Recording techniques - is digital to blame?

It is not directly related to digital recording. Great recordings can be, and are made using digital technology. It is even easier to to misuse it, though. Much bad work is done with an MP3/iPod/torrent audience in mind.

The truly cynical would argue that euphonic (pleasant sounding) distortion masked many a dodgy analogue set-up in the past, thus giving us a rose-coloured view of older art. There are many on this forum who believe that modern recordings can far exceed the quality of older efforts.

It's the particular music you're listening to, not modern digital recordings in general. The best sounding recordings I have are digital recordings made in 2007-2009 inclusive.

I agree with Mike



Basia Bulat's two masterpieces were both recorded recently and rank among the very best musical recordings I've ever heard.

I agree with Mike. The sound quality I get on a lot of the jazz, ECM and classical CD recordings I listen to is second to none. ECM has been doing digital recordings for 15+years now and they are considered top notch recordings and they are. I can't say the same of some of the modern rock/pop I buy, although there are still some record companies/artists that care. I think the less mass market recordings do much better.

I agree many of todays recordings are spectacular. However, it is pretty hard to rely on a given company. With jazz, it seems like a great engineer in a good studio (like Systems Two with Marciano as engineer) can be relied on, but even a label as good as ECM can be hit or miss (I found a recent Enrico Rava-Stefano Bollani CD "Third Man" unlistenable due to the cavernous acoustic). Classical recordings are even more hit or miss, with a lot of variables. I suppose the same could be said for analogue recordings.

I disagree strongly with Mike. I defy anyone to come up with better sound on current opera recordings than these two from the 1950s:

EMI's 1953 mono La Scala Tosca, conducted by Victor de Sabata, produced by Walter Legge.

Decca's stereo Vienna Das Rheingold, conducted by Georg Solti, produced by John Culshaw.

Or, if you want to go pop:

The Beach Boys' mono 1966 Pet Sounds, produced by Brian Wilson.

The Beatles' (stereo or mono) 1967 Sergeant Pepper, produced by George Martin.

No one is able to produce better sounding records these days, some 50/60 years further on.

Graham

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
I disagree strongly with Mike. I defy anyone to come up with better sound on opera recordings than these two from the 1950s:

EMI's 1953 mono La Scala Tosca, conducted by Victor de Sabata, produced by Walter Legge.

Decca's stereo Vienna Das Rheingold, conducted by Georg Solti, produced by John Culshaw.

Or, if you want to go pop:

The Beach Boys' mono 1966 Pet Sounds, produced by Brian Wilson.

The Beatles' 1967 Sergeant Pepper, produced by George Martin.

No one is able to produce better sounding records these days, some 50/60 years further on.

Graham

ella and louie records 1956 effectively live. mistakes yes. music stunning

quote:

Originally posted by Oldnslow:

even a label as good as ECM can be hit or miss (I found a recent Enrico Rava-Stefano Bollani CD "Third Man" unlistenable due to the cavernous acoustic)

But this is an objection to an aesthetic choice, not to a lacking in sound quality ... the quality of that cavernous reverberation is world-class, but it's an artistic choice you disagree with. The issue of actual recording/mastering/manufacturing quality is very different. And all this is aside from the analogue/digital issue, which is yet again something else.

By the way, I find the music on Third Man so profoundly beautiful ... the very notes themselves and how they're played, that is ... that I could listen to a version of the same performance recorded on a Dictaphone in a bathroom and would be nearly as enthralled. Happily, though, I happen to love the result of the aesthetic/sonic choices that were made ... sounds to me like a dream of music.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:

quote:

Originally posted by Oldnslow:
even a label as good as ECM can be hit or miss (I found a recent Enrico Rava-Stefano Bollani CD "Third Man" unlistenable due to the cavernous acoustic)

But this is an objection to an aesthetic choice, not to a lacking in sound quality ... the quality of that cavernous reverberation is world-class, but it's an artistic choice you disagree with.

All best,
Fred

Sometimes an artistic choice is just plain wrong. Reverb that smears articulation (which it must to some degree) is always unsatisfactory, in a recording or a live performance.

This is just my tastes, but it's taste that is the final determinant in what you end up enjoying, and enjoyment of a listen is the primary concern.

I think much of this is down to the loudness wars and way the recordings are manipulated for the mass market, emphasising the bass and treble. There has been much written about that on this and other forums. http://www.turnmeup.org/

As has been stated above, there are still artists that care and produce well recorded material, using digital, but it does not tend to make the top 20.

D

quote:

Originally posted by Tommo:
Is current recording technology responsible for me not liking the popular beat combos of the day? Listen to oldies from 60s, 70s and even as late as early 90s stuff and they sound fantastic. Newer stuff just sounds brittle and harsh on the ears in comparison, exaggerated at both ends.

Did someone steal the 'how to record a band' handbook?

According to Naim in About True Stereo

"the digital electronics required to convert the analog tapes have been developed to the point that we can exploit the full potential of the original sound that we captured on the original analogue Nagra tape recorder"

This means that according to Naim, digital is now the equal of analogue. So, the recording techniques must have something to do with brittle and harsh sound of most of the new stuff.

Analogue,tubes and horns are not "totally" outclassed in my view!

Fred--I like the Rava/Bollani duo and first heard them on an Italian label (Philology) on a release entitled "Rava Plays Rava", likely available through Cadence if you are interested. It is a very beautiful (and no overbearing reverb!)

Interesting, I was going to post a thread along these lines then I saw this one.

My comment is that second hand discs from the 80's and 90's, after a wash on the VPI HW16.5 sound great, very musical, fun to listen to.

All the newest vinyl I've bought, including MoFi, just don't boggie for me !

Is it the AAA winning over DDA ?

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:

Sometimes an artistic choice is just plain wrong. Reverb that smears articulation (which it must to some degree) is always unsatisfactory, in a recording or a live performance.

Wrong for whom? What if the very artistic intent was to smear the articulation?

On the other hand, reverb needn't inherently smear articulation ... careful listening will reveal that more often than not, the classic ECM reverberation doesn't ... it's placed well behind the dry signal, even when it's cathedral depth.

Fred

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:

Sometimes an artistic choice is just plain wrong. Reverb that smears articulation (which it must to some degree) is always unsatisfactory, in a recording or a live performance.

Wrong for whom? What if the very artistic intent was to smear the articulation?

On the other hand, reverb needn't inherently smear articulation ... careful listening will reveal that more often than not, the classic ECM reverberation doesn't ... it's placed well behind the dry signal, even when it's cathedral depth.

Fred

Wrong for me. It's something I don't ever want to hear.