Quality Of Recordings

[Rolf]

Hi friends. For quite long time now I have been wondering why the sound is better on some recordings, and bad on some.

I have search on recording/studios/recording engenders/monitories/mastering +++.

What I found, and that is an answer to me. Maybe yo you too.

In the 60s, 70s and 80s most recording studios used JBL. From the middle of the 80s they stopped using large format speakers, (4350, 4343, 3433) and used small shit like the LS3. At that time the quality of sound on our records decreased. The worst recordings I have found is mastered on Tanoy.

Bob Ludvik (an excellent sound technician) is one of the few that still demands hearing his mastering on big speakers. (after what I have read).

Anybody else that have opinion if this?

[hjames]

I have a friend here in DC with a mobil studio in a mercedes truck. She's got a hand-rebuilt Neive board - her stuff sounds great, even without JBL speakers.
She's been doing professional audio and working with mixing gear for many years , well over 30 years, and probably more ...

But I think a lot of folks put together an inexpensive basement recording studio for their own material and, while they may be good musicians,
that doesn't make them recording engineers - and I think that's what we are hearing - a lot of less skilled productions ... because in audio,
just like in other professions, altho newbies think "...anyone can do it", in truth, it takes a while to really develop an ear for such things.

You may get better IF you have a good start and are willing to learn.
I also think some folks will never have an ear for what sounds good.

Hi friends. For quite long time now I have been wondering why the sound is better on some recordings, and bad on some.

I have search on recording/studios/recording engenders/monitories/mastering +++.

What I found, and that is an answer to me. Maybe yo you too.

In the 60s, 70s and 80s most recording studios used JBL. From the middle of the 80s they stopped using large format speakers, (4350, 4343, 3433) and used small shit like the LS3. At that time the quality of sound on our records decreased. The worst recordings I have found is mastered on Tanoy.

Bob Ludvik (an excellent sound technician) is one of the few that still demands hearing his mastering on big speakers. (after what I have read).

Anybody else that have opinion if this?

[Rolf]

That's quite a statement, but I believe you. (Why should I not?, you are an inspiration here)

Maybe it does not take a JBL to make a good sound, but as I said, I can hear if it is mastered on JBL or Tanoy.

I have a friend here in DC with a mobil studio in a mercedes truck. She's got a hand-rebuilt Neive board - her stuff sounds great, even without JBL speakers.
She's been doing professional audio and working with mixing gear for many years , well over 30 years, and probably more ...

But I think a lot of folks put together an inexpensive basement recording studio for their own material and, while they may be good musicians,
that doesn't make them recording engineers - and I think that's what we are hearing - a lot of less skilled productions ... because in audio,
just like in other professions, altho newbies think "...anyone can do it", in truth, it takes a while to really develop an ear for such things.

You may get better IF you have a good start and are willing to learn.
I also think some folks will never have an ear for what sounds good.

[Allanvh5150]

All the mastering suites that I have used over the years have generally had large format monitors, JBL or not. A lot of it depends on what you are mastering for. If what you are mixing is only ever going to be heard on an iPod there is no point in using large format. However, if you are mixing a motion picture soundtrack you had better be using something similar to a theatre. On the other hand, if the recording budget doesn't allow for mastering at Air's studio 1 then the budget will dictate what you use.


Allan.

[Ducatista47]

I have to wonder if the advent of nearfield monitors had something to do with it. I do not believe they do well with the lowest octave. Not that anyone not into high fidelity would notice.

I do agree that the loss of the system that apprenticed skilled, experienced engineers is a larger cause of the degradation.

Last year I purchased a pair of thirty year old Stax electrostatic headphones, SRX-MK3s. They were designed as professional monitors. The seller had just used them (he had multiple pairs) to mix a classical symphonic recording. This particular model is relentlessly neutral and goes very deeply into the mix. This would also be more revealing than the precious nearfield monitors.

By the way, I had a pair already; I purchased them to give to a fellow LH forum member.

Clark

[Lee in Montreal]

I can hear if it is mastered on JBL or Tanoy.

Please let us know how you differentiate them.

[JBLAddict]

Rolf, if you honestly want to know the reason, start here, watch the embedded video, and then start reading the links at the bottom of the page.

You'll understand why super-recordings such as those of Steely Dan sound as they do on most systems, and why discs like Oasis-What's the Story Morning Glory and Red Hot Chili Peppers-Californication, two prime examples of dynamic compression are downright aweful on ANY system. It's the explanation behind why some discs, no matter how much we might like the songs, we just don't want to hear a second time.

[LowPhreak]

Bob Ludvik (an excellent sound technician) is one of the few that still demands hearing his mastering on big speakers. (after what I have read).

Doesn't he use customised Egglestons?

[BMWCCA]

Bob Ludvik (an excellent sound technician) is one of the few that still demands hearing his mastering on big speakers. (after what I have read).

Anybody else that have opinion if this?

I've taken to explaining my distaste for most modern recordings with the excuse that the engineer most likely made mastering decisions in the backseat of his Maybach listening to the "final edit" MP3.

[Rolf]

I completely agree with you in this. What is the point to put a lot of money if it only to be played on iPod or FM radio?

But when it comes to Hi-Fi, the equipment used must have something to do. I give you an example. John Lennon's Imagine. I have one original, and one made by Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab. The last one has a much better and clearer sound. Why?

All the mastering suites that I have used over the years have generally had large format monitors, JBL or not. A lot of it depends on what you are mastering for. If what you are mixing is only ever going to be heard on an iPod there is no point in using large format. However, if you are mixing a motion picture soundtrack you had better be using something similar to a theatre. On the other hand, if the recording budget doesn't allow for mastering at Air's studio 1 then the budget will dictate what you use.


Allan.

[Rolf]

Well, sometimes on the record information it says what studios has been used. Sometimes not. Tanoy was just an example. But I believe that recordings made on JBL speakers had a tighter sound. This has changed over the past years as many studios now use Genelec speakers. I have actually had the pleasure to listen to them, and if I could buy a pair of the large models without the integrated powers it would have been an option. They sound very JBL like.

Please let us know how you differentiate them.

[Rolf]

I don't know, but he makes beautiful sound.

Doesn't he use customised Egglestons?

[Rolf]

Right!

I've taken to explaining my distaste for most modern recordings with the excuse that the engineer most likely made mastering decisions in the backseat of his Maybach listening to the "final edit" MP3.

[Lee in Montreal]

I have one original, and one made by Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab. The last one has a much better and clearer sound. Why?

I would blame the engineer, not necessarely the monitors.

As for your comparaison between a "regular" LP that was pressed on light recycled vinyl at 1 million copies, and a limited edition pressed on heavy virgin vinyl, there probably lies the big difference.

Also, the mastering done for one country will often be redone for another country. I think the acetates do not travel (perhaps a matter of unions). Canadian LPS usually sounded like crap back in the days while the same import from the UK was heaven. I doubt that the huge difference in sound came from the monitors. But hey, it's only my humble perspective. And I haven't talked about the acetate cutting machine yet.

[Rolf]

This was VERY interesting! Sorry that most of the links did not work, but I understand the message, and this is what I have believed for several years. It make sense. As I said, I believe the most of the music production is now made for iPod's and radio, and for this the quality does not matter. For this most of us it does matter. That is why I do not buy many new CD's anymore. If I do buy one, coming home, it is a one time listening, then in the archive because of the annoying sound.

Rolf, if you honestly want to know the reason, start here, watch the embedded video, and then start reading the links at the bottom of the page.

You'll understand why super-recordings such as those of Steely Dan sound as they do on most systems, and why discs like Oasis-What's the Story Morning Glory and Red Hot Chili Peppers-Californication, two prime examples of dynamic compression are downright aweful on ANY system. It's the explanation behind why some discs, no matter how much we might like the songs, we just don't want to hear a second time.