The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Tags: , , , , ,

Rudy Van Gelder... or is this forum too Rock & Roll? Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 21st April 2010
  #91
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
The trouble is Al, you do "sound like a pompous, know-it-all schmuck." You are painting with broad strokes my friend, as if, you being a jazz musician, as I am, means there's only one way to do it. I've been a jazz musician and fan all my life and have played with some of the best, and recorded some of the best. What you say is true, in some circumstances. But there are an awful lot of players who are used to playing with phones and prefer it. A lot of folks prefer isolation booths and ask for them. I'm talking great and well known musicians.

I agree technology should be considered subordinate to musicians comfort, not MUST be in all circumstances.

You seem to be very rigid and inflexible in your opinions.
Old 21st April 2010
  #92
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajfarber View Post
... Sure, there are a few who like to punch in and fix stuff later, but the majority will sacrifice that ability to play in the same room like they were on a gig...
I share your opinion however I know engineers who work with the musicians Rudy recorded during the '50s and '60s and they told me about the punch-in issue which to them was a profound disappointment.

I happen to think ALL music suffers from separation and headphones and not just jazz.
Old 21st April 2010
  #93
Lives for gear
 
soultrane's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajfarber View Post

The CTI stuff was more commercial. Some of it was good but not the same quality as the stuff he was recording in the 50s and 60s.
by what criteria? certainly not sonics?

to my ear, the cti stuff, just on drums, piano, strings, voice, winds etc, far outshines anything he did in his mother's living room...

and let's not talk about bass!!! the bass on those cti recordings of the 70's is wall rattling and amazing!!!
Old 22nd April 2010
  #94
Lives for gear
 
ajfarber's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by soultrane View Post
by what criteria? certainly not sonics?

to my ear, the cti stuff, just on drums, piano, strings, voice, winds etc, far outshines anything he did in his mother's living room...

and let's not talk about bass!!! the bass on those cti recordings of the 70's is wall rattling and amazing!!!
The bass is best in Hackensack (parent's living room), and almost as good in Englewood Cliffs 1959-1969. That is to say, the bass sound as I like to hear the bass which is closer to how a bass sounds in real life on a gig or at a rehearsal.

It's hard to compare the straight-ahead stuff with the CTI dates. The CTI dates have a different aesthetic both musically and sonically. Apples and oranges.

I guess my point is this; RVG didn't make good recordings of small group, acoustic, straight-ahead jazz after 1969.
Old 22nd April 2010
  #95
Lives for gear
 
ajfarber's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
The trouble is Al, you do "sound like a pompous, know-it-all schmuck." But there are an awful lot of players who are used to playing with phones and prefer it. A lot of folks prefer isolation booths and ask for them.

I agree technology should be considered subordinate to musicians comfort, not MUST be in all circumstances.

You seem to be very rigid and inflexible in your opinions.
Okay Henry, first off, don't call me Al.

Second, none of the musicians I work with prefer to work in isolation with cans. I'm sure there are some that like it but I haven't come across them in a recording situation.

3rd, I am only inflexible if it's my project or a date I'm producing. Everyone else is free do do as they like.

I will say this; it is impossible for a horn section, especially a big band, to properly balance themselves in a room whilst wearing cans. That is simply a fact. If the piano player want's to wear cans, so be it. If the bass player is in a booth, you can't hear him unless you've got cans and that brings us back to the horn section blend issue again. In addition to blend, many horn players have little studio experience and they tend to play out-of-tune with cans.

Anyway, I know I sound like I've got ridged opinions. They work for me, I don't mean to "harsh your vibe" Henry.
Old 22nd April 2010
  #96
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Just to add another perspective, I don't think that RVG was really the big thing about the sessions he did in the 50's and 60's. If this was really the case he would have continued to produce the same quality of output in the 70's and 80's.

Many people rave about the quality of the Beatles recordings, however, if you really analysis those recordings in a totally dispassionate way the recordings are fairly ordinary. Often many engineers (IMHO) confuse great music and performances with great sound.

When RVG was producing his best work, it was a different time. The players he was working with were arguably the greatest of their generation, even the greats of our time don't play like that. The techniques he employed were more likely driven by the limitations of the gear of the time and possibly led to the results almost by happy accident.

Recently doing a live show with multiple bands it was interesting to note that the better performers sounded much better than the not so great ones. Same equipment, same set-up, etc. I'm a believer that Nat King Cole would have sounded amazing on an SM58, and if that had been the mic he had used on his sessions, everyone would be running to use them on their sessions.

Of course, players, playing together live, produce a totally different vibe from multiple overdubs, dropped in, headphone isolation. Not to say that great records can't be produced this way, it's just different and doesn't suit everyone.

My take is, that if for arguments sake, Andy had been the engineer on those sessions (assuming that he'd been born all those years ago and had been in the frame for recording them heh), we would all be talking about him in the same way as RVG. Further more, I think that performances, even great ones, reflect a moment in time, much as great live performance reflect a particular interaction with a particular audience at a particular given time.

Regards


Roland
Old 22nd April 2010
  #97
Gear Nut
 
Uncle Russ's Avatar
I'm in overall agreement with Farber on recording traditional jazz. (Yeah, you can probably find an instance where another technique works as well or better but not very often.)

And I don't understand why so many canonize van Gelder. Some of his recordings were very good. Others also did very good recordings. And there are probably a couple of unsung geniuses who were much better.

It would seem preferable to put energy into improving one's own techniques to develop individuality and excellence (both in engineering and musicianship). Then maybe, someday in the future, those requiring a hero will speak in awe about your recordings.
Old 22nd April 2010
  #98
Lives for gear
 
soultrane's Avatar
man u guys are AMAZING...

that's why i like baseball...

i mean, when someone says "roberto clemente was over rated" u know you are dealing with someone divorced from reality and in love with the sound of their own voice. u simply have to read the stat sheet.

but, since there is no stat sheet in music (so to speak) people are seriously on here saying "the beatles recordings are fairly ordinary" or "rvg sucked after 1968" and "rvg didn't try so hard in the 70's" or "i don't see what the big deal about van gelder is."

the CTI catalog is quite simply a LANDMARK and WATERSHED in the recording of jazz, and it doesn't matter if life passed you by the moment joe zawinul played the wurlitzer ep over 40 yrs ago...

its like saying, "da vinci was great when he did pencil sketches, but when he started working with oils and colors, its because he quit trying so hard and he started to suck."

how does a recording engineer who goes from cutting quartets and quintets in his parent's living room to cutting 90 piece ensembles in a fully sussed studio suck?

wow.

oh, and george martin and geoff emerick were pretty good too, but, not good enough for this crowd, obviously.

if those recordings (on 4 track and 8 track machines) were ordinary, i'd like to hear some of your extraordinary recordings... they must be mind blowing.

again, wow...
Old 22nd April 2010
  #99
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
I think that you are slightly missing my point. I'm not saying that RVG is no good, or wasn't any good, however, if he hadn't worked with the acts that he did in the 50's and 60's, I doubt he would be as revered as he is. With regard to the Beatles, these were great records and performances, IMHO the recordings were not particularly outstanding for their time.

I do know several very good engineers that are not in the public eye, purely because the acts they work with aren't. Equally I know several very ordinary engineers that have huge reputations based on the fact of who they worked with. It's relatively easy to record good musicians as long as you don't stuff it up, even good engineers struggle with poor performers, the old saying "garbage in, garbage out" comes to mind.

Nobody I know talks about great recordings in realtionship to poor performance or weak songs and arrangements.

Regards


Roland
Old 22nd April 2010
  #100
Lives for gear
 
soultrane's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
With regard to the Beatles, these were great records and performances, IMHO the recordings were not particularly outstanding for their time.

I do know several very good engineers that are not in the public eye, purely because the acts they work with aren't. Equally I know several very ordinary engineers that have huge reputations based on the fact of who they worked with.
roland...

its tough for me to believe a guy who made the first statement quoted above is really qualified to make an evaluation on the relative merits of engineers like you offered in your second statement.

obviously, what you consider a "great" and "mediocre" recording is outside the opinion of about, oh, 99.95% professionals in the recording arts.
Old 22nd April 2010
  #101
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
First of all I thought your name was Al. It's Al Farber, no? You've even called me a couple of times. I thought we were on a first name basis. Or your handle alfarber is not accurate. It should be Alanfarber? Why don't you say that? OK, Mr Farber - if that's what you mean, don't call me Henry.

Listen, I don't disagree that the best way to record MOST jazz certainly is to not use iso booths. And not use phones. But to stipulate it as the ONLY way is harsh. And it's not very useful to be so inflexible. Sure it has worked for you thus far and always, but it would not work for many in all situations.

And iso is not just for overdubs. I almost NEVER overdub and try to talk most of my clients into playing live, but its THEIR call, not mine. If I am the engineer, I am NOT the artist. If there's anything I never could stand it's an arrogant, inflexible, my-way-or-the-highway engineer. I can do better with a musician like that IF I'M WORKING FOR HIM/HER. But if you're working FOR ME, STFU. LOL.
Old 22nd April 2010
  #102
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Well having done 30 years in this business and having known many engineers (both good and bad), I can honestly say thats not my experience.

I've also had the oportunity to listen to some of the Beatles multitracks. I'd be the first to admit the wonderful nature of the Beatles output, but this doesn't mean that from a purely sound quality point of view they are that amazing, certainly by modern standards they wouldn't be acceptable. The gear in that time had limitations (particularly the tape machines) and you can hear it.

Regards


Roland
Old 22nd April 2010
  #103
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
I think that you are slightly missing my point. I'm not saying that RVG is no good, or wasn't any good, however, if he hadn't worked with the acts that he did in the 50's and 60's, I doubt he would be as revered as he is.
I absolutely agree with this. I've stated it elsewhere as well -- maybe even earlier in this very thread.
Old 22nd April 2010
  #104
Lives for gear
 
ajfarber's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
First of all I thought your name was Al. It's Al Farber, no? You've even called me a couple of times. I thought we were on a first name basis. Or your handle alfarber is not accurate. It should be Alanfarber? Why don't you say that? OK, Mr Farber - if that's what you mean, don't call me Henry.
My handle here is AJFarber. My name is Andy, Al was my grandfather actually. I guess I figured you have visited my websight, since the link is in my signature.

May I still call you Henry?
Old 22nd April 2010
  #105
Lives for gear
 
ajfarber's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post

If there's anything I never could stand it's an arrogant, inflexible, my-way-or-the-highway engineer. I can do better with a musician like that IF I'M WORKING FOR HIM/HER. But if you're working FOR ME, STFU. LOL.
I know what you mean. That is why I only hire engineers for my projects that will work the way I want, and I don't offer myself as a gun-for-hire engineer. If it's my date, then it is "my-way-or-the-highway". If I'm a sideman, then I just play my part and keep my mouth shut.
Old 23rd April 2010
  #106
Lives for gear
 
soultrane's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
Well having done 30 years in this business and having known many engineers (both good and bad), I can honestly say thats not my experience.

I've also had the oportunity to listen to some of the Beatles multitracks. I'd be the first to admit the wonderful nature of the Beatles output, but this doesn't mean that from a purely sound quality point of view they are that amazing, certainly by modern standards they wouldn't be acceptable. The gear in that time had limitations (particularly the tape machines) and you can hear it.

Regards


Roland
yeah....

there is so much better equpment being made nowdays than u47's and studer tube 4-track 1 inch tape machines....

which must be why so many modern recordings routinely surpass the quality of sgt peppers...
Old 23rd April 2010
  #107
Lives for gear
 
soultrane's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
I absolutely agree with this. I've stated it elsewhere as well -- maybe even earlier in this very thread.
so, rudy wouldn't be one of the most revered names in jazz if he didn't record just about every seminal jazz album?

again, wow.

reminds me of the story the old timers tell...

in all the years joe dimaggio played center field, he never had to dive for a ball... every single one was hit right at him...

amazing how that happened.

he probably wouldn't have been so revered as a ballplayer if he hadn't been in the right place at the right time.... EVERY single time.

man haterade must be using splenda nowadays because you cats drink it like its the tastiest thing on earth...
Old 23rd April 2010
  #108
urumita
 
7rojo7's Avatar
 

Mattias Winklemann (Enja) told me that the construction of the ceiling and the way he could move the curtains along the walls to get a blend in the room had a great deal to do with where he put musicians. He always had a drum booth which Elvin Jones refused to play in and we know how that turned out, he could of put the bassist in there. Double mics on all saxes (ribbon up top and LDC in front of the bell), minimal drums, minimal bass, minimal piano. I recorded a bass player back in 93 that said he recorded there and was forced to play through an amp (not a bad idea, it was for a studio monitor, not mic'ed) that got him all buggy, but he was all buggy to begin with, very sloppy and non distinct on what I recorded. I had him in a booth, because the drums bled to much into the bass setup (I've also put the bassist in the ear of the drummer which 1) makes the drummer play softer and 2) makes a great HH snare mic, if you can deal with that) with a KM56 suspended in the bridge and an M269 on the body, which worked fine for Eddie Gomez and Rufus Reid. But, he gave me a peek on RVG, not a very nice one though. Better stuff from Herr Winkelmann, who recorded there a bunch.
From all the work I've ever done, a performer sounds 90% the same on a 58 or its perfect mic, but that extra 10% helps the shivers last a little longer and go a little deeper.
Old 23rd April 2010
  #109
Lives for gear
 
doorknocker's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
Many people rave about the quality of the Beatles recordings, however, if you really analysis those recordings in a totally dispassionate way the recordings are fairly ordinary. Often many engineers (IMHO) confuse great music and performances with great sound.
'Ordinary' is not a word I usually associate with Beatles recordings. Nothing that the Beatles did was 'ordinary' and Sgt. Pepper especially is one of the best-sounding records ever, IM (and I guess plenty of other folks) O.

'Confusing' great music/performances (two different things anyway) with great sound is pretty easy as you need a great sounding source to get a great sounding recording in most cases.

What you probably mean is that the Beatles recordings generally are not 'larger-than-life' sounding nor are they hyped or earth-rattling in their freuquency content, etc. But to me that's pretty much the point of it: It is a total musical experience that is very balanced and disciplined. Especially so when listening to the Mono versions of the pre-1968 stuff.

And getting back OT: If I think of engineers that truly left their mark on the world, people like RVG, Tom Dowd or Geoff Emerick and Glyn Johns I don't think that any of them was an 'audiophile'. Or better said, none of these recording were 'audiophile' sounding and 'perfect'. Rather they had attitude to spare, weren't afraid to make decisions (maybe RVG closed the lid and narrowed the piano-bandwith to make room for the other instruments, I'm just thinking) and generally put the music first.

A record like Wayne Shorter's 'Speak no evil' probably is great sounding. Actually I never analyzed it because the music is so great that it takes over.

But even people like RVG needed a budget and time to get their work done as you can easily check when comparing the Prestige sides to the Blue Note ones. Blue Note had more rehearsal time for the msuicians and more setup time for the engineer. Still less than than the average GearSlut spends on a snare mic these days but it made a difference.
Old 24th April 2010
  #110
Lives for gear
 
ajfarber's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by doorknocker View Post

And getting back OT: If I think of engineers that truly left their mark on the world, people like RVG, Tom Dowd or Geoff Emerick and Glyn Johns I don't think that any of them was an 'audiophile'. Or better said, none of these recording were 'audiophile' sounding and 'perfect'. Rather they had attitude to spare, weren't afraid to make decisions (maybe RVG closed the lid and narrowed the piano-bandwith to make room for the other instruments, I'm just thinking) and generally put the music first.
RVG recorded piano with the lid open on full stick He put a Schoeps 221b in one of those holes so the capsule was close to the soundboard. I've done that myself and you get that RVG type piano sound.

I agree that Dowd and RVG weren't exactly audiophile. We could add Jack Higgins from Reeves in to that list. You'll remember Higgins as the engineer from the Riverside jazz records. I think that the real audiophile stuff from that era was recorded at Columbia 30th street and Fine Sound. Engineers like Frank Laico and Fred Plaut at Columbia and Bob Fine at Fine sound. Walter Sear was an assistant at Fine sound 50 years ago.

In Chicago you had Universal. I have some great sounding jazz records recorded by Bruce Swedien at Universal. In LA, the stuff out of the Capitol tower was top-of-the-range audio quality.

I guess we can't all agree on RVGs "best" recordings. Much is left to our personal taste in the music and style of recording. I prefer his pre-1969 work because I like that sound. I like the sound of musicians playing live in a good room being recorded by a tube Ampex machine through tube pres and tube mics. I like listening to that stuff on vinyl.
Old 24th April 2010
  #111
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
With regard to the Beatles, these were great records and performances, IMHO the recordings were not particularly outstanding for their time.
I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but you need to listen to Abbey Road again. Go get the newly mastered versions. If that wasn't *beyond* outstanding for 1969 (in the pop/rock realm), I don't know what was.

Pay special attention to "Something" and all of Side 2 (as it used to be called!)
Old 24th April 2010
  #112
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by soultrane View Post
yeah....

there is so much better equpment being made nowdays than u47's and studer tube 4-track 1 inch tape machines....

which must be why so many modern recordings routinely surpass the quality of sgt peppers...

You are making exactly the assumptions I talked about in my earlier post. The Beatles multitrack I got to hear was Sgt Peppers. You see I don't get impressed by 4 track one inch 60's vintage, Studers. Sure they were good in there day, but, the response would be pretty horrific by today's standard, and you are forgetting about limited, older tape formulations. U47's can be great, but the vocal recordings on much of the Beatles stuff isn't special.
Old 24th April 2010
  #113
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Studio Addict View Post
I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but you need to listen to Abbey Road again. Go get the newly mastered versions. If that wasn't *beyond* outstanding for 1969 (in the pop/rock realm), I don't know what was.

Pay special attention to "Something" and all of Side 2 (as it used to be called!)

As a kid growing up, Something was one of my favorite songs, but the recording is ok for it's time. The performance is beautifully evocative, but that doesn't have anything to do with it's technical quality.
Old 24th April 2010
  #114
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorknocker View Post
'Ordinary' is not a word I usually associate with Beatles recordings. Nothing that the Beatles did was 'ordinary' and Sgt. Pepper especially is one of the best-sounding records ever, IM (and I guess plenty of other folks) O.
Sgt Peppers is one of the best records ever made, but this has nothing to do with sound quality and sound quality wise it wouldn't even rank in the top 1,000.

Quote:
'Confusing' great music/performances (two different things anyway) with great sound is pretty easy as you need a great sounding source to get a great sounding recording in most cases.
Listen to the early recordings of Caravan by Duke Ellington. Nobody is going to tell you that's a great sound recording, but it's a wonderful tune, played by possibly the best, big band that ever existed. Great players all have a wonderful sound, however, just because it makes them easier to record, doesn't mean that all recordings of great musicians are good quality.

Quote:
What you probably mean is that the Beatles recordings generally are not 'larger-than-life' sounding nor are they hyped or earth-rattling in their freuquency content, etc. But to me that's pretty much the point of it: It is a total musical experience that is very balanced and disciplined. Especially so when listening to the Mono versions of the pre-1968 stuff.
Are you now trying to say that they are really accurate sound? I don't think they are "earth shatteringly", recorded by any yardstick, balance is pretty good, generally, but that's not much to do with pure audio quality.

Quote:
And getting back OT: If I think of engineers that truly left their mark on the world, people like RVG, Tom Dowd or Geoff Emerick and Glyn Johns I don't think that any of them was an 'audiophile'. Or better said, none of these recording were 'audiophile' sounding and 'perfect'. Rather they had attitude to spare, weren't afraid to make decisions (maybe RVG closed the lid and narrowed the piano-bandwith to make room for the other instruments, I'm just thinking) and generally put the music first.
That's possibly more of the syndrome "History is written by the victors". They all produced successful records, by great artists, who want's to knock those. There are quite a few "audiophile" jazz labels that managed fantastic sound quality, however, you wouldn't really want to hear the performances on a repeated basis. It should always be about the music, but don't confuse that with sound quality.

Quote:
A record like Wayne Shorter's 'Speak no evil' probably is great sounding. Actually I never analyzed it because the music is so great that it takes over.
Exactly, we don't really analyis great records, because it's about the music, not about the sound quality, though it is nice when that's great too.

Quote:
But even people like RVG needed a budget and time to get their work done as you can easily check when comparing the Prestige sides to the Blue Note ones. Blue Note had more rehearsal time for the msuicians and more setup time for the engineer. Still less than than the average GearSlut spends on a snare mic these days but it made a difference.
I don't agree with this. Of course you need to spend enough time and money to do the job properly, but as I always say to people, on a record there is at most around 1 hour's good playing. There are live albums that are fantastic, there are also studio albums that take months to produce that are also fantastic, which is the best way to work?

Regards


Roland
Old 24th April 2010
  #115
Lives for gear
 
doorknocker's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
Sgt Peppers is one of the best records ever made, but this has nothing to do with sound quality and sound quality wise it wouldn't even rank in the top 1,000.
I really disagree with that statement.

But instead of arguing about purely subjective things (a fact I suspect you are not acknowledging as you seem to speak in absolutes) I'd rather ask you:

What recordings would you deem 'great sounding' ?
Old 24th April 2010
  #116
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorknocker View Post
I really disagree with that statement.

But instead of arguing about purely subjective things (a fact I suspect you are not acknowledging as you seem to speak in absolutes) I'd rather ask you:

What recordings would you deem 'great sounding' ?
I don't think that it's so easy to say these days, as generally speaking probably around 30% of modern commercial releases have good or great sound quality and comparing say Green Day to Amy Winehouse becomes fairly subjective, however, I don't think that Beatles recordings have that level of technical sound quality and that shouldn't be surprising considering how long ago they were made. I do think that some albums like the police's Synchronicity, Barbara Streisand's Guilty and Pink Floyd's The Wall all moved the benchmark on in there respective times. Albums light Nightfly by Donald Fagin were also deemed to move the benchmark. Steve Earles There's a Train Coming is also a great sounding album (sounds like 6 guy's sitting around and just playing). With the advent of good digital gear many of the issues of sound quality have become less of a problem. If you have fed 24 - 48 tracks back through a modern Neve/SSL etc, and heard the drop in signal quality due to the length of the signal path you would know what I mean. Whether modern records are as good as their ancient counterparts will be something that we will all debate ad-nauseum, but I think it's true to say that the gear really isn't the problem these days.

Regards


Roland
Old 24th April 2010
  #117
Lives for gear
 
doorknocker's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
I don't think that it's so easy to say these days, as generally speaking probably around 30% of modern commercial releases have good or great sound quality and comparing say Green Day to Amy Winehouse becomes fairly subjective, however, I don't think that Beatles recordings have that level of technical sound quality and that shouldn't be surprising considering how long ago they were made.
I think that the Beatles recording have a way higher technical sound quality than the examples you mentioned. I think Motown would be a better example as there is definitely less fidelity on say 'Heard it through the grapevine' when compared to Amy Winehouse but naturally Motown is the blueprint for everything Miss Winehouse does.

I'm surely not the only one that thinks that Sinatra's Capitol recordings are the ultimate recordings in terms of pure fidelity and beauty of sound. So 'how long ago they were made' really has nothing to do with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
I do think that some albums like the police's Synchronicity, Barbara Streisand's Guilty and Pink Floyd's The Wall all moved the benchmark on in there respective times. Albums light Nightfly by Donald Fagin were also deemed to move the benchmark.
That's purely a matter of taste and opinion. While I like all the examples you mentioned, 'Nightly' especially sounds very artificial and digital to my ears.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
Steve Earles There's a Train Coming is also a great sounding album (sounds like 6 guy's sitting around and just playing).
A great recording for sure that I love very much but in terms of 'I'm in the room with these guys' it can't hold a candle to Muddy Waters 'Folk Singer' which IMO is one of the greatest sounding records ever and it was done in the early 60ies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
With the advent of good digital gear many of the issues of sound quality have become less of a problem.
Are you being sarcastic? Or do you equal 'great sound' with lower noise level and number of available tracks?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
....but I think it's true to say that the gear really isn't the problem these days.
I agree but you can't seperate the gear from the person that operates it.
Old 24th April 2010
  #118
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorknocker View Post
I think that the Beatles recording have a way higher technical sound quality than the examples you mentioned. I think Motown would be a better example as there is definitely less fidelity on say 'Heard it through the grapevine' when compared to Amy Winehouse but naturally Motown is the blueprint for everything Miss Winehouse does.
There aer many who think that Motown is a good example of 60's quality, again for me it's pretty much the same as the Beatles, great music, reasonable for it's time.

Quote:
I'm surely not the only one that thinks that Sinatra's Capitol recordings are the ultimate recordings in terms of pure fidelity and beauty of sound. So 'how long ago they were made' really has nothing to do with it.
They are a good example of great sound in their day, I would cite the Verve jazz records of the 50's and 60's as about as good as anything I've heard from that period.

Quote:
That's purely a matter of taste and opinion. While I like all the examples you mentioned, 'Nightly' especially sounds very artificial and digital to my ears.
I find the production a little too slick for my personal liking, but it is a great record and it is well recorded.

Quote:
Are you being sarcastic? Or do you equal 'great sound' with lower noise level and number of available tracks?
When you want to talk about absolute fidelity in recordings, probably the best examples are going to be found it jazz and more likely classical. In classical music it's all about recreating the "concert hall" acoustic experience. Digital recordings of classical music have been made as long ago as the early 70's, pretty much all the major labels have been exclusively digital since 1980. In pure fidelity terms good digital systems can be switched between the live mic feed and the digital playback and it is difficult and even sometimes, not possible to distinguish which is which, not a hope of hell in doing that with an analogue machine it's too apparent. Record a CD to, two tracks of a Studer 827 and it's not much better than a cassette deck.

Regards


Roland
Old 24th April 2010
  #119
Lives for gear
 
doorknocker's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
When you want to talk about absolute fidelity in recordings, probably the best examples are going to be found it jazz and more likely classical. In classical music it's all about recreating the "concert hall" acoustic experience.
Well I'm not an expert at all on classical recordings but I've been COMPLETELY blown-away by the RCA 'Living Stereo' recordings like this one with Franz Reiner, I believe it was recorded in the 50ies:

Amazon.com: Bartók: Concerto for Orchestra; Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta; Hungarian Sketches: Bela Bartok, Fritz Reiner, Chicago Symphony Orchestra: Music
Old 24th April 2010
  #120
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorknocker View Post
Well I'm not an expert at all on classical recordings but I've been COMPLETELY blown-away by the RCA 'Living Stereo' recordings like this one with Franz Reiner, I believe it was recorded in the 50ies:

Amazon.com: Bartók: Concerto for Orchestra; Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta; Hungarian Sketches: Bela Bartok, Fritz Reiner, Chicago Symphony Orchestra: Music

These and the Mercury Living Presence recordings have been discussed ad-nausseum in various threads on these forums. They were often recorded using film recorders as they were considered far higher fidelity than the tape machines of the time, mostly using U47's.

A lot of these recordings have been re-released and they are remarkable, particularly for their age. If one is really critical they tend to be a little "Edgy", most probably a carachteristic of the U47 " presence peak. In all honesty they don't compare with the best recordings around today. For good modern classical recordings I would cite those made by Decca, particularly ones recorded in St Eustache in Montreal. The Planets by the MSO and Charles Dutoit are exceptional.

Regards


Roland
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
I.R.Baboon / Mastering forum
24
Tubelover / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
19
PeteJames / Electronic Music Instruments and Electronic Music Production
11
petermedland / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
7
I.R.Baboon / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
14

Forum Jump
Forum Jump