Since we all obviously listen to the Beatles and most likely other music, how important to you is sound fidelity vs. the content of the program? In addition to being a player/writer/singer/producer, I'm also a sound engineer, and I insist on getting clean sounds (or whatever's called for)in my studio, but for recreational listening, I quite often listen to scratchy 78s from the 30s and 40s, in addition to some 70s LPs (although the LP thing is rarer for me nowadays)and cassettes. I occasionally transfer the old stuff to CD for convenience sake, but the question is- do you mind the surface noise on a program you love, or do you insist on CD quality sound on everything?
Quite frankly, I often enjoy listening to the 30s-40s stuff BECAUSE the 'old' sound is part of the fun. Anyone???
FIDELITY OVER CONTENT?
It's hard to say really...
For studio stuff I rather hearing high-quality 24-bit vinyl transfers (no hiss or scratches) but for live stuff I'll take whatever is available, audience recordings are fine in my book. It gives a different perspective to the show where some soundboard recordings sound a bit brittle (might not be the correct term...)
Anyways once you start listening you adapt very quickly to the quality. I have a show of The Beatles playing at the Montreal Forum in 1964 and it's just horrible quality, but once you're two songs into it you barely notice and it becomes part of the experience of listening to that specific set.
Sometimes remastered stuff sound too good, almost fake. Take a listen to Led Zeppelin's stuff from the DVD and listen to the bootlegs of those shows and it's barely the same, not to mention all the editing that was done to pretty much every song.
Since I wasn't born before 1986 it's hard for me to relate to the LP's although I will listen to some from time to time. But it's a matter of convenience, I don't have a record player downstairs where I am so I'll stick to CD's and whatever I've got loaded on my computer.
Heh, I remember the tapes I made from old LP's that I put in my car. I'd remove the Dolby Noise Reduction because it ruined the sound. I'm not sure why but I rathered have it all noisy and pure.
For studio stuff I rather hearing high-quality 24-bit vinyl transfers (no hiss or scratches) but for live stuff I'll take whatever is available, audience recordings are fine in my book. It gives a different perspective to the show where some soundboard recordings sound a bit brittle (might not be the correct term...)
Anyways once you start listening you adapt very quickly to the quality. I have a show of The Beatles playing at the Montreal Forum in 1964 and it's just horrible quality, but once you're two songs into it you barely notice and it becomes part of the experience of listening to that specific set.
Sometimes remastered stuff sound too good, almost fake. Take a listen to Led Zeppelin's stuff from the DVD and listen to the bootlegs of those shows and it's barely the same, not to mention all the editing that was done to pretty much every song.
Since I wasn't born before 1986 it's hard for me to relate to the LP's although I will listen to some from time to time. But it's a matter of convenience, I don't have a record player downstairs where I am so I'll stick to CD's and whatever I've got loaded on my computer.
Heh, I remember the tapes I made from old LP's that I put in my car. I'd remove the Dolby Noise Reduction because it ruined the sound. I'm not sure why but I rathered have it all noisy and pure.
-
beefandbones
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 893
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 7:27 am
I tend to like recordings that sound like a recorded musical performance, mistakes and all. And for me that could be the Carter Family recorded in a barn with one ribbon mic, Benny Goodman's sextet recorded in a studio with a couple of overheads, or the Beatles all mic'd up for the Revolver.
The more I learn about engineering the more I understand why 'old school' engineers put so much emphasis on mic placement and getting sounds right before they're recorded.
Modern records are usually recorded on a computer, and the computer is a dangerous dangerous tool. Computer recording has two major pitfalls: editing things into boring perfection, and fixing things 'in the mix'. There's a tendency to want everything 'just right' and in the process cut out all character.
Let a few mistakes through - that's the funk. I was listening to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds this morning, and there's a part where John goofs in the vocal - even though they multitracked that album, they left the mistake in.
The more I learn about engineering the more I understand why 'old school' engineers put so much emphasis on mic placement and getting sounds right before they're recorded.
Modern records are usually recorded on a computer, and the computer is a dangerous dangerous tool. Computer recording has two major pitfalls: editing things into boring perfection, and fixing things 'in the mix'. There's a tendency to want everything 'just right' and in the process cut out all character.
Let a few mistakes through - that's the funk. I was listening to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds this morning, and there's a part where John goofs in the vocal - even though they multitracked that album, they left the mistake in.
Ethan: I think I know the exact goof you're talking about on 'Lucy'. John always wanted George Martin to do something to alter his voice (reverb, filter, double-tracking, speed-up, slow-down, etc). Although John was better than most at double-tracking his vocals, it doubled his chances of making mistakes. And John's memory for lyrics was never very good. For all the time that was put into recording 'Pepper' there are many mistakes to be heard. One of the most famous is the audible squeak of a chair during the elongated fadeout of the so-called "final chord" on 'A Day In The Life'.
FIDELITY OVER CONTENT? Impossible! I'll take a scratchy Beatles Vee-Jay 45 playing on one of those old toy record players the girls carried around in 5th grade over some of the braindead ******** I hear on the radio today .... IMHO of course.
“The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.” ....H. L. Mencken
-
chingnchime
- Member
- Posts: 302
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:54 am
I don't get too worked up about vinyl cracks and pops. If I'm playing an LP it's more than likely because I can't get the same music on CD.
Having said that, I've bought a number of 're-mastered' CDs that are frankly not a patch on the original LP.
The pops and clicks add to the charm and playing the original always brings back heaps of pleasant memories.
Having said that, I've bought a number of 're-mastered' CDs that are frankly not a patch on the original LP.
The pops and clicks add to the charm and playing the original always brings back heaps of pleasant memories.
"Never eat more than you can lift." - Mr. Moon
-
chingnchime
- Member
- Posts: 302
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:54 am
I'd say content first, then fidelity. I love great sounding recordings, but there are a lot of GREAT songs that have bad recording qualities to them. But sometimes that's what makes them great.
Take early Who and Kinks. Very ****** production compared to the Beatles. It was like every recording level was on 11 when recorded! But they really captured the explosive energy of rock and roll then.
Take early Who and Kinks. Very ****** production compared to the Beatles. It was like every recording level was on 11 when recorded! But they really captured the explosive energy of rock and roll then.