[78-L] Recording Quality - a relative term

[Mark Bardenwerper]

On 6/29/2014 11:04 AM, Ron L'Herault wrote:
> 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

I also suffer from hearing loss. The squeal of tinnitus has haunted me 
for some years due to long hours around factories and tools of all 
sorts. I was raised around high fidelity. My father, who is still alive, 
possesses a very large classical 33 rpm collection and an old school 
system to drool over. Sadly his hearing is almost done.

For me, the climax of recording quality was the quad era or perhaps just 
a bit before. There were examples of course of real junk. A lot of pop 
music was never intended to be heard critically and was sonically 
designed to work within the narrow spectrum of AM broadcast. Examples of 
these extremes would be early Spirit stuff produced by Lou Adler. On the 
other hand you have the wonderful work of the Abbey Road studios. Yet 
another would be early vs late Pink Floyd.

I fear I cannot intelligently speak to the classical genre, but pin drop 
accuracy was commonplace to the point of being the norm. My father would 
have surely attested to that.

The quad era also forced stylus and cartridge technology to its peak. Of 
course, in the middle were the great amps, and at the other, the 
plethora of speakers available. I always considered Marantz amps to be 
sonically honest, Sansui to be the opposite.

Nowadays, there is no demand for such precision, what with speakers and 
amps having to fit your pocket. Case in point, the demise of "high fi" 
stores such as Flanner and Hafsoos in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
http://www.jsonline.com/business/92549194.html

-- 
Mark L. Bardenwerper, Sr.

Technology...thoughtfully, responsibly.

Visit me at http://citroen.cappyfabrics.com