Hi Frogman,
I always appreciate your well reasoned and insightful contributions on this
site . I'd like your perspective as a professional musician concerning
recording quality as related to genres. Jazz recordings with rare exception
are much better sounding than most pop and rock recordings. Are jazz
musicians more demanding and insistent of good sound or is it a case of
more respect and effort from the recording engineers?
It seems regardless of the era or the label jazz is produced to a much
higher standard(both studio and live venues), they're more natural and far
less compressed/processed. I'd assume that the pop and rock artists want
their music to be given the same consideration and respect as the jazz
musicians seem to routinely get during the recording process.
Thanks,
Charles, |
Frogman,
Thanks, I didnt mean to disrupt this interesting thread. |
If Frogman wants to answer there I'm sure others will appreciate his thoughts and viewpoint. |
Hi Bifwynne,
I appreciate your generous attitude, recording quality has been a persistent mystery to me. Why are there such wide fluctuations in the sound of recordings amongst engineers (there seems to be no established standard). Why do recordings done 40-50 + years ago sound as good or better than many current examples(did the engineers actually listen more in those days?)? It's as if the method of recording has regressed (even classical music in some cases) and this is contrary to most technology endeavors. Jazz really seems the genre that has remained the most consistent in recording quality over the decades.
I'm certain Frogman, Wolf or Learsfool could shed some light on this strange phenomenon.
Charles, |
Wolf,
I understand the notion of pleasing the mass public, but I'd think most would appreciate bettet sound of their preferred music if given a choice. My preference is jazz on both major and obscure labels . Most of my friends who love jazz aren't audiophiles by any stretch of the imagination, just music lovers from all walks of life. I don't know what being a so called audiophile has to do with it.l own hardly any "audiophile" labels , the music most often is bland and un involving. So have the recording engineers decided that only jazz and classical music listeners care about the sound quality? If that's the consensus I say they're wrong. There are good sounding pop recordings just a smaller percentage than is surely possible.
Charles, |
Learsfool,
I can hear your frustration and I understand why . But why do these "untrained sound guys" record jazz well and wreck havoc on most of the other genres? Or are these types as you describe them barred from the jazz sessions? |
I dont think it's as simple as the old digital vs analogue argument. I've heard enough good sound and bad with both formats. I blame the ability (or lack )of the recording engineer. There are excellent sounding digital jazz recordings, so it obviously can be done.there are some vinyl pop and rock efforts that are awful. |
Frogmam,
Thanks for your very insightful perspective. You mention the engineers having less reliance on actual listening to the musicians play and are instead in the booth. This one factor explains plenty! This approach would seem to lead to fixing a product that requires no (or minimal) fixing or tampering. There's probably an overwhelming desire to utilize available technology and gadgets just simply because you can rather than true need.
I also agree with vyour point concerning microphones, it appears mutimicing is over relied upon and often does more harm than good. The simpler microphone use of the 1950s stereo era have clearly stood the test of time.
Charles, |
Well based on the comments it safe to say that sound engineers aren't formally trained like electrical, mechanical or chemical engineers. So it is a case of an art form/ practical experience rather than an established technical approach. I'm coming to the conclusion that the folks recording jazz are just using their ears(more often) and have more talent and concern regarding the sound quality of their work. What other explanation is there? This genre's consistently good results aren't by accident or random chance. |
Tubrgroover,
We all have different tolerance thresholds. As like you, Bo doesn't bother me, there are others who posts and attitudes I find toxic and belittling. Bo is redundant but he's not mean spirited |
I wouldn't refer to appreciating the sound and beauty of well played
acoustic instruments an obsession. Is it too much to ask for instruments
and voices to sound as realistic and natural as we know they actually do?
Why do we have to settle for the lowest common denominator (well the
generalmpublic doesn't complain) . Yes I can enjoy music with my clock
radio if it's music I connect with. We know how wonderful skilled musicians
sound playing their precious instruments(and years of practice to reach
this level). I find it dismissive and disrespectful to the musicians to say the
sound they produce is a trivial concern. Shame on the tin eared sound
engineers who can't appreciate what they're recording. I want these
engineers to make a honest effort to preserve as much of the original venue
instrument sound as they possibly can. Anything less is short changing the
musicians and the listener.
Charles, |
RVG mentions Bob Weinstock (Prestige producer) and his description of Wienstocks approach makes sense. I've lways preferred RVG's Prestige sound more than his Blue Note sessions and I own many of both labels. He said Weinstock was a jazz fan and gave the musicians more sway and control. Prestige along with Columbia, Riverside and Contemporary all had better tone and natural sound than the Blue Notes Rudy did. Blue Note certainty had the big talent musicians in the early portion of their careers before they moved to bigger labels.
Personally I prefer RVG's earlier two track recordings compared to his later multi track/
mic efforts. Contrary to his comments, his early stereo Prestige were his best sounding recordings in my opinion they just were more natural and truer in tonality. It's simply a matter of taste.
Charles, |
"The most accurate speakers I know of are also easy to listen to"
Kiddman, so very true. You are right that the term accurate has been bastardized and seems to be used when clinical and analytical are the more appropriate words. We both probably prefer the term natural with its connotations.
Charles, |
Bo,
It's clear that sound stage dimensions and presentation are of highest priority for you (we all have our preferences for what defines a successful component). You refer often to sound stage width and depth. What degree of importance do you place on tone, timbre and harmonics preservation of instruments and voice? Do you find these qualities essential for realism in an audio system?
Charles, |
Bo,
Be cautious, you're putting your ears at risk with the ultra loud volumes you describe . What would you say are your average listening levels at home?
Charles, |
