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. :eek:

[JBLAddict]

Rolf, if you honestly want to know the reason, start here (http://www.turnmeup.org/), 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. :eek:

[Rolf]

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


Doesn't he use customised Egglestons?

[Rolf]

Right! :rotfl::rotfl::yes::dead_horse::shocking:


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. :D

[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 (http://www.turnmeup.org/), 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.

[Rolf]

I follow you in this. However, I do not use vinyl, only CD's, and what I have found out is that small companies as MFSL, Telarc + some Japanese and other brands does sound better.


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 have talked about the acetate cutting machine yet. :D

[JBLAddict]

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.

I've tracked this page for a few years, the articles are in chronological order with the newer ones up top, those all seem to work, and they get spotty further down the page.

This graphic (http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5172/5464591141_aac0676398_b.jpg) embedded in the second article is pretty revealing! compression by artist and year really illustrates the trend

This quote from the second article probably says it all:
"But what does that mean ? It means “City Of Blinding Lights” has only half the sonic potential of “Bullet The Blue Sky”. Only half the space for the drums to thump, for the guitars to bite, for the vocals to lift."

[JBLAddict]

I'll stop pimping the various Turn Me Up! articles after this, but if you have 20minutes to spare, this video (http://productionadvice.co.uk/research-loudness-sales/) tells a really good history of the compression phenomenon to supposedly increase sales by grabbing listeners attention with an entire freq range elevated to the same level

[moparfan]

This is at the very end of the chain...

Checkout those monitors they use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDRLhdUNFuM

[cooky1257]

..You can't blame the monitors-in fact mains are mainly used for track laying and impressing the client with most mixing done over nearfields such as the ubiquitous Yamaha's NS10.

[Rolf]

I could not find out what speaker's this is, but they was large.


This is at the very end of the chain...

Checkout those monitors they use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDRLhdUNFuM

[Doctor_Electron]

" 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. "

It always amazed me, not in a positive way, when back in the days when "vinyl" was the predominant format for purchased prerecorded musical product...

That a recording would be made at a studio with megabucks worth of the latest and greatest equipment, with a hotshot producer being paid a substantial (and I DO mean substantial) fee to ensure successful results, up to months and sometimes even more time spent re-dubbing, sweetening, and "perfecting" the recording ad nauseum... but when I would excitedly run down to the store and plunk down several hours' worth of hard-earned pay for such a masterpiece, playing the finished product on a great quality system, time and again I would hear the sonic quality of "Hammered #$%".
I just don't get it (Well, actually many years later I now do). But what a waste of resources and effort. No wonder the [average] MP3 is so popular. No expectation, no disappointment.

Ok, the venting is done. Sorry. A Chesky "fix" should make all well again.

( CHESKY JD 111 "CLASSIC & JAZZ AUDIOP[HILE TEST DISK, VOLUME 3", ca. 1994 ). Sounds like music!

[Eaulive]

I've tracked this page for a few years, the articles are in chronological order with the newer ones up top, those all seem to work, and they get spotty further down the page.

This graphic (http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5172/5464591141_aac0676398_b.jpg) embedded in the second article is pretty revealing! compression by artist and year really illustrates the trend

This quote from the second article probably says it all:
"But what does that mean ? It means “City Of Blinding Lights” has only half the sonic potential of “Bullet The Blue Sky”. Only half the space for the drums to thump, for the guitars to bite, for the vocals to lift."

Just though this was related...
http://www.waves.com/content.aspx?id=11498

Using a combination of peak limiting and low-level compression with automatic makeup, Louder effectively makes tracks louder, increasing RMS by up to 24 dB.

:banghead:

[Fort Knox]

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.

I remember the mid 80s' to be the ...painful conversion to Digital (when a CD player cost 500 bucks)
and most CDs had analog hiss

[Rolf]

I remember the mid 80s' to be the ...painful conversion to Digital (when a CD player cost 500 bucks)
and most CDs had analog hiss


:D Yes, at that time it was hard to find DDD Cd's. Many was AAD, sond some ADD. Some CD players cost alot more the $500. Of cource you can get them for $100, but how do they sound?

[herki the cat]

[QUOTE=JBLAddict;317667]Rolf.... disc's like Oasis-What's the Story Morning Glory and Red Hot Chili Peppers-Californication, .... are downright awful on ANY system....Turn Me Up!™....campaigning....to release more dynamic records....Today, artists want more dynamic records generally feel they have to master their records to be as loud as everybody.[Quote/]"

Aw, Poor California..... I have found memories of California...Up & down the hills of San Fransisco and a visit into the cable car power station with my tiny daughter. In La, 1968, Dancing with my wife to Lawrence Welk, Collecting film studio microphones etc, & a four week's consulting task at the RCA Van Nuys Division, together with four RCA Camden engineers re-designing a critical military massive mechanical computer read and write card auto shuffling machine which due to electrical transients, had been dumping cards into its waste container.

This was the pet project of the RCA Camden Vice President.

"More dynamic records" were achieved in the RCA Classicals vinyls recorded in a venue like the Chicago Symphony Auditorium using three magnificent U47 microphones with the original awesome "M-7' poly-vinyl capsule, capable of collecting the natural ambient reverb'...been there...

To realize this you need first class speaker systems like the JBL Array 1400 G, the Everest, or the original RCA Ubangi, or its sibling, the LC9-A, or the professional wide Range RCA LC-1 Monitor used exclusively even in Europe, by RCA's late, Prince Charming Engineer, Mr. Jack Pheifer during his 30 year career recording all the RCA Classicals.

In a large, excellent recording studio you can produce excellent reverb' by playing back into that room, a dry recording delayed via 15 inch per second tape to sel- sync back into the original multi-track recording to blend with the orchestral tracks.

Honorary degree, Dr. Bruce Sweden has used two microphones Multi tracked, perhaps with the second microphone via delay to accomonodate a vocalist alone in a large studio with fantastic results. You can also generate excelllent reverb' with this delayed play back technique for the orchestral tracks.

Typical artificial dynamics in popular music are gruesome & unwelcome especially in digital recordings. As for loud pops, "as loud as possible" has always been required by the artists to assure their gems will be heard in the car and other noisy environments. Can't get mad at them, its a tough world.

Near field monitors... Our "mashed potato sandwich" domestic listening rooms will never match the Movie film studio post production studio ambiance. Far-field monitors are required in studios with reverb' charactreristics identical to the magnifient film exhibitor's theate-now extinct.

Release films are produced acoustically dry of reverb since this component will be generated in the theater; perhaps not in speech to a certain extent where the producer needs to keep the original ambiance of the filming event _ at least with the obsolete heavy "skunk" RCA KU-2 & KU-3, Cardiod directional microphones on a huge boom. The white "skunk"-back stripe of course identifies the film microphone 30dB cardiod pattern rejection.

Currently, film sound recording uses a tiny funky condenser microphone pinned on the actor's clothing. Sound today in theaters doesn't have a ghost of a chance with the old low frequency horns now substituted with stacked multiple woofers in rectangular cabinets to make room for multi channel Stereo. Also some high frequency drivers are no longer....Well, Ca sufi com ca.herki[Quote/]

[Rolf]

You really get you "cat claws" out in your post. But I get it, and that is why I don't buy so many new CD's at the moment.


[QUOTE=JBLAddict;317667]Rolf.... disc's like Oasis-What's the Story Morning Glory and Red Hot Chili Peppers-Californication, .... are downright awful on ANY system....Turn Me Up!™....campaigning....to release more dynamic records....Today, artists want more dynamic records generally feel they have to master their records to be as loud as everybody.[Quote/]"

Aw, Poor California..... I have found memories of California...Up & down the hills of San Fransisco and a visit into the cable car power station with my tiny daughter. In La, 1968, Dancing with my wife to Lawrence Welk, Collecting film studio microphones etc, & a four week's consulting task at the RCA Van Nuys Division, together with four RCA Camden engineers re-designing a critical military massive mechanical computer read and write card auto shuffling machine which due to electrical transients, had been dumping cards into its waste container.

This was the pet project of the RCA Camden Vice President.

"More dynamic records" were achieved in the RCA Classicals vinyls recorded in a venue like the Chicago Symphony Auditorium using three magnificent U47 microphones with the original awesome "M-7' poly-vinyl capsule, capable of collecting the natural ambient reverb'...been there...

To realize this you need first class speaker systems like the JBL Array 1400 G, the Everest, or the original RCA Ubangi, or its sibling, the LC9-A, or the professional wide Range RCA LC-1 Monitor used exclusively even in Europe, by RCA's late, Prince Charming Engineer, Mr. Jack Pheifer during his 30 year career recording all the RCA Classicals.

In a large, excellent recording studio you can produce excellent reverb' by playing back into that room, a dry recording delayed via 15 inch per second tape to sel- sync back into the original multi-track recording to blend with the orchestral tracks.

Honorary degree, Dr. Bruce Sweden has used two microphones Multi tracked, perhaps with the second microphone via delay to accomonodate a vocalist alone in a large studio with fantastic results. You can also generate excelllent reverb' with this delayed play back technique for the orchestral tracks.

Typical artificial dynamics in popular music are gruesome & unwelcome especially in digital recordings. As for loud pops, "as loud as possible" has always been required by the artists to assure their gems will be heard in the car and other noisy environments. Can't get mad at them, its a tough world.

Near field monitors... Our "mashed potato sandwich" domestic listening rooms will never match the Movie film studio post production studio ambiance. Far-field monitors are required in studios with reverb' charactreristics identical to the magnifient film exhibitor's theate-now extinct.

Release films are produced acoustically dry of reverb since this component will be generated in the theater; perhaps not in speech to a certain extent where the producer needs to keep the original ambiance of the filming event _ at least with the obsolete heavy "skunk" RCA KU-2 & KU-3, Cardiod directional microphones on a huge boom. The white "skunk"-back stripe of course identifies the film microphone 30dB cardiod pattern rejection.

Currently, film sound recording uses a tiny funky condenser microphone pinned on the actor's clothing. Sound today in theaters doesn't have a ghost of a chance with the old low frequency horns now substituted with stacked multiple woofers in rectangular cabinets to make room for multi channel Stereo. Also some high frequency drivers are no longer....Well, Ca sufi com ca.herki[Quote/]