poor is poor, regardless of format

[Feral]

don't know if it was intentional or not but that album sounds awful. I like the material but not the presentation.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

I read that the artist doesn’t have anything to do with the final production it’s up to the studio or record company on how the finished album sounds but some artists have there own recording studios in there own homes to have a bit more control over own albums I know Ozzy Osborne does have one in his house .

 

[davidf]

I read that the artist doesn’t have anything to do with the final production it’s up to the studio or record company on how the finished album sounds but some artists have there own recording studios in there own homes to have a bit more control over own albums I know Ozzy Osborne does have one in his house .

Some artists will have some say in the final outcome, but it’ll be more down to studio execs. People like Trent Reznor and Foo Fighters produce their own stuff in their own studios, so hplan do what they wish.

 

[Electro]

I read that the artist doesn’t have anything to do with the final production it’s up to the studio or record company on how the finished album sounds but some artists have there own recording studios in there own homes to have a bit more control over own albums I know Ozzy Osborne does have one in his house .

This is why I am so lucky in that I like a lot of the new small bands that usually record their own material or at the very least have a heavy input into the final sound.

It is astonishing how good their recordings are and how they manage to sound almost the same playing live.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

OK point taken..Quest..I was over egging a bit...but I think you get my drift.....only you would pull me up on such a quibble...

But actually you could be quite wrong as some younger people are led to believe that by buying a good hi-fi system...all your tunes will sound awesome..my daughter actually was quite taken back when I said her music wouldn't sound too good on the superuniti(usual indie rock).she thought as most her generation do..the more you spend..the better you get..and that includes sound quality with music listening.....nothing about being a "simple person"but just as one would expect it to be...what's so wrong about that?

You my friend are turning into a bit of a hi-fi snob I'm afraid....I like you Quest but some of the retric you spout is utter pi%h.

tbh I think I was being fair Mark. But I think your daughter is right, as poor quality stuff will sound better through great hi Fi than any much lesser system.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

Yes I agree a lot of theses bands want there product to sound the very best I was listening to a blues album the other day and I thought what a great sounding album and it makes so much difference when you listen to a album that’s been recorded properly it’s much easier to listen to and I enjoy picking out all of the different instruments that are being used .

 

[bigfish786]

And then there are the albums that surprise you. Just put Testament - Brotherhood of the Snake on. It’s on lightweight vinyl, and absolutely punches out of the speakers.

(I love being off work and having the time to open all the stuff I’ve been buying )

 

[Blacksabbath25]

Try Anthrax we ‘ve come for you all that sounds pretty good

 

[davedotco]

Yes I agree a lot of theses bands want there product to sound the very best I was listening to a blues album the other day and I thought what a great sounding album and it makes so much difference when you listen to a album that’s been recorded properly it’s much easier to listen to and I enjoy picking out all of the different instruments that are being used .

What I find most annoying is not compression per se, dynamic range on a lot of pop/rock material is ****** all in any case, it really does not bother me, digital overload does.

It appears to me that some recordings are mastered with the levels so high that they exceed the maximum permisable level and are simply squared off. This produces a kind of distortion that I find most annoying, so much so that I will simply not listen to it. In my constant search for new and interesting music, I find that happens quite often. I rarely get past the first minute or so, whatever the merits of the music.

At the opposite end of the spectrum I have been listening to some late 50s early 60s Blue Note recordings. At this time Blue Notes primary output was mono, with the music usually recorded in one take to a single track recorder. Strangely, at this time, a back up recording was often made to a two track recorder, not stereo but typically bass and drums on one track, piano and horns on another, though this varied.

As stereo recordings became the norm, many of these recordings were remixed from the two track masters to give a sort of stereo effect, relatively simple techniques were used and the results often quite good. Similarly the (Columbia) recordings of Kind of Blue, were recorded to a three track machine, no attention to stereo, just different musicians in different tracks. The mono discs were originally cut from separate mono masters, long since lost, the expansive soundstage of the stereo discs are believed to be a result of 'leakage' into the various mics caused by the reverberent nature of the hall used for the recording.

Despite the decidedly 'low resolution' equipment in use at this time, the recordings are generally excellent, with the differences in production being clearly audible in the various versions. That this sort of quality was obtained by the recording equipment and techniques of more than 50 years ago rather puts to shame so many modern recordings, the quality of the released product is disgraceful in so many cases.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

Yes I agree a lot of theses bands want there product to sound the very best I was listening to a blues album the other day and I thought what a great sounding album and it makes so much difference when you listen to a album that’s been recorded properly it’s much easier to listen to and I enjoy picking out all of the different instruments that are being used .

What I find most annoying is not compression per se, dynamic range on a lot of pop/rock material is ****** all in any case, it really does not bother me, digital overload does.

It appears to me that some recordings are mastered with the levels so high that they exceed the maximum permisable level and are simply squared off. This produces a kind of distortion that I find most annoying, so much so that I will simply not listen to it. In my constant search for new and interesting music, I find that happens quite often. I rarely get past the first minute or so, whatever the merits of the music.

At the opposite end of the spectrum I have been listening to some late 50s early 60s Blue Note recordings. At this time Blue Notes primary output was mono, with the music usually recorded in one take to a single track recorder. Strangely, at this time, a back up recording was often made to a two track recorder, not stereo but typically bass and drums on one track, piano and horns on another, though this varied.

As stereo recordings became the norm, many of these recordings were remixed from the two track masters to give a sort of stereo effect, relatively simple techniques were used and the results often quite good. Similarly the (Columbia) recordings of Kind of Blue, were recorded to a three track machine, no attention to stereo, just different musicians in different tracks. The mono discs were originally cut from separate mono masters, long since lost, the expansive soundstage of the stereo discs are believed to be a result of 'leakage' into the various mics caused by the reverberent nature of the hall used for the recording.

Despite the decidedly 'low resolution' equipment in use at this time, the recordings are generally excellent, with the differences in production being clearly audible in the various versions. That this sort of quality was obtained by the recording equipment and techniques of more than 50 years ago rather puts to shame so many modern recordings, the quality of the released product is disgraceful in so many cases.

yep I totally agree it’s a great shame I’ve got recordings of artists that where made in the 1960s-1970s and puts a modern recording to shame easily .

And when you spend large sums of money on hifi equipment just to listen to a highly compressed recording it’s doesn’t make and sense if you think about it but hay what choice do we have .

 

[BigH]

Yes I tend to agree many late 50s and early 60s jazz recordings sound so much better than most modern albums, even though they are nearly 60 years old.

KOB they did have aproblem with one of the recorders running slow, subsequently corrected in later remasters. I think The Dave Brubeck Quartet - Time Out is even better, sounds so fresh and dynamic, so much separation as well.

 

[bigfish786]

Try Anthrax we ‘ve come for you all that sounds pretty good

yeah, I’ve got that album on CD.

The latest two albums are both really good, well recorded and both sound excellent.

 

[davedotco]

Yes I tend to agree many late 50s and early 60s jazz recordings sound so much better than most modern albums, even though they are nearly 60 years old.

KOB they did have aproblem with one of the recorders running slow, subsequently corrected in later remasters. I think The Dave Brubeck Quartet - Time Out is even better, sounds so fresh and dynamic, so much separation as well.

This was the original mono recording that was used for the original releases, the three channel 'backup' copy was fine and used for the later 'stereo' releases.

Time Out is a fine recording also, it was recorded in the same room as Kind of Blue, just a month or two later, quite possibly using much of the same equipment. The studio was a converted church, solid with high ceilings, since neither album was recorded in stereo the spacious open nature of the recorded sound is a reflection on the excellent though reverberent qualities of the room.

As was normal for the time, recording was usually in one take with minimal rehersal time, Kind of Blue taking just two days and Time Out three.

 

[BigH]

Yes I tend to agree many late 50s and early 60s jazz recordings sound so much better than most modern albums, even though they are nearly 60 years old.

KOB they did have aproblem with one of the recorders running slow, subsequently corrected in later remasters. I think The Dave Brubeck Quartet - Time Out is even better, sounds so fresh and dynamic, so much separation as well.

This was the original mono recording that was used for the original releases, the three channel 'backup' copy was fine and used for the later 'stereo' releases.

Time Out is a fine recording also, it was recorded in the same room as Kind of Blue, just a month or two later, quite possibly using much of the same equipment. The studio was a converted church, solid with high ceilings, since neither album was recorded in stereo the spacious open nature of the recorded sound is a reflection on the excellent though reverberent qualities of the room.

As was normal for the time, recording was usually in one take with minimal rehersal time, Kind of Blue taking just two days and Time Out three.

You could be correct but I thought it was on the early cds which were stereo, it was only corrected so I read around about 1995. This is from a recent LP review: "The two stereo tapes were stored safely in a vault for over three decades before anyone thought of taking them out for remastering.

One of the interesting discoveries made in 1992 when the tapes were first exhumed, was that Side 1 of the stereo issue, consisting of the tracks recorded at the first session, So What[/i], Freddie Freeloader[/i] and Blue in Green[/i], had been playing at the wrong speed since 1959. (The fault in the tape recorder which caused this had been corrected by the time of the second session in April.) The prime stereo tape recorder had been running just over one percent slow, so on playback and during the mastering of albums it ran a little fast. Hence the stereo (but not the mono) releases of Kind of Blue[/i] — and virtually all the releases were[/i] stereo — had always had those three tracks playing at slightly the wrong pitch. Not just the LPs, but the CDs, cassettes, reel to reel tapes and MiniDiscs… "

 

[davedotco]

Yes I tend to agree many late 50s and early 60s jazz recordings sound so much better than most modern albums, even though they are nearly 60 years old.

KOB they did have aproblem with one of the recorders running slow, subsequently corrected in later remasters. I think The Dave Brubeck Quartet - Time Out is even better, sounds so fresh and dynamic, so much separation as well.

This was the original mono recording that was used for the original releases, the three channel 'backup' copy was fine and used for the later 'stereo' releases.

Time Out is a fine recording also, it was recorded in the same room as Kind of Blue, just a month or two later, quite possibly using much of the same equipment. The studio was a converted church, solid with high ceilings, since neither album was recorded in stereo the spacious open nature of the recorded sound is a reflection on the excellent though reverberent qualities of the room.

As was normal for the time, recording was usually in one take with minimal rehersal time, Kind of Blue taking just two days and Time Out three.

You could be correct but I thought it was on the early cds which were stereo, it was only corrected so I read around about 1995. This is from a recent LP review: "The two stereo tapes were stored safely in a vault for over three decades before anyone thought of taking them out for remastering. One of the interesting discoveries made in 1992 when the tapes were first exhumed, was that Side 1 of the stereo issue, consisting of the tracks recorded at the first session, So What, Freddie Freeloader and Blue in Green, had been playing at the wrong speed since 1959. (The fault in the tape recorder which caused this had been corrected by the time of the second session in April.) The prime stereo tape recorder had been running just over one percent slow, so on playback and during the mastering of albums it ran a little fast. Hence the stereo (but not the mono) releases of Kind of Blue — and virtually all the releases were stereo — had always had those three tracks playing at slightly the wrong pitch. Not just the LPs, but the CDs, cassettes, reel to reel tapes and MiniDiscs… "

There is certainly some confusion over the masters and re-issues of this recording, some sources suggest one thing, some another. What is certain is that the pitch issues affected various releases and further brief research suggests that the mono issues thought to be from the original mono masters were actually mixed down from the 3 channel, hence the pitch issues.

All this from a remarkably 'simple' recording session, still it gives technical nerds like me several versions of a great recording to play with, great fun.

If I still had my record player I would be searching out the 2013 Sony Legacy vinyl reissue in mono but perhaps I would be better off getting the 2014 CD which includes both stereo and mono versions of all tracks.

 

[BigH]

Yes I tend to agree many late 50s and early 60s jazz recordings sound so much better than most modern albums, even though they are nearly 60 years old.

KOB they did have aproblem with one of the recorders running slow, subsequently corrected in later remasters. I think The Dave Brubeck Quartet - Time Out is even better, sounds so fresh and dynamic, so much separation as well.

This was the original mono recording that was used for the original releases, the three channel 'backup' copy was fine and used for the later 'stereo' releases.

Time Out is a fine recording also, it was recorded in the same room as Kind of Blue, just a month or two later, quite possibly using much of the same equipment. The studio was a converted church, solid with high ceilings, since neither album was recorded in stereo the spacious open nature of the recorded sound is a reflection on the excellent though reverberent qualities of the room.

As was normal for the time, recording was usually in one take with minimal rehersal time, Kind of Blue taking just two days and Time Out three.

You could be correct but I thought it was on the early cds which were stereo, it was only corrected so I read around about 1995. This is from a recent LP review: "The two stereo tapes were stored safely in a vault for over three decades before anyone thought of taking them out for remastering. One of the interesting discoveries made in 1992 when the tapes were first exhumed, was that Side 1 of the stereo issue, consisting of the tracks recorded at the first session, So What, Freddie Freeloader and Blue in Green, had been playing at the wrong speed since 1959. (The fault in the tape recorder which caused this had been corrected by the time of the second session in April.) The prime stereo tape recorder had been running just over one percent slow, so on playback and during the mastering of albums it ran a little fast. Hence the stereo (but not the mono) releases of Kind of Blue — and virtually all the releases were stereo — had always had those three tracks playing at slightly the wrong pitch. Not just the LPs, but the CDs, cassettes, reel to reel tapes and MiniDiscs… "

There is certainly some confusion over the masters and re-issues of this recording, some sources suggest one thing, some another. What is certain is that the pitch issues affected various releases and further brief research suggests that the mono issues thought to be from the original mono masters were actually mixed down from the 3 channel, hence the pitch issues.

All this from a remarkably 'simple' recording session, still it gives technical nerds like me several versions of a great recording to play with, great fun.

If I still had my record player I would be searching out the 2013 Sony Legacy vinyl reissue in mono but perhaps I would be better off getting the 2014 CD which includes both stereo and mono versions of all tracks.

Yes I have 2 cd copies in my collection, unfortunately the best remasters came out later as you say in 2013/4.