[78-L] Recording Quality - a relative term

[Ron L'Herault]

I don't know if quality has improved but I think the overall result has gone
downhill.  Recording each musician/instrument independently and then mixing
them in at the end gives a one-dimensional sound image to these ears.  I
find it all most impossible to hear and understand modern vocalists because
they are lost in the sonic plane.  First off, you don't hear the interplay
of the instrumental sounds as they were created.  And then you don't have
the depth.  If you close your eyes it seems like there is a line of sound in
front of you, everything mashed together, including the singer, just another
sound in the jumble.   Even old mono recordings had a sense of depth.  You
could kind of feel the singer was in front of the band, and I am convinced
that you get a feeling for where instruments were place in relation to the
singer on an early mono recording (30s)  Was it just the time delay?  Once
stereo got over the "ping pong" era, one could easily spatially and
sonically place instruments and singers in a group recording as you hear it
played back.  There was definition and separation for a while, and not just
the side-to-side separation you'd expect.  It was a separation between
musicians/singers.

Ron L  

-----Original Message-----
From: 78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com
[mailto:78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com] On Behalf Of Rodger Holtin
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2014 11:18 PM
To: '78-L Mail List'
Subject: [78-L] Recording Quality - a relative term


Owing to many bouts of ear infections, advancing age and years of surface
noise (Goodyear : asphalt/concrete while on the clock and diamond :
shellac/vinyl in my off-hours) I'm no longer the golden ear of my youth, so
I must rely on other experts, or reputable opinions of some kind.  (So why
am I daring this subject here, anyway??)  

 

It seems to me that the overall quality of recording topped out a long time
ago, and all the improvements I've seen since starting in radio and
recording studios in 1970 seems like so much chasing after ever-diminishing
returns.  Tape was easier than disc, but as Dr. Biel has pointed out
numerous time, not better than the existing disc method then in place.
Digital has certainly made it all easier to use, much easier than tape, to
be sure, but I don't think anybody really argues that the quality was
improved over what we could get on tape.  OK, so there's still some
surface/carrier advantage in digital over tape, or disc, but I understand
that even digital carries its own noise.  I know that's true when it gets
over-processed, but prior to processing does digital have its own noise?
Microphones, mixers, speakers, headphones and all that other stuff has
become smaller, but I'm not buying that it's all that much better in terms
of audio quality that makes any difference to the hearer.  Maybe it's more
reliable, and lightweight, but better?  Maybe the machinery can show us some
graphic display of improvement in ranges well beyond what we can hear, but
can we hear any improvement?

 

So what's the real answer, or the majority opinion here?  Is recording
quality still improving?  Has it maxed out?  If so, when?

 

 

Rodger

 

For best results use Victor Needles

 

_______________________________________________
78-L mailing list
78-L at klickitat.78online.com
http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l