Recording Standard

[admin_exported]

How do people feel about a recording standard for cd recordings. I know there's different levels of how the cd was recorded on the cover, AAD, ADD etc but let's be honest, there's no wonder illigal downloading is taking over when ther is no standard. Unless of course you venture into SACD where your sure of a good recording.

I wonder if any record company's read this forum? It's a no brainer really. I've bought cd's where the sound recording is muck. If CD is to progress in the future I think it's worth looking at. A quick example is the new Asia album Omega. A great record but very bad production. Cost in HMV 19.99.

 

[the record spot]

Sadly, hi-res is no guarantee of a "good" recording. Plenty of rubbish available for all formats irrespective of their type. Sorry! Check out the Steve Hoffman (famous mastering engineer) forum, plenty of resource on there for ready info.

 

[Anonymous]

But should it be acceptable for the cd buying public who spend their hard earned on hi-fi seperates to get the best of their music to put up with badly recorded music?

I think the time is passed to accept this quality. We need an industry standard.

 

[Anonymous]

Record companies dont have the budget to have all bands/artists recorded and mastered to the same standard. There is nothing that can be done.

Being well produced does not a good record make. Sometimes raw is better. Example. The White Stripes' White blood Cells vs The Raconteurs' Broken Boy Soldiers.

 

[Anonymous]

But have you not just contradicted yourself there by saying on one hand nothing can be done and then saying sometimes raw is better?

Whats on the record is different to how it sounds. It should sound good and if record companies had the investment of which most do then surely cd sales would be enhanced.

Bye the way I have both the above albums and I think the white stripes album sounds better whilst both sets of material is good.

 

[AL13N]

bluecafe1:I think the time is passed to accept this quality. We need an industry standard.
Have a look at this. I've signed up myself.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think I contradicted myself at all. Maybe I didn't put my point across very well.

What I meant was that with some records, the fact that they arent very well recorded can add to the charm. Now this may be done on purpose, or be down to lack of funds.

I agree that White Blood Cells sounds better but I think that is because it is a bit ragged round the edges. Look at the difference in budget between that album and the Raconteurs.

Listen to Dire Straits. A prime example of over production.

 

[the record spot]

bluecafe1:
But should it be acceptable for the cd buying public who spend their hard earned on hi-fi seperates to get the best of their music to put up with badly recorded music?

I think the time is passed to accept this quality. We need an industry standard.

Well, true, but there is still no "standard" to speak of in how a recording is made. Effectively, you are setting down a bunch of rules that tell an engineer, producer or mastering engineer how to "make" a recording to a prescribed format.

I understand your frustration around poor recordings, but it's more a question of finding out which are the good recordings from the dross (hence the Steve Hoffman site reference). Most of my recordings now are pre-remaster, original discs and most of the time, that works well for me. There's a few remasters I like, but the majority are first editions.

But I would be inclined to disagree with a prescribed set of standards that pretty much lay it down how to make a recording. You'd be on the road to killing the artistry. For instance, what of the grunge albums, or Neil Young's "Ragged Glory" album? Distinctly low-fi, but great music nonetheless.

EDIT: I think you're also asking for a criteria to be put together which will be notoriously difficult to define. What is "good"? For some it will be "warmth", others "clarity", others "raw", neutral, distortion free....etc, etc, etc.

 

[idc]

I totally agree about the Ragged Glory album. It captures a performance by a group of highly experienced and talented musicians, playing one take together recorded in a shed. Pink Floyd on the other hand have a sound that is very lush and is recorded many times over to get the best take and often one musician at a time. Both suit that bands sound.

 

[matthewpiano]

There is a danger here of making recording quality the main focus. I have a massive CD collection and within it there are some absolutely beautifully engineered and produced recordings. These only represent the smaller share though and many are only average or worse, either because of their age or simply because of less careful work in the studio.

All of them are enjoyable and listenable. Of course, in an ideal world, every recording would be demonstration quality, but this is just never going to happen unless we restrict ourselves to a narrow range of music. To do that defeats the whole point of hi-fi for me because a really good system should make it perfectly possible to focus on the musical content, however patchy the recording quality is.

 

[Anonymous]

Fair point and like yourself I've a huge cd collection and when I hear some of the recordings compaired to others the sound is terrible. I'm not specifically talking about the big guns either - the pink floyds - genesis etc. Some cd's are recorded much lower than others and it's not just the production, a lot has to be said for the effort or in some cases lack of in the recording of original cd's.

Point in case - why oh why are their so many re-ssues DIGITALLY RE-MASTERED? Because the sound is better!!!

The Cure - The Thompson Twins - ABC for example who you would not associate with the likes of floyd and genesis have all had great albums made sound better by re-mastering. Why are they not mastered properly in the first case. It dose not take from any rawness from the original (in the cure's case) but just makes the cd sound better. Better levels, better clarity etc?

 

[Andrew Everard]

bluecafe1:Point in case - why oh why are their so many re-ssues DIGITALLY RE-MASTERED? Because the sound is better!!!

Er, no - because a) the media by which they are going to be distributed are digital, and b) because there's a mistaken belief among the general public that 'digital' is modern and hi-tech and better, while analogue is old-fashioned and sounds rubbish, so 'digitally remastered' is a good selling point.

When they sound better, they do so because they've been remastered sympathetically, not because it has been done digitally.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Andrew -

To give an example. I own the original cd of 'Raised on Radio' by Journey from 1986. It was re-mastered a few years ago and I bought the re-mastered version and fair point, the sleve notes were different and it came with some extra tracks. So yes, good selling point but the sound was far superior. This is the point i'm making. If the recording is made digital or analogue the re-issued version shall we say sounded far superior.

 

[the record spot]

bluecafe1:

Point in case - why oh why are their so many re-ssues DIGITALLY RE-MASTERED? Because the sound is better!!!

The Cure - The Thompson Twins - ABC for example who you would not associate with the likes of floyd and genesis have all had great albums made sound better by re-mastering. Why are they not mastered properly in the first case. It dose not take from any rawness from the original (in the cure's case) but just makes the cd sound better. Better levels, better clarity etc?

No disrespect, but this is one of the most uninformed posts - and I repeat, no offence - I've read regarding the goals and purposes and eventual end results around remastering.

Have you ever considered that they were properly mastered in the first place?

The best Genesis issue I have is "A Trick of The Tail" first edition, US Atco 38102-1; Barry Diament was the mastering engineer and it utterly canes the Nick Davis effort from 2007. That version crippled the best album they did by excessive limiting (i.e. making it louder), and a boosted treble that hopelessly killed the stereo SACD and standard CD version. I hear some people mention the multichannel mix is good, but whoop-de-doo if you'd lashed out the £100 some places were asking for the 76-82 boxset and got one of the worst releases in music. Period.

Others - Death Magnetic, Metallica, awful, Vapor Trails, Rush, awful...the list goes on.

Beware the rationale that just accepts the marketing tripe telling you that all recordings are better remastered.

If on the other hand you find excessively EQ'd, excessively limited and excessively compressed music your thing, go for it, be my guest in fact. Just don't tell me that music is the better for it. It's not and if that's the standard we're talking about hypothetically setting, I'll be reaching for the clubs and pickaxe handles now!

Otherwise, *** over to the Steve Hoffman forum and get clued up. And can I suggest you track down some of Barry Diament's work - about as good as CD mastering will get you. Or else I'll send these guys around...

 

[matthewpiano]

I've got the Barry Diament mastering of 'Desperado' by the Eagles, and it sounds fabulous.

 

[Anonymous]

Ha ha record spot nice one but don't be getting all mono on me. I agree with your point but if you think about the point i'm making all I ask is for some opinions on bad quality cd's.

It seems to me that if a cd can be re-issued and sound better than the original cd then why is that? Why can't the original cd sound good weather it's remastered or not?

 

[the record spot]

Then you're just down to opinions about what you think sounds good and what doesn't. Give me the original anytime - I seek them out and rarely go with the new ones, unless guys like Joe Gastwirt, Vic Anesini, Bernie Grundman, George Marino, Steve Hoffman or Barry Diament were involved. Remasters? Often boosted without true regard to the original, and sold as Andrew says earlier as a handy marketing trick.

And do get a hold of the Genesis discs I mentioned; the Diament Atco "Trick" sounds way better than the 2007 remix. As matthewpiano mentions, his Desperado is superb, while Joni Mitchell's "Night Ride Home" is one of Joe Gastwirt's finest monents I think.

Anyway, apologies for the slightly intemperate reply earlier. Like I say, no offence, I'm just passionate about this stuff.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks and fair play for your opinion. Thats what it's all about. Like you say Genesis Diament Atco "Trick" sounds way better than the 2007 remix. And so it should.

I'm not for remixes and remastered - just good sound when I go spend on cd's rather than download them from the web.

Bye the way have you heard the new Anathema album? Excellent. Produced by Steven Wilson. What a combination.

 

[the record spot]

Not heard the Anathema album, but do hear good things of Steven Wilson's work. He's been at the helm for a few titles of late that've sounded the part. More power to his elbow I think!

 

[Anonymous]

Can I ask why you think that a band making an album for peanuts, should sound as good as a band making an album for hundreds of thousands of pounds?

I really don't get why you think all cds should have uniform production/mastering values.

 

[Anonymous]

Hit the nail on the head there!

A good sound recording is as much to do with the post production work and the skills of the people involved.
To get the really good guys with reputations costs!

Many of the big artists when booking studio time book top class production people as well. Also as much time as they need to get it right.
The results are plain to see.

After all you can make a recording on a shoe string in your bedroom or spend many thousands of pounds going to specific studios (which can be around the world) to get a specific sound you are after.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Bobby G.

Why would a band want to make an album for peanuts then expect radio airplay or the punters to buy it? I know money is too tight to mention but my band has no money but we will not put inferior quality onto a cd and expect people to buy it.

I think as a buyer of cd's and not, well very little downloads I have a right to say well that's good, well worth the £12 or sorry that's not acceptable and it's not worth £12.

I know one can't expect every cd to have the same sound or uniform production but I do expect to buy a cd for £12 to be to a certain standard. Where that standard is set is the question.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Bluecafe.

I can only guess from your last response that the cds you are talking about are so bad as to be unlistenable. The level of recording that I find acceptable is probably alot different from what you do.

Out of curiousity can I ask what cds you felt were so bad?

 

[Anonymous]

So long as you don't laugh

Journey 'Raised on Radio' from 1986. Actually the original was ok but the re-issued version which was re-mastered was even better. You can hear the snap of the drums and those awesome bass lines

Bob Dylan's The freewheelin Bob Dylan on cd isn't great. I know it's an old album but when they transfer it to cd why not make it sound more listenable?

Even as recent as Asia's new album Omega. Fine content but production not as good as their previous 'Pheonix' cd. Prety muffled.

I'm playing the above on Roksan Kandy K2 amp and cd player conected to EBAcoustic EB'1s

 

[matthewpiano]

For me it is the musical content that defines whether a CD is worth it, not the recorded sound.