2. misc-audio
  3. 1375840071

Does it bother you?

I'm a recording engineer who has worked in some of the world's top facilities. Let me walk you though an example signal path that you might find in a place like, say, Henson Studio A:

1. Microphone: Old. Probably a PCB inside. Copper wiring.
2. Mic cable: Constructed in house with $1/ft Canare Star Quad, solder, and a connector that might have been in the bottom of a box in the back.
3. Wall jack: Just a regular old Neutrik XLR connector on the wall.
4. Cable snake: Bundles of mic cables going to the control room.
5. Another XLR jack.
6. Another cheap mic cable.
7. Mic preamp: Old and lovely sounding. Audio going through 50 year old pots.
8. Patchbay: Another cheap copper cable is soldered into a patchbay where hundreds of connectors practically touch.
9. TT Cable: Goes from one patch to the next in the patch bay. Copper. No brand preference.
10. DB25 connector: Yes, the same connector you used to connect a modem to your computer in 1986. This is the heart and soul of studio audio transfer.
11. DB25 cable to the console: 25 strands of razor-thin copper wire, 8 channels of audio, sharing a ride.
12. The mixing console: PCB after PCB of tiny copper paths carry the audio through countless op amp chips.
13. DB25 cable to the recording device: time to travel through two more DB25 connectors as we make our way to the AD converters or tape machine.
14. AD conversion: More op amp chips.
15. Digital cable: nothing fancy, just whatever works. USB and Firewire cables are just stock.

...and this is just getting the audio into the recorder.

Also:

None of this equipment has vibration reducing rubber feet, it's just stacked haphazardly in racks. Touching.

No fancy power cables are used, just regular ol' IEC cables.

Acoustic treatment is done using scientific measurements.

Words like "soundstage" and "pace" are never uttered.

Does it bother you? Do you find it strange that the people who record the music that you listen to aren't interested in "tweaks," and expensive cables, and alarm clocks with a sticker on them? If we're not using any of this stuff to record the albums, then what are you hearing when you do use it?
trentpancakes
minorl
1,016 posts
 
Doesn't bother me at all. Some recordings are just bad. Because of the equipment used by some recording studios and equipment used by the artist themselves. Some (most) are not audiophiles and are not interested at all in the detailed sound quality. They just want to get their music out there for the masses. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. For the ones more interested in not only quality music, but quality music recording and music reproduction, they take more time and money to invest in the proper techniques, equipment and personnel. You get what you pay for. Most (not all, so don't jump on me) younger people don't care at all about audiophile quality recordings. Their mp3s are just fine to them. And since many of their recordings are terrible anyway, they are just rocking to the distorted music and are happy anyway. For me, even some of my older cds really sound terrible on better equipment. The music is great, but the recordings really are bad. Oh well. But there are some out there that really do know what they are doing recording and recording equipment wise, and they take pride in the quality of their work. but it is a business first and foremost and making money is the primary concern for many. Not all though.

enjoy
judsauce
147 posts
 
Trent,

First off, your postings are spot-on. And your descriptions and wording and perceptions are also spot on. If I were recording again, I'd want you to be my engineer AND producer.

I remember a recording session long ago when I was both performer and songwriter. We rehearsed the song once, then after about 2 more run-throughs we took a break. The other musicians started goofing off, and I sensed the magic waning. I remember saying, "come on guys, knock it off; we're peaking. Let's keep the magic." We started recording and did like 5 takes to tape. We had lost the "magic", it became "work" and sounded flat. Our rehearsals were all buy-takes and they never made it to tape! A good producer would have sensed this and hit the record button from the start. No amount of golden cable or wire holders or vibe rocks could make us sound good. 95% musicianship, 5% technology. Never more evident that day.

Regarding your original question; No, it doesn't bother me one bit. Case in point; play the LP "12 Dreams of Dr. Sardonicus" (sp?) by the band Spirit (recorded late 60's, I think.) All analogue, probably recorded in similar fashion that you described, to a big fat 2" master tape. That album SMOKES! Great musicianship, great songwriting and a great sounding mix. You had mentioned in an earlier post that, in the 60's, there was markedly more THD and noise and a lot of other bad things that affect the signal. This LP is an example of your theory that talent trumps bad technology.

Thanks for such a great post.
trentpancakes OP
13 posts
 
Judsauce, you GET IT. Thanks, man.
jtcf's avatar
jtcf
1,617 posts
 
To answer the original question,we are hearing a more highly resolving version of the "moment you captured in time."And no it doesn't bother me if the recording is of poor quality if you were able to capture the emotion and magic of that moment.I especially like hearing mistakes(dropped drumsticks,etc.)Makes things feel real.
bjesien
1,284 posts
 
Does anyone remember the thread from a few years back by a guy, I think his name was Carlos? He was a recording engineer with a temper and of coarse owned all the best gear. I remember photos of a big disheveled room fool of equipment. He got toasted. I remember he threatened to quit posting and several members thanked him.

Very different thread but fun memory. Keep your eye on the prize cakes. I'd love to listen to the stuff you put together. Any recommendations?
More to discover