Thread: Fidelity of older recordings

Posts: 11
Page: 1 2 next

Post by Dan Popp September 30, 2004 (1 of 11)
Just a thought after reading the same Rolling Stones review several times, and noticing that "Layla" has now been released in MC.

A lot of these '60s and '70s pop-rock records were made to sound good on the radio. They were overly-compressed to the point of distortion. They sacrificed clean sonics for a level of "excitement" that was their artistic goal.

It doesn't make any sense to hold these discs to the sonic standards of today - that's not what they were going for. If some ambitious engineer were to clean them up and remove the "oil barrel" (probably plate reverb) from them, many would rightly cry "foul."

Post by madinoz September 30, 2004 (2 of 11)
I guess people have become very intrenched in the sound characteristics of these older recordings. I guess they would find it strange to hear the uncompressed versions of these recordings!
I suppose it comes down to an individuals choice regarding their purchases. If an SACD recording of something which sounds awful is released then I'm sure the marketplace will decide if it is worthy of the new high resolution treatment. After all there are people out there who wouldn't understand why these recordings are even on CD let alone being re-released n a new format!!!!!!

Post by LC October 1, 2004 (3 of 11)
Dan Popp said:

A lot of these '60s and '70s pop-rock records were made to sound good on the radio. They were overly-compressed to the point of distortion. They sacrificed clean sonics for a level of "excitement" that was their artistic goal.

It doesn't make any sense to hold these discs to the sonic standards of today - that's not what they were going for.

I've thought about this when listening to the only classic rock recordings I own other than the Rolling Stones' Hot Rocks, namely, three of the Creedence Clearwater Revival SA-CDs. Really, if ever there were a band "meant" to be heard through a crappy speaker in your dashboard over AM radio, it must be CCR, no? So what kind of sonic experience "should" I expect? I don't know. They actually sound pretty damn good. Maybe this isn't an authentic musical experience. I don't believe I've ever heard CCR over AM radio.

Post by Dan Popp October 1, 2004 (4 of 11)
I remember reading an article in a trade magazine about the recording of "Layla." There weren't many tracks available - maybe only 8? - and I specifically recall that all the drums had to go to one track. It's one of the greatest rock and roll songs of all time, but I'm not sure how satisfying a MC experience it could be.

The Beatles' 4-track recordings on 6 speakers? That might be interesting, but probably not all that enjoyable.

The same thought goes for the Motown classics and a lot of things from that era. They were made specifically to be enjoyed on the equipment of the day. That's one reason they had such an impact. Trying to "modernize" them may not be the best idea.

Post by Chris October 1, 2004 (5 of 11)
Dan Popp said:

Just a thought after reading the same Rolling Stones review several times, and noticing that "Layla" has now been released in MC.

A lot of these '60s and '70s pop-rock records were made to sound good on the radio. They were overly-compressed to the point of distortion. They sacrificed clean sonics for a level of "excitement" that was their artistic goal.

It doesn't make any sense to hold these discs to the sonic standards of today - that's not what they were going for. If some ambitious engineer were to clean them up and remove the "oil barrel" (probably plate reverb) from them, many would rightly cry "foul."

You're certainly right there Dan. I find it quite ridiculous to read the raving reviews some guys give these highly processed, very unnatural recordings.
It is of course one thing to like their music,which I don't .But to give crap like this five stars for sound in a review,now that is just insane.Or tells me that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about,hasn't really got a clue what HI FI really means.

Post by mdt October 2, 2004 (6 of 11)
Dan Popp said:

I remember reading an article in a trade magazine about the recording of "Layla." There weren't many tracks available - maybe only 8? - and I specifically recall that all the drums had to go to one track. It's one of the greatest rock and roll songs of all time, but I'm not sure how satisfying a MC experience it could be.

The Beatles' 4-track recordings on 6 speakers? That might be interesting, but probably not all that enjoyable.

The same thought goes for the Motown classics and a lot of things from that era. They were made specifically to be enjoyed on the equipment of the day. That's one reason they had such an impact. Trying to "modernize" them may not be the best idea.

In my opinion the main advantage of SA-CD is its high resolution which allows for the first time to bring the full quality of recordings to the consumer. Remasters of analog recordings on SA-CD have shown that even older analog recordings can sonically outperform 16/44.1 PCM of CD, this is why i believe issuing old recordings on SA-CD makes sense.
The 6 channels of SA-CD dont necessarily have to be used in every case.
On my part i enjoy very much the SA-CD version of Karajans 62 Beethoven in Stereo which has benefitted imensly from the high resolution remastering alone, it's far superior to the CDs. The same goes for RCA's Living Stereo series which has 2 or 3 channels only. Pentatone's excellent remasters use 4 of 6 channels only in presenting original quadro recordings.And the Ella and Louis SA-CD shows that even a mono recording can make sense on SA-CD.
The Quality of the original recording should be considered when deciding on an SA-CD release, not the technical format.

Post by Chris October 2, 2004 (7 of 11)
mdt said:

In my opinion the main advantage of SA-CD is its high resolution which allows for the first time to bring the full quality of recordings to the consumer. Remasters of analog recordings on SA-CD have shown that even older analog recordings can sonically outperform 16/44.1 PCM of CD, this is why i believe issuing old recordings on SA-CD makes sense.
The 6 channels of SA-CD dont necessarily have to be used in every case.
On my part i enjoy very much the SA-CD version of Karajans 62 Beethoven in Stereo which has benefitted imensly from the high resolution remastering alone, it's far superior to the CDs. The same goes for RCA's Living Stereo series which has 2 or 3 channels only. Pentatone's excellent remasters use 4 of 6 channels only in presenting original quadro recordings.And the Ella and Louis SA-CD shows that even a mono recording can make sense on SA-CD.
The Quality of the original recording should be considered when deciding on an SA-CD release, not the technical format.

Now,here you're talking about recordings of true HI FI sound and recording quality.I certainly agree with you regarding the Beethoven set.I also have some RCA's on LP but not yet the SACDs.Few modern recordings even get close to the natural and very realistic sound of those old LPs.
I would go a step further and even say that they often outperform not only RBCD,that is almost a given from any decent LP,but also most SACDs, and possibly even DSD recording, as it stands today.
I have in my small collection some pure DSD SACDs,that in some respects rival
the best of analogue,but they are few .Bis's Grieg Sigurd Jorsalfar is very good and so is Pentatone's Mahler fifth.The Pentatone disc is one of those very few recordings that gives you a very realistic "picture" without the artificial balancing so common today.But it needs to be played at a high level to really blossom.RCA and Mecury used two or three mics at their now classic session in the late fifties and early sixties.And the results are still to many,me included, State Of the Art.

Post by Dan Popp October 2, 2004 (8 of 11)
Chris said:

Now,here you're talking about recordings of true HI FI sound and recording quality.I certainly agree with you regarding the Beethoven set.I also have some RCA's on LP but not yet the SACDs.Few modern recordings even get close to the natural and very realistic sound of those old LPs.
I would go a step further and even say that they often outperform not only RBCD,that is almost a given from any decent LP,but also most SACDs, and possibly even DSD recording, as it stands today.

Chris,
Here is another example of people preferring, or being bothered by, different things.

When I was recording on analog tape, every hour of every day engineers were cursing tape hiss; dropouts; the fragility of the medium (don't get it near a speaker!); print-through; the difficulty of keeping the recorder degaussed, biased, calibrated and aligned properly; wow & flutter; and the inevitable degradation of the recording every time it was played. (This was even before we knew of some tapes becoming big wads of brown glue in the vault). Dolby Labs and many others made a living trying to mask the imperfections of tape.

Likewise, the problems with vinyl degradation; turntable rumble; tracking alignment from the outside to the inside of the LP; and many more "issues," caused many a tuft of hair to fall to the studio floor unmourned.

I for one am not nostalgic for the "good ole days" of 60 dB channel separation and a dynamic range of little more than that. I certainly cannot share much enthusiasm for a medium which rounded percussive transients to mush.

But "to each, his own." No recording system is perfect; some are more annoyed by digital artifacts than by analog artifacts. No problem. Some people come to enjoy some analog artifacts and call them "real," and miss them when they are absent. That becomes tricky because no one who is not accustomed to those artifacts will call them "real," and because they ain't coming back.

Post by mwheelerk October 2, 2004 (9 of 11)
Dan Popp said:

Just a thought after reading the same Rolling Stones review several times, and noticing that "Layla" has now been released in MC.

A lot of these '60s and '70s pop-rock records were made to sound good on the radio. They were overly-compressed to the point of distortion. They sacrificed clean sonics for a level of "excitement" that was their artistic goal.

It doesn't make any sense to hold these discs to the sonic standards of today - that's not what they were going for. If some ambitious engineer were to clean them up and remove the "oil barrel" (probably plate reverb) from them, many would rightly cry "foul."

You make a valid point, however, Derek and The Dominoes "Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs" is absolutely great music recorded through a dirty dish towel and could use some definite cleaning up. Now here is a point that could cause some argument or discussion: "Did the artist who created this music itend for us to hear this cluttered compressed mess or was the manner in which the music was produced a compromise to the technology of the day?" Do you object when movies are enhanced both visually and sonically using todays technology? Has it changed the director's, actor's and writer's intent with the presentation in this improved format? Will upgrading the sound quality using the technology of today interfere or change the intent of the recording artist.

Remixing is an entirely different issue. Deviating from the original mixes does in fact change the original intention. However sometimes, do to the source material available, the condition of the source material, or a new vision of the artist, original producer, or the assigned project producer, you will indeed recieve something quite different from what was originally presented or intended. To date, I can not think of an instance where this has been a problem for me (I'm not considering some of the bastardized multichannel mixes here).

Post by Dan Popp October 2, 2004 (10 of 11)
mwheelerk said:

You make a valid point, however, Derek and The Dominoes "Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs" is absolutely great music recorded through a dirty dish towel and could use some definite cleaning up. Now here is a point that could cause some argument or discussion: "Did the artist who created this music itend for us to hear this cluttered compressed mess or was the manner in which the music was produced a compromise to the technology of the day?" Do you object when movies are enhanced both visually and sonically using todays technology? Has it changed the director's, actor's and writer's intent with the presentation in this improved format? Will upgrading the sound quality using the technology of today interfere or change the intent of the recording artist.

Remixing is an entirely different issue. Deviating from the original mixes does in fact change the original intention. However sometimes, do to the source material available, the condition of the source material, or a new vision of the artist, original producer, or the assigned project producer, you will indeed recieve something quite different from what was originally presented or intended. To date, I can not think of an instance where this has been a problem for me (I'm not considering some of the bastardized multichannel mixes here).

m,
I think you are hitting the nail squarely on the head when you write about the "intent of the artist." If Clapton and the boys want so show us how they would have done it with 6 channels, then that's their prerogative - it's their music.

OTOH, like the black-and-white movies being "colorized," the artist has the right to object, and, in my view, even to veto, any modernization or format conversion that he feels would harm his original creative vision for the work.

Page: 1 2 next

Closed