; a lossy compression system to enable better audio quality in a smaller package for streaming.
Is this guy for real?
- Thread starter Bruce B
- Start date
I believe this is all marketing; a lossy compression system to enable better audio quality in a smaller package for streaming.
This is absolutely true. Other than straight to stereo (or 3-track like Living Presence and Living Stereo) recordings, the sound quality of '60's - '80's music of any genre is very hit or miss. The biggest difference (IMHO) between then and now is that then there were lots of different reasons for poor sound, whereas today it's overwhelmingly due to excessive and peak-limited compression.
Yep. There are no excuses for bad recordings these days. It's either just plain sloppy, or the bad is somebody's idea of good. Or sadly, they just want to make sure their recording is louder than the next guy's in the kids' iPods. There were, though, some very good recordings made with overdubbing back in the day, but the overdubbing was limited. They weren't just building up layer upon layer. Multitrack got much better later in the 70s and into the 80s, though. Some good stuff from that era.
Tim
Of course...the record companies have the unmolested masters....why do they do what they do...make them sound worse/degraded on purpose ?
I'm with Tim. When it comes to multitrack recordings getting good level and mic choice and position per channel is not that difficult. Since the sound field is "constructed" mixing plays a huge, huge part. Back in the early days there was a shortage of available tracks so bouncing and all the bad stuff that goes along with it (it's a destructive process aka no going back, generational loss leading to poorer SNR, etc) led to I sincerely believe the explosion of the mastering industry to mitigate some of these effects. Taking aside the Mastering engineer's responsibilities of preparing a master for mass production and focusing on just the sound, their job is not enviable. They can make a recording sound better for sure but the potential on the upside is much smaller than that on the downside. So much depends on the material handed to them. It's very unfair in my view to lay too much of the blame (or glory for that matter) on the mastering.
So you have no issues with auto-tune and its equivalents, compressors-limiters,digital effects for ambience-reverb or other DAW plugins, etc
Let alone ADC, how mixed, etc.
My context is that mastering is far from being 99% of what makes any recording sound good, maybe a different way to look at it is that mastering can screw up a good recording or make them shine.
Cheers
Orb
garylkoh
WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
You still need at least a good performance. I would find it hard to assign x% to performance, y% to recording and z% to mastering.......
Well ... Mark Waldrep has some interesting first-hand stories concerning this very topic.
Agreed, case in point: Trinity Sessions, Cowboy Junkees ... recorded live in a Toronto church, by Peter Moore using a 2-track 16bit DAT with single Calrec Ambisonic Microphone. Listed on many audiophile recommended music list, inc. stereophile. A real sonic gem. Ironically, I've even heard audiophiles use the LP to demo vinyl.
I have loved that recording since it was released. There are a couple pesky details though. Margo Timmins did not sing very loud at all. With everyone else gathered around the Calrec mic playing she would not have been heard. Everyone else was positioned around the Calrec mic to get the desired balance. Margo actually was several feet away with a separate mic, singing through a PA speaker which was placed near the other musicians. That is part of what gives her voice the haunting quality it has on that recording. Quite ironic I thought when this was revealed.
The other thing I would note is the Trinitiy Sessions Revisited, with lots of celeb guest artists and the original band, done live in the same church sounds alright. But since they had better and more equipment available they gave everyone a mic or two rather than doing a mostly minimalist recording with a pair of mics. To me it lacks all the magic of the original. Perhaps it would have with any recording method. Part of what set the mood and feeling was that simple recording in the church. Somehow these people didn't perceive that and 'upgraded' the recording process into oblivion. As much effort as they went to in simply recording the same songs in the same place again, they couldn't resist changing the recording method.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3TVgEpMyhI
Look at this video and over the various views you can see a veritable forest of mics and recording gear. I also doubt they had the restraint to resist post processing. It sounds alright just like any other modern multi- close- miked production. It doesn't sound special.
Last edited:
I was partially aware of those details earlier, the Wiki page now includes that info. I've seen Margo & company ... one summer on a busy long holiday weekend, I attended a concert in which maybe 15 people (tops) showed up. I went solo, although I had two tickets, couldn't give the other one away. I still remember, the beautiful Margo smilingly acknowledges the few in attendance, then she suggest/asks, would we rather hear the Junkee's new but not yet released album (the Rock/Blues based One Soul Now) with a few hits mixed in? Certainly!!!! Considering the crowd, finding a good seat was apparently much easier than a Audio Society meeting (sigh).
I've attended countless live concerts in many different venues (inc the Trinity Church); this one was one of my most memorable. Musically, they were very tight, and just as important, the acoustics were perfectly adjusted for the smaller near-field crowd, nice, powerful yet relaxing, not the typical overbearing loudness I've witnessed far too many times ... but what I remember most was my new found appreciation for Michael Timmins bluesy guitar. I've witnessed many the greatest guitarists (even Prince (gulp)) ... but that night ... Micheal, sitting head down, back dark corner of the stage ... truly one of my most favorite sonic memories.
I use the Sessions CD to evaluate a systems ability to recreate a live event, and more importantly ... how the system handles sibilance (amazing the differences, most systems sound like they are slewing/mistracking). Although relatively close, within my system, the CD sounds more natural and accurate compared to my two LP versions. However, while the CD offers better dimensionally, the LP is still a v.good test for overall system acoustics, and more importantly ... the musics inherited sibilance is a killer test for any analog rig.
Revisited was good, but a disappointment in comparison to the original.
tb1
Late to this conversation (as usual) but my 1.9 cents...
IMO - 2x, 4x DSD are at the point of diminishing return WRT sonic benefits. As some people on this thread have stated the recording technique is the vast majority of the equation. In my experience I have CDs that sound phenomenal so the # of bits and sample rate aren't necessarily overly important. That said, I do believe hi res and DSD can yield sonic benefits over redbook but at single digit % sonic improvements. The other big piece of the digital puzzle I believe is A->D and D->A advancements. We have seen tremendous improvements over the past ~10 years especially in digital performance/$, but it still has room for improvement.
As far as comments about not preferring newer music and primarily listening to tunes of the golden age - congratulations, you have officially become your parents! There is so much great music and phenomenal musicians available at the tap of your mouse globally, it's a narrow view to be stuck in the 70s, 60s, (enter your musical decade or two here). We all identify with music of our youth; it holds a special meaning that biases our taste and preference. I will always have an attachment to 70s and 80s rock but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate and listen to everything from classical to Sonny Stitt to Tame Impala. Again, my opinion, not an attempt to insult anyone
IMO - 2x, 4x DSD are at the point of diminishing return WRT sonic benefits. As some people on this thread have stated the recording technique is the vast majority of the equation. In my experience I have CDs that sound phenomenal so the # of bits and sample rate aren't necessarily overly important. That said, I do believe hi res and DSD can yield sonic benefits over redbook but at single digit % sonic improvements. The other big piece of the digital puzzle I believe is A->D and D->A advancements. We have seen tremendous improvements over the past ~10 years especially in digital performance/$, but it still has room for improvement.
As far as comments about not preferring newer music and primarily listening to tunes of the golden age - congratulations, you have officially become your parents!
There is so much great music and phenomenal musicians available at the tap of your mouse globally, it's a narrow view to be stuck in the 70s, 60s, (enter your musical decade or two here). We all identify with music of our youth; it holds a special meaning that biases our taste and preference. I will always have an attachment to 70s and 80s rock but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate and listen to everything from classical to Sonny Stitt to Tame Impala. Again, my opinion, not an attempt to insult anyone 
Late to this conversation (as usual) but my 1.9 cents...
IMO - 2x, 4x DSD are at the point of diminishing return WRT sonic benefits. As some people on this thread have stated the recording technique is the vast majority of the equation. In my experience I have CDs that sound phenomenal so the # of bits and sample rate aren't necessarily overly important. That said, I do believe hi res and DSD can yield sonic benefits over redbook but at single digit % sonic improvements. The other big piece of the digital puzzle I believe is A->D and D->A advancements. We have seen tremendous improvements over the past ~10 years especially in digital performance/$, but it still has room for improvement.
As far as comments about not preferring newer music and primarily listening to tunes of the golden age - congratulations, you have officially become your parents!
Your comments are spot on.
There are those who obess over sample rate and bit depth because they play the numbers game just like camera shoppers buy base don megapixel count. It's uninformed. That being said, 24 bit combined with at least 96 khz can really make a difference and I think 2x DSD is really is amazing for purist recordings.
As far as the laughable premise that music from the past two decades and current stuff sucks, it is pathetic.
I'm sitting in the Narita airport in Tokyo listening to Rose Windows on my Mac Book Pro. They are incredible progressive rock band from Seattle and their music is simply divine.
Closed ears and minds hear nothing. But you know there is always time to sit around evaluate power cords and resonance devices instead of seeking out art.
Andre, we're obviously on the same page. What's interesting is this thread has deviated from its original purpose and has now focused on the core of what it is to be an audiophile (at least to me) - the pursuit and enjoyment of great audio quality and great music. We're lucky to be alive in such a time that music is so easily accessible and affordable (accounting for inflation of course) + high end audio equipment is experiencing another boom like in the 70s + availability of new playable formats (downloads in redbook, hi-res PCM, DSD, blu-ray) + resurgence of old formats (vinyl + tape to some extent). I can't imagine limiting my scope with such options but to each his own....
Same page indeed. I also agree the original intent of the thread shifted.
I have said numerous times, I am format agnostic. I go where the music is. Disc, file, tape, whatever. Vinyl being the only exception, but
I am thrilled it is still around and that people enjoy it. Why not?
This is a golden age, as you mention, for both hifi and music.
Similar threads
- Sticky
