2. music
  3. 128451-93588

Recording quality...

A lot of time here is spent discussing equipment, which is to be expected.  But even the best gear will not mask a lousy recording.  Let's face it, some labels use better recording equipment, microphone placement, mixing and so on to create stunning sound.  Other labels just don't sound as good.  

Case in point...when I purchase a recording, I'm looking for a recording date within the last five years.  I realize that some classic recordings took place years ago recorded with analog equipment, but it will still sound old on anything modern you play it on.  I'm not a big fan of remastering either.  Look, I realize that we can't bring back Miles Davis or get Pink Floyd back together to do a modern recording, but imagine if we could.

Once, when I was a kid, I was lucky enough to witness a live recording session in a real studio.  This was in the late 60s, when real musicians played real instruments.  They used these gigantic Scully tape machines with inch-thick Ampex 456 tape running at fast speed and a mixing board, which was the most modern recording equipment of the time.  Today, that equipment belongs in a museum, considering the modern tools that recording engineers have now.  

My point here is that great equipment is nice, but paired with a recent recording using modern tools, the sound is so much better.  Just my humble opinion.  What say you to this?
128x128mikeydee
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Uh, wouldn't the original master tape hiss be more audible on a good recording? Hel-loo!

alpha_gt
155 posts
 
That's what Dolby was for, to reduce tape hiss, did a wonderful job too. But a few engineers chose not to use it, I've got an old Pat Travers, Crash and Burn that brags in the liner notes that he did not use Dolby, and it sounds great actually. 

Some of the original digital recordings, or should I say analog converted to digital recordings, were not good. It took the engineers a while to get used to the entire digital process. I recall way back when CD's first came out, some were completely unlistenable. 

But speaking of recordings of the last 5 years, I suspect it depends greatly on what genre' you are listening to. Anything considered Pop Music will most likely be over compressed, and contain less frequency extremes, made to sound good on any music device. Made to sound good on iPhones with tiny ear buds, on car stereos, and whatever the young folk are listening to these days. But a modern Classical, or Jazz recording may be a completely different thing. Using digital recording techniques to get the best recording possible, with 32 bit masters in the megahurts sampling rates, using minimal compression and preserving both frequency extremes, it is possible to make probably the best recordings ever made! You've just got to find the engineers who are trying. 
duckdownman
17 posts
 
@Trutopia2With all do respect - Evidently you haven't listened to MFSL recording remaster on a decent stereo lately ( Maybe a try a DAC ) ! Have fun listening to your tape hiss and poor recording equipment of the past. 

MFSL is not the end all, be all of anything. I have many recordings which I much prefer the MFSL, others I cant really hear a difference and others I think it sounds worse. I can tell that the Japanese 32XD of Appetite for destruction as well as the original Diament original are, to my ears, better than the MFSL. 
Sometimes I'll pop it in because of the extra pop on the kick drums and bass but it's the least of the three discs I play.

if you think just because it's MFSL it's automatically the best version maybe you should upgrade your equipment, in all due respect :)
More to discover