Recording Quality

[For The Love of Music]

Some Aficionados and I were on a messenger group and talked about a band, and it's quality level of recordings.

Personally, I wasn’t a fan, but still could not imagine the band having well recorded music, and not sure why, it's just one of those just because things.

I would think no band goes into the studio and hires an engineer and says make me a recording, and not think about the sound quality?

Then comes the question is the band even aware of sound quality, or does it really even matter when most music is not played through systems like ours?

Is it the money?

Something else?

Thoughts on this?

Serge, you out there ?

[2fastdriving]

A couple of thoughts:

If I like the music enough, I'll listen to it even if the quality sucks. Queen, Led Zeppelin come to mind.

Some artists definitely care about sound quality: Steely Dan, Neil Young, etc. Some don't, and everything in between, just like everything else in life. You're always going to have some varying levels of interest in doing things the best you can do them. Personally, if I were an artist, I'd want it to sound as good as possible (within a budget), why would you not want that?

I think things have definitely moved toward not caring, since the loudness wars resulted in trash recordings and nobody seems to care except a handful of us!

[audioguy3107]

I think it's fairly simple, the vast majority of listeners listen to stuff on ear buds, phones, crappy car stereos and crappy to mediocre headphones. We are such a tiny minority it's not even funny. While some artists may or may not care, I would assume that when they go into a studio, they want their stuff to sound decent and what they "envision", but they couldn't give a crap what it sounds like on a $30,000 pair of Sonus Fabers if they're even aware that stuff exists. The artists that KNOW that audiophiles buy and enjoy their music do better, I wouldn't think that's a coincidence..Joe Bonamassa, Holly Cole, Peter Gabriel, Norah Jones, Patricia Barber, Dire Straits/Mark Knopfler come to mind just to name a few.

[doggiehowser]

I recently had the experience of listening to a Madonna song from the Nought-ies. It sampled ABBA and had some insanely high pitched distortion. And incredibly muddy bass.

It was terrible. No amount of triode mode magic could make them sound good.

The bad news was that the customer initially blamed the gear I sold him [emoji24]

I put in (oddly enough) Steely Dan and the system sounded sublime.

[doggiehowser]

Under list of good recordings

Diana Krall

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by For The Love of Music

Some Aficionados and I were on a messenger group and talked about a band, and it's quality level of recordings.

Personally, I wasn’t a fan, but still could not imagine the band having well recorded music, and not sure why, it's just one of those just because things.

I would think no band goes into the studio and hires an engineer and says make me a recording, and not think about the sound quality?

Then comes the question is the band even aware of sound quality, or does it really even matter when most music is not played through systems like ours?

Is it the money?

Something else?

Thoughts on this?

Serge, you out there ?

It would be akin to asking "why does the steak or a dish taste so bad in this restaurant as compared to others"? Quality of product and talent of the chef comes to mind instantly. I do not think it is any different for music.



1. Talent of the musician and budget!
2. Quality of the studio
3. Talent of the recording engineer
4. Goal of the final product. Audiophile or Dynamic range compressed/loudness mastered (This should be a crime this day and age with digital streaming. Enough of that already! It's not necessary anymore. )

Studios vary from mild to wild. From some hole in the wall with chintzy mixing consoles, small, cheap quality speakers that are used to gauge the mixing and final product, etc.. Speakers under $1k are the norm for many a studio by the way. How does a recording engineer compare what he hears to what we may hear on a much more resolving and capable system. Do they even care?


One look at Abbey Roads Studio and all is understood. Better yet, take a look at the list of the recordings produced there from this list and take a good listen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_Road_Studios You will notice right away the quality of the acoustic properties in their studio, the proper tonal balance, the lack of excessive reverb, the proper placement of instruments, the warm and analog like quality of the captured voice and instruments as well as the depth and 3-dimensionality on many/most of their recordings.

Yes, Abbey Roads simply is light years ahead in their quality as compared to some low budget/rent a studio for a day outfits and they clearly care about the final product. Hence the talent they record there that also cares about their work. Pick some music and give it a listen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_Road_Studios

[PHC1]

Let's make some magic happen!

[Still-One]

Originally Posted by doggiehowser

Under list of good recordings

Diana Krall

Might be good recordings but a boring artist. The only concert my wife and I have walked out on in our lives.

[PHC1]

Gateway Mastering/Bob Ludwig

[PHC1]

The studio fees range from $50 an hour to $20k to cut one track so...