Why most recordings sound like crap....

[Da5id4Vz]

In the comparisons of AKG and Nueman, were you guys speaking of the large diaphragm AKG's like the 414 or the small capsules like the 461?

[fdegrove]

Hi guys,

Actually we're working hard to prove that not all recordings are total crap, right?

And of course, they're not...

Leaving the pop industry out of the picture, some classical, jazz, blues recordings are absolutely stunning.

Reference Recordings, Wilson Audio and at least a dowzen of others make tremendous effort to capture as is...that does not mean however all is bliss...much depends on how critical you are.

Mike colorations aside if the intend and purpose of the event was capture well, chances are we will be able to enjoy it in its limited reproduced format.

When I first mentioned the Neumann and AKG mike I hhad a marvelous recording by Dave Wilson in mind where he recorded in the same venue ( a church) music using on one side of the vinyl a Neumann mike and on the other an AKG...

GregMs description is spot on in that it accuratley describes the difference between the two mikes...which is more accurate I don't know...
What I can tell though is that on this occasion the music was better served by the Neumann setup...

The Sheffield Lab recordings show a tubey colouration, or so I think, that deviates too far from reality to be, well real..
They all carry the same sonic sig...

And naturallly we could go on and on...interseting stuff nonetheless.

Cheers,

[Wombat]

Sometimes it even seems to be luck to have a extraordinary recording.
I have a recording here from the Phoenix Percussion Project that
is one of the best digital recordings i personaly have. I thought it was
recorded with perfection of sound in mind. This recording doesn´t
claim to be made with this intension and digging further shows clipping
in analysis. A sound engineer looking for perfection wouldn´t have done this.

So it seems it was some lucky circumstances with lots knowledge and
good equipment and this bit luck that did it.

btw. isn´t it legal to offer samples of a special duration? Can the
mods give an advice in this direction, please?

[fdegrove]

Hi,

Jocko, where are you?

Deep in my heart I wish I could point to a digitally recorded work that I actually like...

Mind you, I often like the music...just not what it sounds like.

People that know me, know me for bringing up the following analogy:

Digital recording is like when you had a prime quality steak to start with, it now has been turned into minced meat and we expect the local chef to turn it into that same steak again...

Somehow I don't see that happen and although I've heard very good DACs the music was somehow gone...

I don't want to say that all analogue recordings are superior in any way, just that most of the time they're just, well, more musical.

Cheers,

[EKG]

It is all part and parcel of the facts of life. If you look at most commercial music people"s lifestyle, you find they are exposed to high volume sound for long periods of time. I live in the US and an OSHA safety inspection would shut down almost all clubs and concerts for excessive loudness in about fieve seconds flat. I would be willing to say that if the people responsible for approving the final product cannot hear, then of course things are going to ssound crappy. This is one of the reasons I would like to see professional reviewers take hearing tests, measuring frequecy perception and sensitivity. Then they should publish the results. If someone says there is a midrange suckout that just happens to correspond to a notch in his audio perception curve... well you get the idea. EKG

[bishopdante]

Back in the 50s the valve radio was the dog's bollocks in terms of sonics. Broadcasts were cleaner because there was much less interference around and people weren't deaf from going to high SPL discos. We think that CD is great, but most people with good ears can tell that something isn't quite right about CD. Next to 2" tape it sounds pretty awful. There's not much problem with hiss, or S/N but it definitely is just as imperfect as the valve radio, just in a different way.

From my understanding of the issue, the problem with CD is not the bit depth but the sampling rate. Effects such as the Nyquist limit, phase issues of frequencies between the nyquist limit and 1/4 of the nyquist limit, aliasing of non harmonically related frequencies close to the nyquist limit etc etc. All these play around with the crucial top frequencies that play a huge part in spacialisation and separation between instruments. The funny thing about that crap valve radio is that while it distorts the music, it does not resynthesise it, which is what digital does and can sound pretty dreadful. Also those old valve radios were often very simple circuits so the sound was really punchy. It was just the oval cardboard speakers that sucked beyond belief. 200Hz to 4kHz of lumpy frequency response is not ideal.

HP labs have just come up with a 16bit ADC that runs at 3GHz. Now that is going to sound GOOD!

I get the feeling that we buy CDs these days because the record companies want to sell them. You can press them up en masse in China for a few cents per unit. Then you sell them for $16. That's good business!

And what about mp3, the modern equivalent of the valve radio. People are paying a dollar per track for data downloads! And 192bps mp3 sounds awful. Like really awful. Next to a 2" master tape it is a heart rending experience to hear the treble chattering and fizzing like that!

It's funny, but I think that some people have good hearing which is very well connected to the brain, and others have crap hearing which is connected to their fashion sense. For your average pop act it is more important what sunglasses you wear and the precise period of fashion of the covers you play. For most, music is a small insignificant part of the mating ritual.

[Rixsta]

Exelent im glad im not the only one who thinks 192bps sounds awfull, it is and 320 i can only just put up with...

[Jay]

Because they are intended for the majority, which are crappy sound systems

[cogsncogs]

FM radio back in the 60's and the early 70's was sooo much better sound quality wise (the music too!) than it is now. Now it's almost unlistenable! At least on a home set-up. Each station trying to sound louder than the next! Compression, compression, limiting! Keep that needle in the RED! There are very stations left if any that puts out a decent signal. IMHO it's the Industry telling people what and how people like to hear their music, then filling that niche, not the other way around! Saying a song is the new "SMASH HIT/ single" from so and so, or the new best selling book before it even hits the market? Is the original formula Coca-Cola really the original Coke?
And I also think all those "Award" events is nothing but Industry politics!

Wayne

[Bojan Hajdinjak]

Why so much recordings sound like crap?

Because of quality of people who made this recordings. For the musicians, effect like tubby sound, euphonic sound, basso and strong colorized sound, … its OK.

But for making the recordings for use for serious music lower, technique in recording studios must have some equal experience like High End audio producers. Its much easyer to make sound with effects like sound without any of it. Only those who know to build ultimate audio equipment, knows to build ultimate recording equipment (no one else). How much people do you know, to be experienced in different High End technologies, to have experience with profi equipment, to be audiophiles, electronic experts…,

People to make recordings in ( some of the best ) recording studios, are to uneducated and with to low experience to do their job. It’s important to do recordings with some more qualified persons, who (sorry) often works in different jobs.

Because of this, some amateurs often made much better recordings with very rational techniques….