Urgent LP Issue

[Freddy58]

Very different types of records for different audiences,

I guess so, but to my mind it shows what can be achieved.

perhaps a bit more cluttered and layered I would imagine.

'Muffled' is the word you're looking for *biggrin*

I actually think it's a great album. You should give it a listen. Released on the cusp of their 'super stardom', so not over-hyped, imo.

 

[iMark]

That's not entirely the case, the LP won't have the same sort of dynamic range compression applied to it (you can't compress a vinyl recording to the same extent as CD).

Of course the interesting thing is that in the early days of the CD many new classical recordings sounded much better on CD than vinyl, simply because the CD was the first medium that could reproduce the full dynamic range of the recordings. It's very unfortunate that the loudness wars have destroyed the image of a great medium and it's ludicrous that there are CDs on the market with less dynamic range than LPs. It should be other way round.

This may interest some people with an interest in recording: an article about the dawn of digital recording, going back to the earliest experiments in the early 1970s.

http://www.aes.org/aeshc/pdf/fine_dawn-of-digital.pdf

So basically around 1970 (recording) engineers were looking for alternatives for tape recorders, given all the problems that tapes have.

I fully understand that some people prefer 'warm, analogue' sound. But it is not necessary more lifelike than a digital recording. If you listen to an analogue tape that has been put on a vinyl disc you get quite a bit of distortion. It may sound very nice, but it will always be distortion. Personally I quite like digital recordings of our records, so I can listen to our LPs on my iPod. But the records need quite a bit of software cleanup to rid of some noise and clicks and pops.

My late father would have been a great fan of the CD. (He passed away before the arrival of the CD). I remember us going record shopping on Saturdays and the disappointment he would have if brand new expensive classical records had clicks and pops. But it's great that I still have all his records and being able to remember while listening to his records.

 

[cheeseboy]

I'd still like to know why some recordings are so bad though. For instance, Grace Jones 'Nightclubbing' is a fabulous sounding recording, whereas U2's 'The Unforgettable Fire' sounds dreadful.

That's an increidibly broad question though.

There's soooo much that goes in to the recording that make a difference it's hard to know where to start.

Just look at the chain you have for recording. You've got the artists, the instruments they use, the amps they use etc. Then you have the recording studios themselves. Some are designed to sound a certain way, some are designed to be flat. Some like isolate each band member so you don't get any bleed over, some like to record in a room together. Then there's equipment - what mic's are used for each instrument, how they are placed, what are the pre-amps like in the recording devices, what mixing desk are you going through, are you using any pre recording effects.

And that's before you even start mixing, re-dubbing, re-recording, re-editing, adding effects, etc. and then the mastering etc..

Also don't forget that some bands/artists like their stuff to sound a certain way, even if for example, you don't like that sound.

So, in short, what seems like a harmless easy question is actually full of so many different things that could make it sound different there is no easy answer.

Here's a nice little artice on producing the last Paolo Nutini album, but it should give you an idea of some of things that are done to produce just one album http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug14/articles/it-08-14.htm

 

[Freddy58]

I'd still like to know why some recordings are so bad though. For instance, Grace Jones 'Nightclubbing' is a fabulous sounding recording, whereas U2's 'The Unforgettable Fire' sounds dreadful.

That's an increidibly broad question though.

There's soooo much that goes in to the recording that make a difference it's hard to know where to start.

Just look at the chain you have for recording. You've got the artists, the instruments they use, the amps they use etc. Then you have the recording studios themselves. Some are designed to sound a certain way, some are designed to be flat. Some like isolate each band member so you don't get any bleed over, some like to record in a room together. Then there's equipment - what mic's are used for each instrument, how they are placed, what are the pre-amps like in the recording devices, what mixing desk are you going through, are you using any pre recording effects.

And that's before you even start mixing, re-dubbing, re-recording, re-editing, adding effects, etc. and then the mastering etc..

Also don't forget that some bands/artists like their stuff to sound a certain way, even if for example, you don't like that sound.

So, in short, what seems like a harmless easy question is actually full of so many different things that could make it sound different there is no easy answer.

Here's a nice little artice on producing the last Paolo Nutini album, but it should give you an idea of some of things that are done to produce just one album http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug14/articles/it-08-14.htm

I'm not going to say I fully understand the recording process, but of course, I understand that there are many facets that go into the end product. I just can't understand why someone would think "that sounds great" when clearly it doesn't (just my opinion, of course). I appreciate that some bands/artists/producers/etc will want a certain sound, but muffled? I don't get that.

 

[MajorFubar]

I don't think it would matter how I titled him, he's ignoring my posts.

No I'm not I just simply went to bed before you posted! But you're right there is a lot of variance in SQ. With older recordings it can be down to the equipment or techniques available at the time, and the audience it was aimed it. Much of the early Stones and Beatles stuiff for example sounded a bit dire, but you have to remember that as much as anything else it was mastered for AM radios and Dansette record players. Compare it to classical or jazz music recorded at the same period, or European MOR artists like James Last and Bert Kaempfert on the Polydor label, and their SQ is way superior. So maybe what we're seeing today, where mainstream music is mastered for the iPod generation not AM radio and Dansettes, is not so different after all.

 

[cheeseboy]

I just can't understand why someone would think "that sounds great" when clearly it doesn't (just my opinion, of course).

you've answered your own question there. It's your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. (please don't take this the wrong way, and I appreciate it's arguing symantics) but there's nothing to understand. It's just an opinion. Accepting that is a different matter, and it's just a personal peeve when people say they don't understand, when what they actually mean is they are having problems accepting that decision.

There's also the fact that a band/artist may not have enough money to use the equipment they want to make it sound as good as they want.

I appreciate that some bands/artists/producers/etc will want a certain sound, but muffled? I don't get that.

It's not up to you to get it though, it's how they want it...

edit: Just to re-iterate, please don't take offence at anything I've said Freddy, it's not intended.

 

[Jim-W]

I just can't understand why someone would think "that sounds great" when clearly it doesn't (just my opinion, of course).

you've answered your own question there. It's your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. (please don't take this the wrong way, and I appreciate it's arguing symantics) but there's nothing to understand. It's just an opinion. Accepting that is a different matter, and it's just a personal peeve when people say they don't understand, when what they actually mean is they are having problems accepting that decision.

There's also the fact that a band/artist may not have enough money to use the equipment they want to make it sound as good as they want.

I appreciate that some bands/artists/producers/etc will want a certain sound, but muffled? I don't get that.

It's not up to you to get it though, it's how they want it...

 

[Jim-W]

It's like somebody who thinks that they know better telling Shakespeare that 'The Tempest' needs editing or telling Francis Bacon that his portraits need cleaning up a bit; artistic vision is the central aspect in the creation of a work of art, not the technology which is, or shoud be, a tool in its effective realisation. There are many examples of beautifully recorded trash; I'm sure the pop charts are full of them; in these cases the technology, ie well-recorded sound masks the lack of artistic vision and artistic integrity: they just want to make money and artist, engineer and record company work together to achieve this goal. Fair enough, there' a market: these kids want love songs or bad-ass dialogue, let's exploit it...and let's make it sound nice on the radio/youtube so they go out and buy it. Is it trash or culture? I have no idea, but it's probably pop culture or popular culture. Is it art because it's well-recorded? Perhaps it's not important to even consider that question. The stuff sells and that's enough. Conversely, I've got numerous Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Greateful Dead etc bootlegs that suffer from desultory recording quality, but the art burns very brightly. Another example is Michael Stipe's mumbling and stumbling incoherence on 'Murmur' ( I've got a boot entitled 'Mumble' which is pretty appropriate); he wanted it that way and it works brilliantly to engage the listener who has to listen carefully if they want to know what he's on about. More than that though, the artistic vision behind this decision to create a pretty unintelligible series of songs that are deliberately vague and yet with key words chucked in to spike attention is, in my opinion, genius at work. It reflects a small, lost but interesting voice in the world and combined with the often beautiful music it forms an artistic statement of genuine power. Imagine some producer going, 'Enunciate, Michael, they won't understand'. I'm glad he mumbled, I'm glad it's difficult to understand because it's beautiful that way. I DON'T want to understand everything immediately and I like nuance and ambiguity. Later, when Michael began singing clearly and the message became more obvious, I lost interest Listening to the remastered 'Strawberry Fields Forever' is to hear excellent stereo separation, the clearly double-tracked voice etc and it's lovely; however, it will never come close to achieving the impact that the original 45 had on me, played on a weedy dansette. The inadequate mono speaker helpe to create an indistinct other-worldliness that contained mystery and such beauty that it fired my imagination: I told my sister that I wanted to climb into that world, through the speaker as it were. Now, I can hear it clearly and, of course, something is missing: the opprtunity for me to bring my imagination to the record because I don't need to: it's all clearly layed out in front of me in excellent quality. I'm so much older too: another important factor, I know. Don't really know if this contributes anything to anybody else, but it's important to me. I did paragraph this, but I dunno, it's not happened.

 

[oldleodensian]

Some recent vinyl releases have not only been creayed from original analogue master tapes as source, but also produced using an all analogue chain. This is often stated on the album cover of the record. some examples that immediatley spring to mind:

Talking Heads first 5 studio albums plus double live "Name of this Band Is....."

Television albums "Marquee Moon" and "Adventure"

Beatles Mono albums

Many re-releases are produced from High Resolution digital files, sourced from original analogue masters, so have a digital element in their production, but are NOT the same as the CD master.

 

[daytona600]

almost all the hiend audiophiles labels are all analogue ( AAA ) in old moneyanalogue productions , mobile fidelity , speakers corner , pure pleasure , ORG etcextract from the speakers corner website Are your records completely analogue?Yes! This we guarantee!As a matter of principle, only analogue masters are used, and the necessary cutting delay is also analogue. All our cutting engineers use only Neumann cutting consoles, and these too are analogue. The only exception is where a recording has been made – either partly or entirely – using digital technology, but we do not have such items in our catalogue at the present time Are your records cut from the original masters?In our re-releases it is our aim to faithfully reproduce the original intentions of the musicians and recording engineers which, however, could not be realised at the time due to technical limitations. Faithfulness to the original is our top priority, not the interpretation of the original: there is no such thing as a “Speakers Corner Sound”. Naturally, the best results are obtained when the original master is used. Therefore we always try to locate these and use them for cutting. Should this not be possible, – because the original tape is defective or has disappeared, for example – we do accept a first-generation copy. But this remains an absolute exception for us. Who cuts the records?In order to obtain the most faithful reproduction of the original, we have the lacquers cut on the spot, by engineers who, on the whole, have been dealing with such tapes for many years. Some are even cut by the very same engineer who cut the original lacquers of the first release. Over the years the following engineers have been and still are working for us: Tony Hawkins, Willem Makkee, Kevin Gray, Maarten de Boer, Scott Hull, and Ray Staff, to name but a few.

 

[Freddy58]

we should just accept rubbish recordings and console ourelves in the knowledge that 'it's the art man'

 

[cheeseboy]

we should just accept rubbish recordings and console ourelves in the knowledge that 'it's the art man'

Or you could accept that different people like different things no?

 

[Freddy58]

we should just accept rubbish recordings and console ourelves in the knowledge that 'it's the art man'

Or you could accept that different people like different things no?

Of course. Some people like Hi-Fi, some don't.

 

[cheeseboy]

we should just accept rubbish recordings and console ourelves in the knowledge that 'it's the art man'

Or you could accept that different people like different things no?

Of course. Some people like Hi-Fi, some don't.

ok then, what's your definition of Hi-Fi?

 

[Freddy58]

we should just accept rubbish recordings and console ourelves in the knowledge that 'it's the art man'

Or you could accept that different people like different things no?

Of course. Some people like Hi-Fi, some don't.

ok then, what's your definition of Hi-Fi?

My point was, what's the point of buying Hi-Fi, when the recordings can't/wont do it justice.

 

[John Duncan]

I'd like to know why it's so urgent - we've been arguing the toss about this for years...

 

[cheeseboy]

My point was, what's the point of buying Hi-Fi, when the recordings can't/wont do it justice.

but that is the point - It's all down to what your definition of hifi is, as you've already said, some people like hifi, some don't, alluding to the fact that you have a definite idea in your head of what it is and anything that doesn't reach that isn't hifi, but that will be different from what others, including those artists who you deem to have rubbish recordings, think is hifi if that makes sense?

Ie you're saying something is a rubbish recording, but to others it may not be. It's all subjective in that case but you're talking like it's definitive, in which case you will never be satisfied

 

[Freddy58]

My point was, what's the point of buying Hi-Fi, when the recordings can't/wont do it justice.

but that is the point - It's all down to what your definition of hifi is, as you've already said, some people like hifi, some don't, alluding to the fact that you have a definite idea in your head of what it is and anything that doesn't reach that isn't hifi, but that will be different from what others, including those artists who you deem to have rubbish recordings, think is hifi if that makes sense?

Ie you're saying something is a rubbish recording, but to others it may not be. It's all subjective in that case but you're talking like it's definitive, in which case you will never be satisfied

I think you missed the point I was trying to make, my fault I expect. In any event, I originally was talking about a specific album, U2's 'Unforgettable Fire', which to my mind sounds like there's a veil, no, blanket over the speakers. I consider myself an 'average Joe', so if I think this way, I'm sure others will too. Or maybe you think I'm 'special'? *crazy* *biggrin*

Never be satisfied? Au contraire mon ami, I have to say that most recordings sound fairly good to my ears, some of those being very good. I'm satisfied

 

[Jim-W]

My point was, what's the point of buying Hi-Fi, when the recordings can't/wont do it justice.

but that is the point - It's all down to what your definition of hifi is, as you've already said, some people like hifi, some don't, alluding to the fact that you have a definite idea in your head of what it is and anything that doesn't reach that isn't hifi, but that will be different from what others, including those artists who you deem to have rubbish recordings, think is hifi if that makes sense?

Ie you're saying something is a rubbish recording, but to others it may not be. It's all subjective in that case but you're talking like it's definitive, in which case you will never be satisfied

I think you missed the point I was trying to make, my fault I expect. In any event, I originally was talking about a specific album, U2's 'Unforgettable Fire', which to my mind sounds like there's a veil, no, blanket over the speakers. I consider myself an 'average Joe', so if I think this way, I'm sure others will too. Or maybe you think I'm 'special'? *crazy* *biggrin*

Never be satisfied? Au contraire mon ami, I have to say that most recordings sound fairly good to my ears, some of those being very good. I'm satisfied

Merde alors, Monsieur Freddy!!! How wonderful to see a foreign language liberally sprinkled like diamonds in a field of cow dung. Talk about standing out in a crowd... like 9 inches! En effet, Monsieur Freddy, tu es l'homme.

Oh and stop all this arguing about hifi...it's so very dull. I'm looking forward to a posting of one of your original poems in French...or peut-etre, Spanish? Clearly you are a man of many parts. How many of them work?

 

[Freddy58]

I never outstay my welcome

 

[cheeseboy]

I think you missed the point I was trying to make, my fault I expect. In any event, I originally was talking about a specific album, U2's 'Unforgettable Fire', which to my mind sounds like there's a veil, no, blanket over the speakers. I consider myself an 'average Joe', so if I think this way, I'm sure others will too.

ahh ok, apologies for the crossed wires.

Or maybe you think I'm 'special'? *crazy* *biggrin*

of course you are special *drinks*

Never be satisfied? Au contraire mon ami, I have to say that most recordings sound fairly good to my ears, some of those being very good. I'm satisfied

awesome stuff, glad to hear it

 

[Marvindodgers]

Well, if I've learned nothing else from this thread, that's me putting U2's The Unforgettable Fire on as soon as I get in the door this evening.