[78-L] Recording Quality - a relative term

[Don Cox]

On 08/07/2014, Rodger Holtin wrote:

> 
> You've swerved into the very situation that prompted my initial query
> on the subject. I work with a young man (34-35) who is an avid amateur
> musician, has perfect pitch, plays almost anything, and listens to
> nearly everything. We work for a software development company and
> spend a few hours every day doing some repetitive/menial tasks that
> support the rest of our day, and some days to stave off the boredom we
> break out the headphones and share music with each other. I made a CD
> for him of some stuff from the late 1950s/early 1960s, including the
> Boston Pops and some of those Glen Gray big band remakes. He raved
> about the quality of the recording and wanted to know where I got
> them. He thought they were new.
> 
It seems to me that the problem is not how to get good sound from
acoustic instruments. That has been known for sixty years, even if some
people forgot.

The real problem is how to get a pleasing sound from electronic
instruments. 

For example, I was listening on the radio to the duo Mehliana. This is
Brad Mehldau and Mark Giuliana. Both are serious musicians -- this is
not commercial pop junk. The sounds are almost entirely generated by
electronics.

It might work to play the sounds through various excellent loudspeakers
spread around in a space with good acoustics, and make a stereo (or
surround) recording from that. Tracks would not have to be recorded
simultaneously: all that matters is that the mics don't move.

Regards
-- 
Don Cox
doncox at enterprise.net