What a tosser...

I dunno, he's got a bit of the 'oh for the good ol' days' vibe about him, but other than a few opinions stated as fact (regarding the sound quality of digital media), I thought it was an interesting read, with many good points. There certainly is something to be said about the lowering of sound quality in recorded music these days - the author attributes it primarily to the medium, but I believe he's largely wrong there - in that back in the day, the only people who *could* make a recording were well-trained professional recording engineers working in a dedicated studio. These people probably knew a lot more about high quality audio and (as he puts it) critical listening than the average record producer today. The end result is greater quantity, less quality. That's not to say good recordings (even - shock! - good digital recordings) can't and aren't produced today, just that the ratio of good to shite is probably a lot lower than it was, say, 30 years ago.

Of course, I'm just a wee youngling, so this is all speculation on my part. :)

Thanks for the link though, Michael.

Dunc
 
Originally posted by dunkyboy
I dunno, he's got a bit of the 'oh for the good ol' days' vibe about him, but other than a few opinions stated as fact (regarding the sound quality of digital media), I thought it was an interesting read, with many good points. There certainly is something to be said about the lowering of sound quality in recorded music these days - the author attributes it primarily to the medium, but I believe he's largely wrong there - in that back in the day, the only people who *could* make a recording were well-trained professional recording engineers working in a dedicated studio. These people probably knew a lot more about high quality audio and (as he puts it) critical listening than the average record producer today. The end result is greater quantity, less quality. That's not to say good recordings (even - shock! - good digital recordings) can't and aren't produced today, just that the ratio of good to shite is probably a lot lower than it was, say, 30 years ago.

Of course, I'm just a wee youngling, so this is all speculation on my part. :)

Thanks for the link though, Michael.

Dunc
Click to expand...

I find the reverse. A lot of older recordings sound very poor compared to MOre recent ones. I've a few older cds which are very poor. Take some old Public Enemy, "BASS! How low...." erm.... not very :confused:

Of course, there's a fair aMOunt of cr@p about today too.
 
LOL, I'm not talking about 80s recordings (and I'm sure the author of that page isn't either), and certainly not 80s pop recordings! These in my experience are some of the worst ever! I would definitely contend that the quality-to-shite ratio of modern recordings is definitely higher than it was 15 years ago.

What I was referring to was the so-called "golden age" of recorded music - the 50s, 60s, and even 70s (though I think some would contest the latter) Recordings from those days (IME) tend to be done simply with the entire band/orchestra/whatever performing in a room, rather than being recorded individually and mixed together, or overdubbed a meellion squeellion times, and it seems to me that producers mucked about with the recording much less.

The end result, from my admittedly limited experience, is recordings with more life and vibrancy than you tend to get with modern recordings. As an example, two of the most dynamic, involving, and realistic recordings I own are Miles Davis' 'Kind of Blue' (from 1959) and Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 performed by Carlos Kleiber and the Wiener Philharmoniker (from 1975). Sure, they have the inevitable tape hiss, but it's a very small price to pay for such wonderful recordings. Granted, the performances are top notch, too, so that might bias it slightly, but I still think the recordings are exemplary, even by today's standards.

Anyway, I guess it's just an impression.

Dunc
 
I haven' t read all of it which could be dangerous, but fro a first brief glance, this guy does appear to be talking sense.

I aggree with dunky boy totally, that the earlier recordings do seem to have more life and realism about them, and I think he is right to attribute the cause.

True in the early days, orchestras and groups were more recorded together, not exclusively, as les pauls multitracking techinques got popular.

But its true, listen to 60s music, it still sounds fresh even now.

And the stuff used was VERY archaic.

Recorded on reels of tape, lots of things afftected the sound...the tape has a hf rolloff, magnetic saturation of tape heads causes a slight distortion, 3rd harmonic,
to get effects, only a few techniques were used, and this is a lot were modern music differs.
Reverb was made by a plate or a spring, a physical item.
Delay was used by a tape machine played back, shadows style, phasing and flanging was 2 tapes run slightly out of phase, and pressing your finger on the flange of the tape reel to modulate the speed.

These old effects are revered by modern musos. Nowadays, its all done by dsp dig signal processing, a chip with a program simulating the effect. Uh-oh...shades of chord dac 64!! maybe that's why it sounds a little computer.:D :duck:

Synthesisers are simply pitch generators osillators producing simple waveforms...square, triangle, and then knocking bits off with a nice analoge filter, typcial sounds include the 60s sci fi, dr who music, also there was the mellotron, fender rhodes ep, hammond organ.

Mikes were valved, guitar amps were simple fenders with that lovely tone, nowadays, guitars can be recorded on a digital box which models these earlier amps, but doesn't quite sound the same.

Nowadays, music is cheap shit, anyone can get a computer, and get a groove, a beat and mess around with it, and maybe even get a hit record. Its like fast food, really appetising and a quick fix, till you get the urge again. There is no expertise as such, no 'trade to learn, appreticeship', just find out how the software works.

Just listen to some records recorded in the 1960s, the recording is very good, amazing, considering 40 years ago.
Nowdays, its more polished, produced, shiny, to grab attention, it sounds hifi, its over produced, just listen to a big american record say shania twain for this.

As regards how it is done, film and music and other projects are converging in their methodology....they have all the people responsible for their particular specialism on hand, record a bit, change a bit, re-take, edit, cut out, go over until you put it together and find what you like, and gets approved.

And yes, studios do add a little 2nd harmonics and 3rd harmonics to get a more listenable sound, and are aware that digital recordings can be lifeless
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As a genuine oldie and a listener to classical music, a genre in which old recordings are particularly revered, I'd have to say that the guy is only partially right. In general, I find today's best recordings better than yesterday's, mainly because recording technique seems to be more finicky with digital recording. As I understand it, the old recording engineers could get away with murder.

However, having said that, a properly-made old recording is every bit as good as a modern one. In particular, listen to the stuff produced at Decca by the great Walter Legge in the 50s and 60s. I have many recordings done in pre-CD days in CD versions. Some seem flat and dead, others jump out at you. It therefore seems to me that a good recording is a good recording, whenever it was made, and they are still making them. To me, a wholesale "fings ain't wot they used to be" approach is nonsense.

For another fine example, check out the thoughts of Simon Yorke the turntable man on

http://www.recordplayer.com/crapo.htm

One begins to suspect that genius and madness really are separated only by a hairline.
 
I certainly wouldn't call this guy a tosser. I know a few sound engineers, and without exception they agree that the 1950s and 1960s were the golden age of recording, even though none of them are old enough to have been working then themselves.

Most of the best, most tangible and lifelike recordings I have are 1950s jazz albums on labels like Riverside, Prestige and Blue Note. These records were mostly made in a rush (Miles made 4 records for Prestige in a couple of days to conclude his contract with them, and they're all classics), with no overdubs and minimal studio trickery. They sound magnificent.

-- Ian
 
I'm not disputing that many recordings made in the 50s and 60s are superb and often better than anything made today. It probably was the golden age of recording. However, I dispute strongly his reasoning.

The quality of 50s and 60s recordings compared to ones made today has nothing to do with valves and reel-2-reel tapes vs. solid state and DSD recording decks.

It's all about the process and the understanding of the engineers which he does make some good points about. However, it's perfectly possible to make a recording today using all the latest gear which will more than rival anything made in the 50s or 60s - just listen to some Telarc or Chesky recordings to hear it. It's a shame that the best recording techniques and the best artists often don't meet up though.

Michael.
 
I would never say that modern recordings are universally crap - there are a lot of really good modern recordings, and I would probably agree with Tones that the very best of today are perhaps the best ever. However, I do feel that today good quality recordings are more a "niche" with only a few specialised studios that actually still care about the quality if their recordings, whereas in "the good old days" it seemed more universal - no self-respecting recording engineer would dream of producing a crap-sounding recording.

Of course, I don't actually have firsthand experience of the 50s or 60s, so what do I know. :)

Dunc
 

Latest posts

Back
Top