Theory: Mastering quality has worsened in the last 10 years.

An interesting theory...I can only compare a few of your examples, but I don't find much (if any) deterioration in St Etienne, Massive Attack, Bjork.

Some of the stuff you talk about is definitely pants, like the Death In Vegas newie.

I suspect somehow that a lot of it is (sort of) deliberate on the part of the band. For example Nirvana wanted to get a rougher/edgier sound for In Utero after the MTV-friendly Nevermind.

Though if your right, and it's a mastering thing then I can't wait for a re-mastered version of Spiritualized's "Let It Come Down". Great music, wretched sound.

I'm guessing, but maybe the retro style of Scorpio Rising's music inspired a desire to return to an imagined 60's sound? I would guess (again) that the string sound must be deliberate - I can't imagine any other reason!

Nick

Quite surprised you think "Let it come down" sounds rough. Why do you think that ??. Sounds OK to me. Much better than hearing them massacre the gentler songs live , anyway.

My nomination for the worst-sounding LP is "This is Hardcore" by Pulp. I haven't heard the CD version so can't compare but the vinyl version is truly terrible.

Paul

Pop music has always been overcompressed with eye to the car radio. As far as "bright" goes, I would say that it was a problem much more in the late 80's and early 90's, and that the recording industry has finally come to understand how to properly work with digital. (It took those engineers a long time to break their habits of overdriving the signal to make it sound better; in the digital domain, this is a terrible thing.)

Ultimately, I would have to disagree with you. I would say that today's releases are pretty much a mixed bag like they've always been, but the general level of quality has been going up.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Nick,
I realize that it's naughty to divorce the actual music and think of just the mastering, but what the hell!
The Hooverphonic albums are a good example of what I'm getting at. I know you've got all of 'em-hear what I mean?

quote:

---

Some of the stuff you talk about is definitely pants

---

To clarify, do you mean I'm talking pants or the album is pants?
I haven't heard Scorpio Rising yet; does it sound worse than Contino Sessions or Dead Elvis? I think Contino had a fine mastering job.

I agree that the Massive Attack example is tenuous and that one can sometimes find artistic reasons for crappy sound, but don't you think Debut and Post are better than Selmasongs and Vespertine?
As for Good Humour vs. Sound of Water, I suppose
The latter is much more electro, so it obviously isn't as "organic".
I almost included Underworld, but their latest one is a cracker.

Paul,
Haven't spun Pulp in ages, but I remember them being a great band! I'll have to put some on tonight.

Mike,

quote:

---

I would say that today's releases are pretty much a mixed bag like they've always been, but the general level of quality has been going up.

---

Agreed that there's plenty of mixed-bagism as always, but I definately feel the general level of quality has been going down. Another example: Fiona Apple Tidal vs. When the Pawn...
I almost want to say that the golden age of pop music mastering was from 1994 to 1998.

Mike,

quote:

---

To clarify, do you mean I'm talking pants or the album is pants?

---

<chuckle> no - the music/sound.

I must admit I've never noticed any deterioration in the Hooverphonic stuff - I'll check em out.

As for the Dead In Vegas sound, check out my mini-review (a recent straight-to-video thread of mine).

"I almost want to say that the golden age of pop music mastering was from 1994 to 1998".

1967 to early 1980's IMO!

My original vinyl copies of 'Who's next' and 'abbey road' put most contemporary rock recordings to shame.

Compare Kate Bush's 'never for ever' on 24 track analogue to Hounds of Love on digital etc etc...

Early digital was poor, much better now but still not upto 32 i.p.s analogue tape IMO.

Simon,

Fair enough!
Contrary to supposed popular belief, I think there's oodles of kick-ass 80's pop vinyl.

My argument is geared more towards CDs from the 90's to today.

Let me quickly re-phrase:
"I almost want to say that the golden age of digital pop music mastering was from 1994 to 1998."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Sae:
In terms of popular music, I think so.
By poor quality, I'm referring to the bright, messy and compressed "mastered for car stereo" effect.

<SNIP>

I hope I'm wrong!
What do you folks think?

---

Considering that a large part of the pop market is targeted to adolescent kids who don't know who Mozart, Wagner and Bach are I hardly think it's surprising that the quality of production has gone to the toilet...

"Murphy was an optimist"

My view is that they got recording and mastering exactly right back in 1958 when stereo was first invented! I have quite a few original jazz and early stereo ‘exotica’ albums from this period and they put just about everything done since to shame. My theory was that as the technology was simple (three track tape / no desk eq etc) the engineers had to get it right. The mics were positioned correctly or the session had to be done again. None of the “Oh, don’t worry, we can fix that at mix-down…” crap. More care was taken, and the gear was simpler. This is why these early stereo albums are so incredibly good.

With rock it goes from quite rough and ready as early multitrack was introduced (example: Piper at the gates of dawn), through to the plethora of decent 70s recordings (the high spot IMHO being Can with their fabulous largely binaural two track recordings) and on into the hell that was the digital 80s. There are a huge number of great sounding 70s LPs.

Much 80s stuff sucks, not only by the insistence on using crappy digital recorders, but by assembling the stuff on glorified pocket calculators such as the Fairlight (8bits of grainy crap – Hounds of Love is a great example of music mangled in this way). Also the influx of crappy low bit studio effects units adds to the horror – an instrument may pass through many digital effects units effectively being resampled at each point. Not good. Many engineers working in the 80s were IMHO idiots – I hate heavily gated drum kits where everything is so separated out etc. Noise gates… don’t get me started on bloody noise gates! What’s wrong with a bit of hiss? Its what electrical musical equipment does, its part of the bloody sound! If there ain’t a hiss it doesn’t sound like a Fender twin or a Minimoog or whatever… This is not to slag all 80s recordings off, there are many classics – take the likes of Minutemen / Firehose on SST and other simply recorded indie stuff. Excellent stuff.

In the 90s digital started improving a lot, and albums such as Mogwai’s Come on die young ranks up there with original Can vinyl as the very best recorded rock ever. The majority of post rock stuff I buy is truly excellent, as is a lot of D&B and dance vinyl.

So IMHO things are getting better at the moment, though still have a way to go before they are as good as they were in the first place back in 1958-60!

Tony.

1) Take a listen to "Fast Car" from the first Tracy Chapman CD.
2) Take a listen to the same track for her "greatest hits" CD.

I don't know whether it is a radio mix or just crap mastering, but most of the emotion has been removed from the track. I've got all the tracks on the greatest hits on either CD or vinyl in any case and they ALL sound like cack compared to the originals.

On the other hand the remastered Simon and Garfunkel three CD set sounds excellent. The mastering engineers played the original vinyl pressing and were shocked how good it sounded. They remastered the records from the original stereo or multi track tapes (depending I guess on the condition and availability of these tapes) based on the sound of the original vinyl. Top marks to Sony for this.

"Top marks to Sony for this".

Not quite top marks IMO. That would have been given if they bothered to put it out again on vinyl ( along with many other albums ). Especially in light of their use of it as a reference - how ironic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tony Lonorgan:
My view is that they got recording and mastering exactly right back in 1958 when stereo was first invented! I have quite a few original jazz and early stereo &lsquoexotica&rsquo albums from this period and they put just about everything done since to shame. My theory was that as the technology was simple (three track tape / no desk eq etc) the engineers had to get it right.

---

Tony,

if you ever come across one of those Chopin albums by the pianist Artur Rubinstein (guy with cufflinks and a big cigar, usually, on the sleeve) while you're bin diving consider getting it (especially the Nocturnes and the Ballades): these are RCA recordings from 1961 - 1964 and they put most later methods of recording the solo piano to shame.

It's like the piano sound is a bed, a very good bed, and you're in it.

Herman

BTW it just occurs to me that the Mozart I'm listening to at this moment is another 1962 recording, by Böhm and the Berlin PO on DG.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon Matthews:
Not quite top marks IMO. That would have been given if they bothered to put it out again on vinyl ( along with many other albums ). Especially in light of their use of it as a reference - how ironic.

---

Agreed. However, I've just had the Diverse Vinyl monthly newsletter and late October looks... interesting from a vinyl addicts PoV.

Handsome Family, Twilight.
Lemon Jelly.
Jackson C Franke (getting back to the Simon & Garf.)
QotSA, Songs for the Deaf.

I fancy the new lemon jelly one.

quote:

---

if you ever come across one of those Chopin albums by the pianist Artur Rubinstein (guy with cufflinks and a big cigar, usually, on the sleeve) while you're bin diving consider getting it (especially the Nocturnes and the Ballades): these are RCA recordings from 1961 - 1964 and they put most later methods of recording the solo piano to shame.

---

Are these part of the RCA Living Stereo series? If so they are very hard to find these days as most hardened bin-divers like myself know instinctively to buy any Living Stereo, Decca SXL, or Columbia ‘Six eyes’ pressing in good condition regardless of content! I will keep a good lookout as ever.

I currently have about 5 Living stereos, a few more SXLs, and a couple of ‘six eyes’ lurking in my collection, and they are almost always stunningly good sonically. Another label I’m a big fan of early on is Audio Fidelity – astoundingly recorded, pressed, and presented, yet truly cheesy from a content perspective (in the best way possible). Fabulous stuff. If you can find a copy, any original pressing in their ‘Percussive Jazz doctored for super stereo’ series is worth killing the storeowner for. I have three!

Tony.

Fiona Apple - Tidal vs. When the Pawn...

Yes, I noticed that the sound changed from the former to the latter. However, the first was rather tough to playback, especially in the bass department. (Even a mid-range Naim system has trouble controlling the boom on the first track.) The engineers realized that she would have a much larger audience for the second, so they mastered it to sound good on the majority of systems. Often this means compressed and dead.

Tracy Chapman - Fast Car on original vs. Greatest Hits

Again, this is an issue with mastering. They were trying to make the entire greatest hits collection sound "together" as it was played start to finish. Due to the variations of production from one album to the next, the whole thing had to be taken to a lowest common denominator.

That's why I despise these mass-market, sample CDs (e.g. Women In Song, etc.). The mastering on these is so ham-handed, that I cringe every time my wife has the audacity to put one on my system.

Sadly, it doesn't have to be that way. I've heard a number of "collection" and "greatest hits" CDs that were mastered very well. It comes down to the ability and standards of the mastering engineer. Just like everything else, they're a mixed bag.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

[This message was edited by Mike Hanson on SATURDAY 12 October 2002 at 11:12.]

I agree that there's nothing wrong with a bit of hiss.

Listen to Mark Hollis's self-titled album from 1998 - that's almost ALL hiss, but it's still gorgeous!

Phil

...first is the newly released "single" (it has two songs on it) by Kelly Clarkson, the winner of American Idol. Ok - don't gang up on me all at once for having this one in the house - my wife ordered it from Amazaon. But I digress.

Point is, this thing sounds terrible. Good thing we have a boom box so my wife can listen to it

We saw/heard American Idol and it looked/sounded rather good. Shame they can't produce a decent CD.

Second example is Best of Cat Stevens. Mike noted about another greatest hits CD that the producers wanted all of the songs to sound similar and so mixed to teh lowest common denominator. Lucily, this doesn't seem to have been done with the Cat Stevens. The cuts from Tea for the Tillerman, for instance, sound mucho better than the others. Any wonder MoFi chose Tea for the Tillerman to make a MoFi disk of?

- GregB

Insert Witty Signature Line Here

Tony,

They are just RCA Red Seal. The big deal about these recordings is they were produced by Max Wilcox, who gets to write a little report on each of the sleeves.

On my LP of the Waltzes he tells how the recording was made in Rome. They had paid the studio for three nights. They started at six the first night. Rubinstein feels good. He's halfway through teh Waltzes at nine (or so). The team wants to call it a night, Rubinstein says, let's do some more. So eventually they record the entire album in a single session. Wilcox says it's a miracle, and evidence of Rubinstein's power. I would say he was thinking too, 'I'll take the check right now.'

Herman

Tony,
I hope you never hear a Rega Planar78 through a good hi-fi. If so you'll be saying the engineers got it right before stereo was invented and that early stereo is crap.

I just finished listening to the new Thelonius Monk CD from 1960/'61 and then put on a vinyl reissue of Coleman Hawkins (he's in Monk's band) from 1965. I then put on a early-50s 78 of Hawkins and I have to tell you that the tone of Coleman Hawkin's sax on the 78 is far superior to the vinyl or CD. Not even close.

If you listen to the Monk CD, it sounds like there are just two mediocre tenors (Hawkins and a young punk named John Coltrane). On the 78 it is clear that Coleman Hawkins is a jazz inovator.

Ron The Mon,
Needle-Freak

quote:

---

Mike Hanson said: The engineers realized that she would have a much larger audience for the second, so they mastered it to sound good on the majority of systems...

---

Interesting notion; it could be a factor with many artists.
The big shame of it is, they don't have to "dumb down"! I mean, put any CD with a nicely judged sound and wide bandwidth in your car stereo, and it sounds just fine compared to yer typical compressed mass market CD.

Does the radio copy of "Fast Car" sound any better (by anyone's standards) in car than the original mastering? Probably not!

quote:

---

The big shame of it is, they don't have to "dumb down"! I mean, put any CD with a nicely judged sound and wide bandwidth in your car stereo, and it sounds just fine compared to yer typical compressed mass market CD.

Does the radio copy of "Fast Car" sound any better (by anyone's standards) in car than the original mastering? Probably not!

---

I think that you're getting two contexts a bit confused.

The first involves homogeneity within a single CD. You need the production to seem similar from song to song. This is usually not too difficult for a single CD recorded during the same period, with the same individuals and equipment involved in all songs. However, with collections of tracks from different sources (different studio sessions, different CDs, different artists, or even worse, different genres), the results of mastering can be obvious and painful.

The "master it for the market" issue is much more annoying. It's where they make the CD sound just as crap as the rest of the software for the same target audience. For "rock" music, this usually means you compress the hell out of it, so that when your single comes on the radio, it will sound similar to everything else. That being said, radio stations (especially pop stations) often tweak each track when they create the playback master, so that the songs have the station's sound. (This is over and above the general processing that they jam between the original source and transmitter.)

In the end, it's all about making the songs fit-in. In contrast, I believe in making each thing as good as possible, and homogeneity is not a worthwhile goal. Needless to say, I don't listen to much (pop) radio, or buy many collects/greatest hits CDs.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tony Lonorgan:
This is not to slag all 80s recordings off, there are many classics – take the likes of Minutemen / Firehose on SST and other simply recorded indie stuff. Excellent stuff.

---

RIGHT ON BROTHER!!! Less is often more. Spot, who produced most of the SST stuff, is a drinking buddy of mine at the pub. He doesn't like to talk about those days (he once threw a full glass of beer at the wall during a SST discussion regarding Greg Ginn), but he did all of those records on next to nothing. Money or equipment. Ever listen to Meat Puppets II? AMAZING!

I think a lot of the problem is DIGITAL. Almost everything is done that way now. Also, the producers are getting paid TONS of money to make hits... Didn't Metallica (bleeech!) spend MONTHS on just drum sounds? Give me a break! They still sound like crap!


Brian

The Nocturnes on RCA is one of my test records (even though it's old and scratched), and indeed I think there has NEVER been any piano recording that sounded that good. Of course, one shouldn't forget that Rubinstein used to have an absolutely unique piano sound. Not many pianists can match him - maybe Gilels and, well, Horowitz on a few occasions.

I remember the huge disappointment when I bought (in the mid-80's) the digitally remastered CD - there was just nothing left of the magic, it even doesn't sound like Rubinstein at all. Back then, I blamed CD technology, nowadays I think the mastering process was done by the wrong person ...

Cheese

Cheese,

have you ever copped an ear at the big Rubinstein Collection? The 75 or more CDs RCA remastered and released of the entire recorded output in 1999 or 2000 - meaning some Chopin is featured three times: thirties, fifties and the early sixties stereo recordings.

These cds come in little album-like formats, with a little essay about the how and why of the recording, and some nice conttemporary pictures.

I have about fifteen of these little albums, incl most of those Chopin recordings and I quite like 'em. Sure those eighties remasters were too bad for words, but you should give this recent edition a try. (By now they are often on sale.)

I would say, incidentally, that Horowitz's sound is completely different. Rubinstein is oriented toward the middle octaves on the keyboard, while Horowitz is a pinkie man.

Garth and Peter Litwack please correct me if I'm wrong!

Herman

Here's a bunch of examples from Amazon.de (the numbers are chronological, so 45 - 50 is around 1962)

http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005426Y/qid=1034453773/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_0_3/302-6048856-6831232

http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000031WBV/qid=1034453773/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_0_6/302-6048856-6831232

http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000031WBU/qid=1034453924/sr=1-13/ref=sr_1_2_13/302-6048856-6831232

http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000054277/qid=1034453924/sr=1-20/ref=sr_1_2_20/302-6048856-6831232

http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005427Q/qid=1034454051/sr=1-26/ref=sr_1_2_26/302-6048856-6831232

[This message was edited by herm on SATURDAY 12 October 2002 at 21:23.]