With all the technical progress from the last 30 years in mind, I wonder why some of the modern releases lack that feeling (in my mind - or am I probably prejudiced?). Today's sound is technically perfect, but I can't help myself, I feel it differently. Of course there are a lot of great records today, too (soundwise), but I heard a lot of current recordings who have that "sterile" sound which is so hard to describe.

Does the technical progress, the digital recording etc. make it "colder"? Or was it the technique of having everybody in the same room at the same time, w/o a lot of overdubbing? Is it the way some of the instruments (drums and bass) are mixed today?

I wonder if any of you guys has made the same observation.

Kind Regards, Walter

www.lloydgreentribute.com
www.austriansteelguitar.at.tf

1 the engineers back then worked with the acoustics in the rooms to get the sound,
an art that, in too many cases, has been lost.

I work hard to recreate environments for individual instruments,
and harder if it doesn't exist in nature.

Not just one big room for ALL of them.

I often record with mutliple mics to capture different elements of the environment

2) But then it all goes for naught when it gets down sampled to .mp3's,
or god help us worse formats.

The1st thing I hear disappearing even at high end mp3 sample rates
is the environments I create.

First, personally, I prefer live-in-the-studio with multi-tracking and reasonable isolation, so a great feeling take with perhaps a glaring but not fundamental technical clam can be fixed if necessary. But for me, the feeling generated by musicians who play well together usually outweighs small defects in playing. This explains why I mostly play as part of an ensemble, and if we record with a producer, he or she works for us. Not much chance of me becoming a serious session musician in today's world, although I do low-key sessions occasionally. Some of this is a part of why I moved back into science and engineering after a 5-6 year foray into music, professionally.

As mentioned, 50s & 60s and earlier jazz-blues-country-rock'n'roll was recorded in relatively primitive studios mostly live. Maybe they could fix a thing or two, maybe not. I think a lot of people are still trying to figure out how they made it sound so good without all the fancy equipment. Everything said here makes sense: engineers worked acoustics more, some people swear it's the old tube consoles, I agree that the room matters, etc.

But overall, I don't think there's anything wrong with the current equipment, there are still plenty of good rooms to record in, and lots of engineers are still plenty knowledgeable about acoustics, etc. My view is that lot of people in the music business (not necessarily engineers or producers, IMO) seem to think that music is just the sum of a bunch of independent parts and pieces, and I think that is fundamentally not correct. In my opinion, the freedom to be able to cut and paste pieces of sound like putting together a jigsaw puzzle doesn't turn a 'jigsaw puzzle of the Mona Lisa' into the real thing, no matter how talented the people making the pieces are. Let me explain further.

When an ensemble of musicians play live, there's a phenomenon called "entrainment", which happens when players make feedback corrections to keep the overall rhythm, feel, pitch, overall sound, whatever, of the entire ensemble together. People don't have identical and perfect rhythm, feel, or pitch, of course some do a lot better than others. But some adjustment for errors is essential, and the dynamics of this closed-loop system can get very, very complex. In the hands of talented players and production, the music 'breathes', the way people do. I think this is missing from a lot of modern recordings, where engineers or producers can time-shift, pitch-shift, remove string noises, and do other things to 'scrubb-to-perfection' the ensemble sound. It doesn't sound natural to me, but YMMV.

The technical requirement for near-perfection is very real if the musicians are tracking separately, without the feedback to adjust to the entire ensemble. I think this is one of the reasons why virtuoso-level playing is expected in studios these days. The technical mastery of the top players today is remarkable, and part of that is the need to be able to function in this high-tech environment. One has to be very, very consistent about the 4 Ts, tuning, tone, timing, and taste, to make this cut-and-paste thing work well. Do you think Luther Perkins could have cut it in the recording world today? Not a chance, but regardless of what you think about his level of viruosity, the impact on popular music of his simple figures, from the early Johnny Cash records, cannot be overestimated, IMO. Lots of similar examples abound in many styles of music. How do we think Charlie Parker would have reacted to the studio system as we now know it? No issue about technical virtuosity there, but I seriously wonder if we'd have ever heard of him in the current landscape of the music biz. Do we really believe that great musicians make their best music detached from their fellow musicians?

Think of this analogy - suppose you want to send a spaceship to the moon. In one approach (this is the ensemble-playing analogy), you're constantly measuring your relative position and velocity relative to your target, and can continuously apply error feedback correction as you go. The technical requirements for precision to your pre-planned course are relaxed. On the other hand, without this continuous feedback (the separate-tracking analogy), one needs to execute all pre-planned maneuvers very precisely, or the target on a long journey is missed completely. This is the actual experience in early rocket travel work. Back to recording, in the separate tracking approach, everybody needs to play very precisely to the pre-planned 'trajectory'. Certain feedback mechanisms are generally provided, like click tracks for rhythmic consistency, and laying down the rhythm section first. But I think that's a lot different than having the whole ensemble together.

Finally, before anyone thinks this is a slam on the entire recording industry, it's not. I realize a lot of conscientious producers and engineers try hard to keep ensembles playing together as much as practically possible. And I do hear things that sound great today, but it's unfortunately not that often. I think the problem is the fast pace and current tendency of many large corporations who control things to largely sublimate 'musical issues' to 'business issues'. I'm not against business, but since it's the 'music business', I think the baby should not be thrown out with the bath water.

------------------
-johnson

I guess the Bluegrass people are the only ones left that understand how to get that blend, and even they are loosing it as they go to induvidual mics on each instrument, etc.

Oh well,

Now, at the same time, there were plenty of great recordings that were made in less sophisticated studios than Columbia or Van Gelder studios. Let's face it, Chess Studios and Sun Studios and many others were not sophisticated from a technical point of view, even by period standards. But the rooms were good-sounding and the producers and engineers knew how to artistically extract good sound from them with their equipment. The recordings were great. I used Luther Perkins with Johnny Cash at Sun Studios as a case in point. I might just as easily use Jimmy Rogers, Muddy Waters and Little Walter at Chess.

I don't disagree with anything you've said except that I characterized the old studios as 'bad'. Perhaps my post was too long, sorry about that.

the key element, to me, of a good recording is good music played by players with some soul. technology is nothing but a tool, capable of being misused, but also capable of helping to deliver soulful music with better sound quality than ever. there were plenty of bad (and bad sounding) records made in earlier eras too. it wasn't necessarily the fault of the technology.

But Van Gelders studio WAS primative.
The acoustics were quite odd, but after MANY sessions he had found the specific places that "worked".

IF you alway put the bass on this mark, and the drums on that mark and the sax aimed this way in that corner it worked.
Yes he literally had marked the floor where his sound worked.

As opposed to more modern studios where the sound was good in several places for several instruments. And you coluld vary it, by movement, not get one sound and re-produced it many times.

That said as above love the sound he got.

He worked WITH the acoustics, but also he had no choice either.

I just heard Dean Martin's Welcome To My World and the use of stereo was just bizare, but they were still learning then.

The ability to make great live sounding recordings is still there, but they just tend not to go for that anymore.

And no one is building new studios purpose built for this acoustic modality,
because of the digital home studios erasing the demo market,
so people just can't justify building the rooms...
since thay can't break even.

One thing you CAN do is feed a track out to speakers in the room and add the acoustics back in from mics in the room.
If you have a good room.

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 17 May 2005 at 12:29 AM.]

quote:

---

Yeah, that's right, plug all their direct boxes into the interface. Put Donny there into the Podxt. Let 'em use those tube amps and those dummy SM57s... Look at 'em in there. They're all smiling like hell... Tell them to run another take. All we need is the guitar part on that one verse.. -modern 36 bit producer-(as he hands the pipe to his apprentice.)

---

Amazing that anybody ever got used to 60 cycle lights or moving pictures...

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 15 May 2005 at 03:16 AM.]

I think it was David Donald that once posted a graphic example here of the sound of an older recording vs. the sound of a newer (highly compressed) one. It spoke volumes. The older recording had loads of dynamics and open space, "breathing room", I think they call it. The newer recording looked more like "hash", or white noise. The signal level was constant. There were no spaces that weren't filled! Maybe that's why I can't lsten to today's music for long periods. It's just too "busy", and it just seems to induce mental fatigue. My old vinyl? I can listen to that all day. It doesn't assualt the senses like today's popular recordings. I must admit, the steeler CD's and some of the indie CD stuff is far closer to the "sound" of decades past. But lately, it seems even the indie stuff is "busier", and more compressed.

p.s. Dave, I don't always view "primitive' as bad! Some of my 78's are far more listenable than this cluttered-up, compressed stuff they're releasing today. It has nothing to do with fidelity, and everything to do with capturing the raw, live, musical talent of a performer. My Muddy Waters and Leadbelly stuff would be ignored if it were on CD's.

[This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 15 May 2005 at 05:46 AM.]

Compression Wars!

Followed by that other skermish, the "Clone Wars".

Mastering guru, and noted compression hater Bob Katz has the following to say...

quote:

---

From The Sublime to the Ridiculous
roducers don't seem to like making a CD that's even a little softer than the competition, so each succeeding CD is often a little bit hotter. Just how much hotter can CDs get? I can cut a CD that's 16 dB louder than the ones we made in the early 90's, before digital limiters became popular, but it'll look like a square wave and soundlike audio cream of wheat! Imagine the consumer problems caused by large variations in loudness--switching CDs has literally become Russian Roulette, shooting out our speakers and ears! But ultimately, your hot CD doesn't get any louder for the public; they just turn their monitor down, and scream in disgust at the increasing range they have to move the knob when they change CDs. In addition, sound quality is suffering by an unjustifiable demand for hotter CDs. A fellow mastering engineer reminds me that in the early days of CDs, we didn't have any pressure to make them hotter (because there was little competition), and early pop CDs had good, open sound. They're much softer than current CDs, but if you turn up your volume control you'll see their dynamics are much better-sounding. Why do we have to go backwards in sound quality?

---

More from this article can be found at http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=33/

And that's the truth! So there! Best, -Dave

------------------
'95 Mullen D-10 w/ E66 (E9) & Mullen (C6)pups - It's still one smooooth puppy!
'04 Artisan S-6 - "The Home Depot scrap pile refugee"
Photo page: http://www.davidhorch.com/music

[This message was edited by Dave Horch on 15 May 2005 at 05:55 AM.]

Why it makes for a so much simpler mix...DUH!

Well one issue especial for singles is getting air play,
and the big stations compress the station output
up to fractions below illegal transmistion levels.

Squeezing out to every last legal mile, or yard, of audience coverage.
If your mix is too dynamicy then they figure
they are lossing advertising revenue.

I like compression so that it doesn't pump,
but gives a light smoothing of the occasional out of resonable peak signal.
That was it's original design intention.

And most of the time iit s not there, because the normal musician created dynamics is showing through.

Well more on bass especially the upright, since I prefer that ALL my notes are heard.

The when mastering time comes round get it hot as you can,
and maybe 1 peak going red for an instant.
But invisablyif you actually hear it it's too much.

There you'll also find the graphics comparing old and new recordings.

It's not the compressors that's the problem, it's the people using them,- compression, in one way or another, has been around since the beginning of recorded music. Allthough I do find that the less compression I use, the better my mix sounds, there are places were good use of compression can work wonders to a track.
There's a time and place for everything, just not this ridiculous loudness war we've been witnessing over the last 10 years....

Steinar

------------------
www.gregertsen.com

It's people that make the technology work or not work. But I think there is a natural temptation to think "Hey, we gotta use all this high-tech stuff - we paid for it, eh?". It can be a slippery slope, particularly when the performance hits some stumbling blocks, and everybody wants to get finished quickly. In the 'old days', that wasn't an option. Too many projects I've worked on started out working ensemble, but then moved to cut-and-paste for efficiency. It seems to be human nature - if a tool is available to get the quick result, it is often used, even if it doesn't really give the desired result.

A lot of this is context also. In computer/electronics-generated or sampled music, extreme cut-and-paste may be entirely reasonable. If we're talking commercial jingles, voiceovers, and the like, I don't see what difference it makes. But in rootsier styles or classical music, I don't care for it. But many people seem to strenuously prefer it. I have friends who just can't resist the temptation to 'scrubb-to-perfection' everything they record. De gustibus non disputandum.

Sorry to impune your use of the word "primitive" was negative. Just comparing the old state of the art to the new.

quote:

---

Why do we have to go backwards in sound quality?

---

Because the ones running the consoles now, the ones twisting the knobs, pushing the sliders, and tweaking the software, were raised on really LOUD rock-n-roll!

What the hell do they know about quality???

It's like asking a demolition expert to do eye surgery!

(Have you ever seen a really quiet, low-key rock band with a packed house?)

quote:

---

What the hell do they know about quality???

---

In many cases they know quite a lot actually, more than you would imagine judging from the records being produced these days.
Many recording engineers despair when hearing how the mixes they've spent countless hours perfectioning has been ruined in the mastering stage.

And know what? Many mastering engineers despair also, but they have some moron record company A&R man standing behind their back, yelling; "LOUDER!! LOUDER!! Or we'll find some other to do our business with!!".

It won't go away until the big record companies realize they are losing sales because of the lousy quality, OR they crumble and fall, leaving the market to the independent labels who actually care about the quality of music.

Steinar

------------------
www.gregertsen.com

A culture was created that forced us to adapt to A/D conversion by creating more digital stuff to smooth out the rough edges and to modernize, by making it “busy”. I agree then that some producers subconsciously take the soul out of recordings by using (or overusing) digital techniques that cause the effects mentioned.

In the days of vinyl, a “fill” may have been created by suggesting to the drummer to simply switch from high-hat to ride cymbal during an instrumental solo. Now, we can’t even have a clean sounding cymbal. Either the cymbal hits all sound the same, or it sounds like white noise so we have to bury it and cover it up with something else. Eventually, the sampling rate takes over, so why bother with trying to keep the personality of the music, when it won’t be heard.

------------------
Mike Barone
Sho-Bud Pro-1, Nashville 112, Goodrich Pedal, BJS 15/16 Bar

Which brings me back to one of my old quandrys. Why can't they make analog CD's?

[This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 15 May 2005 at 03:04 PM.]

But not a lot of audio people are using it,
because it is still dwarfed by the installed base of 44.1 16 cd players. but that is changing.

96khz 24 bit is practical today, but the cost of burning DVD's isn't down quite far enough yet.

The compression thing is more radio production driven than being because of the CD formate.
I have listened to many supoer jazz albums and the cymbals sound reasonable, and the room feel is there.
Not as cool as 96k though.

Where we REALLY are loosing is the mp3 conversions.
I dread that it will be come the defacto standard for music delivery. It also means more compression BEFORE mp3 comverions
because people tend to listen on smaller systems on computers... so it's compressed to fit.

[This message was edited by Gene Jones on 16 May 2005 at 04:45 AM.]

quote:

---

On Saturday, Les Paul, less than a month shy of his 90th birthday, was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, in Akron, Ohio, as the creator of the solid-body electric guitar,

---

But they forgot that he also invented overdubing multi track recording.

This also has had a major affect on a whole industry.
And certainly has had an effect on much of the world's listening habits...
not small accomplishment me thinks.

And germain to this discussion.
DD

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 16 May 2005 at 01:17 AM.]

quote:

---

...50 cents...

---

On master Les Paul - I love those stories he would tell about the early days when he would hide the recorder behind a curtain and people would wonder how the heck he did some of his multitrack tricks live. Clllllasic!

[This message was edited by Dave Horch on 16 May 2005 at 02:35 AM.]

When I first went to see the Rolling Stones early 60's, it was a packed house..maybe 6000 . I couldn't even hear them and we were in like the 4th row

Today, they have 6000 in the first row..

The loudest amp back in the early era was a Fender Twin..at about 85 watts. Trust me on this, if those bands back then could have played louder they would have.

Live sound systems were a thing of the future back then...they all would have died for a mega watt multi enclosure system with a separate monitor mix..Those old Bogen PA's were not gonna survive the 60's...

As far as recording goes , thank you John Macey..every recorder and effect add on is a tool..use it right ..or don't use it right...

Just because you have 32 tracks does not mean you can't record a quality mix with only 4 tracks...you still need a quality player and a good take.....

I feel the best engineers have a background or experience with past days gear but are savy enough to bring it forward and merge it with the awesome gear that is available today...

The center channel mix is not for us..it's for the TV video watching world and MP3 Music download world...thats where the money is....

My Corvettes ( when I had them ) could cruise at 150..but I still drove them in downtown traffic...

MP3's..thank god they are here...CD burners, DVD burners, PCs..the whole deal...digital mpg....Music Video's...AND...16 / 32 track Digital recording workstations in a 14 " x 14" plastic case with multiple effects, mastering, auto faders, CD burning with Red Book specs..all for under 2 grand...

If you are listening to something that you feel is not all that good technically..thats an aritfact of the guy with the ears..not the the gear....we have been listening to digital masters for well over a decade now..and they ain't all bad....

I suspect we gained way more than we lost....

t

[This message was edited by Tony Prior on 16 May 2005 at 05:13 AM.]

quote:

---

I suspect we gained way more than we lost....

---

I still find that recording band tracks live in a room playing together captures something that simply can't be found when everything is dubbed.

[This message was edited by Dave Grafe on 16 May 2005 at 05:34 PM.]

------------------
D.S. Rigsby
Wilcox SD10 3&5
http://www.touchinglittlelives.org

The stereo effect was impressive, but there was an obvious problem with editing. If you cut the tape you made a mess of the stereo. At the same time, most (ok, many) people were buying portable stereos (turntable, two speakers), and engineers were worried about producing some sort of stereo effect with the speakers only a foot apart. That led to what they called "pingpong stereo" which was an exaggerated effect to make cheap record players sound decent, even if the music was terrible on any other equipment. Chet Atkins records were especially annoying on headphones -- you got Chet in one ear and everybody else in the other. It made your ears itch.

I agree then that there are some pretty good CDs being produced now with acceptable high end, depending upon genre.

------------------
Mike Barone
Sho-Bud Pro-1, Nashville 112, Goodrich Pedal, BJS 15/16 Bar

Many of the early tracks were hand spliced between multiple cuts to get the best parts,
and then bounced down.

I am SURE Gerorge Martin would have loved a Protools at the time,
but he done good anyway.

It also featured lots of great acoustics.

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 17 May 2005 at 12:27 AM.]