I would be very cautious nominating any record for this thread. Currently, most of the recordings that some years ago I would have nominated for this list are in my list of enjoyable and decently recorded performances.
There are surely horrible recording, but most times the quality of the recording is system dependent and a recording that sounds very poor in a system sounds good in others. Some rock music of the 70's belongs to this category - in the wrong system it sounds boring and distant.
So true, microstrip. I have been hunting down music I love that I had previously passed on. Sergio Mendes, Perez Prado, old Genesis, even The Carpenters for example. As the system gets better, it should broaden the horizon for music - not restrict it. With many very old recordings, I find that hitting the "Mono" button transforms it from horribly mastered to sometimes masterfully recorded.
It's a facinating test CD, because you can hear the quality of the underlying recording come through in bursts, when the wacky filtering gets out of the way momentarily. Each track must have been done at separate times, by different people, off different LP's, something along those lines, so each track is an adventure in itself; some are buried under a pile of blankets, others are almost crystalline clear for most of the track.
So, strangely enough, some of it is absolutely transparent, the old curate's eggs thing. I have had it running at maximum volume, and she has not even noticed that something was dramatically wrong with the recording ...
The early Beatle "stereo" records were mixed horribly, but they weren't recorded horribly. The bass is rolled off, but otherwise, they sound real good other than the pan-potting of vocals in one channel and the instruments in the other.
Yes, good test material. Frequently very big, very rich recordings; makes audiophile material sound totally anemic. Of my classical CD's probably the worst I have is a Sheffield Labs Bach effort. The violins on this are so dead and lifeless, they must have worked long and hard to kill the natural verve of the instrument ...
Jack, that was an excellent post. The only proviso I would point out is the definition of a "large space" vs a "small room". To my understanding, in order to qualify as a large space, the smallest dimension has to be greater than the longest wavelength reproduced. This means that for a bookshelf monitor loudspeaker with 50Hz f3, it's about 20ft, and for a full-range with 20Hz, it's about 60ft. Hence, no matter how large we all think that our generously-proportioned listening rooms are, we are all in "small" room acoustics.
Hence, to get "sense" of live you only need to have a room that is larger than the longest wavelength of the frequencies that give you imaging. To get "sense of live" you need a room that is larger than the longest wavelength of the frequencies of the sense of space. (…)
Gary,
The subject of "large soundstage" in small/medium rooms is very interesting, but sometimes confusing. As you say sometimes maths and experience must complement themselves.
I can report on a simple (and costly) experience. When I moved in my current house I got a dedicated space for my office and listening room (30.5’ x 13’ x 8’ ). Every acoustician I consulted told me that this too long room would be terrible, and after lots of reading I decided to build a dividing wall with special bricks, making it in a smaller room almost fulfilling the golden rule and the recommendations of the Master Handbook of Acoustics. I installed my system there, but being used to a slightly larger room I was has never happy with it. Especially because the family living room on the upper floor (same size, but not split in two) seemed so much more spacious. I tried several types of acoustic treatments, was a victim of the poor and false argument that state that completely suppressing the secondary reflections you get a much larger soundstage, changed the speakers and finally got an acceptable acoustics using a mix of RPG diffractals, abfusors and some flutterfree devices. And finally one day I took the wise decision – I called my contractor and asked him to remove the separation wall. It was not a simple job, as the wood floor and ceilings finish had to be redone. But as soon as I redistributed the acoustical treatments, I felt that the new room sounded much better than the shorter ideal one – exactly the point you refer – it sounded much larger. As a good music lover friend, non audiophile, told me – it sounds more like if we are in the concert hall. And for me this means a lot …
Hey now! Them thars fighting words! The early Beatle "stereo" records were mixed horribly, but they weren't recorded horribly. The bass is rolled off, but otherwise, they sound real good other than the pan-potting of vocals in one channel and the instruments in the other.
It may have been a bit of overstatement on my part, Mark. I have both the stereo and mono remasters (and most of the original stereo cds) and I find them quite listenable, but the very early stuff is neither up to the best rock recordings that followed or the classic jazz recordings that preceded them. It' all relative. No matter. I would listen to that catalog through a static filter.
It may have been a bit of overstatement on my part, Mark. I have both the stereo and mono remasters (and most of the original stereo cds) and I find them quite listenable, but the very early stuff is neither up to the best rock recordings that followed or the classic jazz recordings that preceded them. It' all relative. No matter. I would listen to that catalog through a static filter.
Tim-I pretty much have all the Beatles catalog on multiple formats. I have two copies of the EMI BC-13 LP collection which is great. I have the original CD releases which aren't so great. I have the mono reissue, the stereo reissue, and the 24/44.1 Apple USB version. Not to mention numerous British EMI LPs (Parlaphone). In my opinion, nothing surpasses what the great recording engineers layed down with the jazz recordings from the 1950s and 1960s.
The best version of Magical Mystey Tour is the German EMI version. It has a different cover than the *normal* release of this LP. It's purple. You haven't heard Baby Your a Rich Man until you have heard the German version. Paul's bass is simply stunning.
IMO, all of the EMI/Parlaphone versions of the Beatles LPs far surpassed the Capitol versions in terms of sound quality-especially the early LPs.
Somewhere in the mid 1950s, tape crossed a technological line (surely someone here can tell us exactly what it was) that made the great jazz recordings of the late 50s/early 60s possible. And I love them. They are truly wonderful. I can't quite go this far, though:
In my opinion, nothing surpasses what the great recording engineers layed down with the jazz recordings from the 1950s and 1960s.
I think the best modern recordings do surpass them. Try Jorma Kaukonen's "Blue Country Heart," or Herbie Hancock's "Gershwin's World," Joni Mitchell's "Travelogue," Mark Knopfler's "Sailing To Philadelphia," Shelby Lynne's "Just a Little Lovin'" (very, very analog)....as a few examples of many. More dynamic range, blacker backgrounds, more realistic timbre, deeper resolution...the best modern recordings are incredible; absolutely...ahem...palpable.
Don't be fooled by the fact that so many modern recordings are ruined by horrible taste, we have actually made progress.
Somewhere in the mid 1950s, tape crossed a technological line (surely someone here can tell us exactly what it was) that made the great jazz recordings of the late 50s/early 60s possible. And I love them. They are truly wonderful. I can't quite go this far, though:
I think the best modern recordings do surpass them. Try Jorma Kaukonen's "Blue Country Heart," or Herbie Hancock's "Gershwin's World," Joni Mitchell's "Travelogue," Mark Knopfler's "Sailing To Philadelphia," Shelby Lynne's "Just a Little Lovin'" (very, very analog)....as a few examples of many. More dynamic range, blacker backgrounds, more realistic timbre, deeper resolution...the best modern recordings are incredible; absolutely...ahem...palpable.
Don't be fooled by the fact that so many modern recordings are ruined by horrible taste, we have actually made progress.
Rudy Van Gelder was somewhat responsible for a lot of those recordings,he is a legend.
"Often regarded as one of the most important recording engineers in music history,[1] Van Gelder has recorded several thousand jazz sessions, including many widely recognized as classics, in a career spanning more than half a century. Bringing an unprecedented clarity to jazz recording, Van Gelder has recorded many of the great names in the genre, including Miles Davis, Thelonious Monk, Sonny Rollins, Joe Henderson, Grant Green, Wayne Shorter, John Coltrane, and many others. He worked with many record companies, but he is most closely associated with Blue Note Records, now a division of EMI.
Van Gelder's recording techniques are often admired for the warmth and presence he brings to the end result. Some critics however have also expressed a distaste for the thin and recessed sound in the instruments, mainly the piano. Richard Cook for example noted that the manner in which Van Gelder recorded piano was often as distinctive as the pianists' playing. Blue Note president and producer Alfred Lion often noted that Rudy was sometimes a little heavy on the reverb and would jokingly note that on the tape box as a "Rudy special".[2] One of jazz's greatest artists, Charles Mingus, refused to use Van Gelder, stating he changes people's sounds.[3]"
I was listening to the cd "Tuck and Patti" last night and that recording is truly top notch. A fine example of what can be accomplished with modern equipment and techniques.
But I do love the 50's and 60's recordings done on Ampex 300's and 350's.
I think the best modern recordings do surpass them. Try Jorma Kaukonen's "Blue Country Heart," or Herbie Hancock's "Gershwin's World," Joni Mitchell's "Travelogue," Mark Knopfler's "Sailing To Philadelphia," Shelby Lynne's "Just a Little Lovin'" (very, very analog)....as a few examples of many. More dynamic range, blacker backgrounds, more realistic timbre, deeper resolution...the best modern recordings are incredible; absolutely...ahem...palpable.
Tim, I agree with four of those five...... which means I've got to buy the one I don't have I think that between you and Gregadd, you've been responsible for over 70% of my music buying since I joined this forum.
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_rudy_van_gelder/:These days, Van Gelder is also an enthusiastic supporter of digital audio and an avid learner of new gear and software. “I believe today's equipment is fantastic,” he says. “I wouldn't want to face a session without the editing capabilities of digital. There are still maintenance and reliability issues. Tech support helps. From my viewpoint, the essential difference between analog and digital is that analog does not like to be copied,” Van Gelder continues. “After the original is recorded, edited and mixed, then what? You need a digital delivery medium. In that sense, the final product can be much higher quality than in the '70s.”
For modern "live" jazz recordings, check out my friend Jim Merod's Blueport Jazz label. He's spent the past 40 years perfecting one thing and one thing only - capturing the live jazz performance as if you were there. In particular - two of my favorites:
Somewhere in the mid 1950s, tape crossed a technological line (surely someone here can tell us exactly what it was) that made the great jazz recordings of the late 50s/early 60s possible. And I love them. They are truly wonderful. I can't quite go this far, though:
I think the best modern recordings do surpass them. Try Jorma Kaukonen's "Blue Country Heart," or Herbie Hancock's "Gershwin's World," Joni Mitchell's "Travelogue," Mark Knopfler's "Sailing To Philadelphia," Shelby Lynne's "Just a Little Lovin'" (very, very analog)....as a few examples of many. More dynamic range, blacker backgrounds, more realistic timbre, deeper resolution...the best modern recordings are incredible; absolutely...ahem...palpable.
Don't be fooled by the fact that so many modern recordings are ruined by horrible taste, we have actually made progress.
Tim-No doubt that recording gear (with maybe the exception of microphones) has gotten better since the glory days. I'm just not sure if the recording engineers are as good or better. I will check some of the recordings you mentioned. I've just had my head stuck in the sand lately (I know there are a few people that think it might be stuck somewhere else) listening to old jazz and marveling at what they have done.
Somewhere in the mid 1950s, tape crossed a technological line (surely someone here can tell us exactly what it was) that made the great jazz recordings of the late 50s/early 60s possible. And I love them. They are truly wonderful. I can't quite go this far, though:
I think the best modern recordings do surpass them. Try Jorma Kaukonen's "Blue Country Heart," or Herbie Hancock's "Gershwin's World," Joni Mitchell's "Travelogue," Mark Knopfler's "Sailing To Philadelphia," Shelby Lynne's "Just a Little Lovin'" (very, very analog)....as a few examples of many. More dynamic range, blacker backgrounds, more realistic timbre, deeper resolution...the best modern recordings are incredible; absolutely...ahem...palpable.
Don't be fooled by the fact that so many modern recordings are ruined by horrible taste, we have actually made progress.
I agree with Tim ... Too often when we want to illustrate how bad recordings are we point to the present day over-compressed productions .. Well ,there were "turds" in the heyday of LP and tapes ... maybe not as numerous, turd nonetheless ...
I agree with Tim ... Too often when we want to illustrate how bad recordings are we point to the present day over-compressed productions .. Well ,there were "turds" in the heyday of LP and tapes ... maybe not as numerous, turd nonetheless ...
Tim, I agree with four of those five...... which means I've got to buy the one I don't have I think that between you and Gregadd, you've been responsible for over 70% of my music buying since I joined this forum.
Jefferson Airplane/Hot Tuna singer/guitarist explores the fine line between traditional country and blues with some of the planet's finest bluegrass pickers. Available on SACD if you like, but it bursts forth with gorgeous depth, tone and dynamic beauty, right off of the redbook cd:
