I have argued this point many times. Sure a better system makes good recordings sound their best, but as the saying goes, Your Can't Polish A Turd. You can only reproduce what's on the recording. No amount of money spent is going to change that. IMHO.
Is Recording quality the real culprit?
We spend Thousands on trying to improve the sound of what we listen to. But isn’t it really more of a problem that we can’t really overcome, eg. Recording quality? It’s so frustrating to have a really nice system and then to be at the mercy of some guy who just didn’t spend the time to do things better when things were being recorded.
Fortunately many artists make sure things are done well, but so many just don’t make it happen.
It can sound really good but just doesn’t have that Great quality we desire.
So why are we wasting our time spending so much money on audio equipment?
Showing 3 responses by bigtwin
Let's be honest. Who else had to google the definition of "gestalt"? 🤣 But has the point been missed? An engineer piles everything into the center or worse, takes a trio and places two instruments in each other's lap, right in the center and pins the third in the middle of the left speaker. The entire right side of the sound-stage is empty. I don't believe any system can improve these issues in recordings. I often wonder, didn't the artist listen to the final mix before it was shipped? |
@ibmjunkman Good One 🤣 As for AI entering the picture, I was very interested in George Martin's son using AI to dissemble and then re-mix the Revolver LP. I assume if the time, money and interest were there, they could take a four channel recording and re mix it using a 32 or 64 track console and create a whole new and improved version of some classic LPs? Will this be the next frontier of re-mining the archives? Will it be done in stages? First the 16 track version on 180 gram vinyl for $125, followed shortly by the 32 track version for $170 and so on and so on........ The list is endless of recordings that could be new and improved. |