Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Pre-digital music: How do you know you're hearing it right? (mastering related)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pre-digital music: How do you know you're hearing it right? (mastering related)

post #1 of 7
3/22/11 at 7:55am
Thread Starter 

I want to limit this to analog recordings because you typically don't have this problem with something that was recorded digitally and included it's debut on CD.

 

Mastering changes a lot of what was actually mixed down in the studio. I've encountered this particular phenomenon many times, but I just got two versions of an album on CD (Comus' First Utterance) where one of them has the very first track being one of the loudest (+1 dB over the average) and the last track being one of the quietest (-3 dB under the average), but on the other CD it's the opposite. The first track is very quiet and the last one is loud.

 

Usually these volume differences are small enough to not really matter, but on a factor of 3 dB this is quite audible and it changes the experience a bit. Do you start the album on a loud note and end softly? Or vice versa? Which was intended by the artists? There's really no way to tell. I don't know which CD is more true to the tapes they were taken from.

 

One might say that the vinyl is the "definitive" listen - it's how it was first heard by the world. Equalization speaking, I wouldn't completely agree, because what was mixed down in the studio has to be equalized to make sure it tracks right on vinyl. But relative per-song volume I can agree more often. Yet when I heard the first UK press LP of King Crimson's Red I was very disappointed to hear that the title song, the first one on the LP, was very quiet compared to the rest of the album. It's a hard song too, so it really loses its edge if you adjust your volume according to the rest of the album. The other option is to adjust it to that song and let the remainder of the album bash your ears. Is that what KC had intended? Or is that a creative decision of the mastering engineer? No digital version of the album has the first track so quiet... (relatively speaking)

 

It's frustrating.

Reply
post #2 of 7
3/22/11 at 8:01am

Go with which sound you prefer.

 

Music is about the enjoyment of sound. Nothing more, nothing less. Besides, there's no "true" sound much like there's no "true" interpretation of a painting. Once art is observed and absorbed by the collective consciousness it no longer can be tethered to an indelible meaning as the artwork is an orphan finding homes with many parents.

Reply
post #3 of 7
3/22/11 at 8:10am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazza View Post

Go with which sound you prefer.

 

Music is about the enjoyment of sound. Nothing more, nothing less. Besides, there's no "true" sound much like there's no "true" interpretation of a painting. Once art is observed and absorbed by the collective consciousness it no longer can be tethered to an indelible meaning as the artwork is an orphan finding homes with many parents.

 

The painting analogy is flawed because paintings are not changed when duplicated (are they? I don't view art so I can't be sure.) Two different engineers recorded this album on tape to a digital system, they each made conscious changes to the album (or one made changes and the other left it alone) ... so it's not a matter of "interpreting the music" and what the artist is trying to convey with it... it's a simple fact of what they wanted us to hear when they recorded it. Not in the sense of personal interpretation, but in a physical, tangible sense of things like what's the loudest or softest part of the album.

 

Reply
post #4 of 7
3/22/11 at 8:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazza View Post
Besides, there's no "true" sound much like there's no "true" interpretation of a painting.


I disagree with this completely! There is a true sound to all instruments. A guitar being played here in California will sound the same as if it were being played in China. Sure the tone might vary a bit but in general the sound will be same...that's how we recognize it!

 

A lot of people often ask me what my reference is for mastering...my response..."real life".

Reply
post #5 of 7
3/22/11 at 8:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vkamicht View Post



 

The painting analogy is flawed because paintings are not changed when duplicated (are they? I don't view art so I can't be sure.) Two different engineers recorded this album on tape to a digital system, they each made conscious changes to the album (or one made changes and the other left it alone) ... so it's not a matter of "interpreting the music" and what the artist is trying to convey with it... it's a simple fact of what they wanted us to hear when they recorded it. Not in the sense of personal interpretation, but in a physical, tangible sense of things like what's the loudest or softest part of the album.

 


As we can't interact with the music directly we rely on the playback hardware (hi-fi) to hear it but when doing so we alter the nature of the music and so the hardware itself becomes part of the art. In other words, recorded music can only be subjective, not objective.

 

Reply
post #6 of 7
3/22/11 at 10:41am
This doesn't apply to 70s music as much, because progressive rock was usually recorded pretty artificially. But in the 50s and 60s, most music was recorded with as little manipulation as possible. The idea was to keep the path from mike to LP as clear as possible. That's why most LPs sound more present than their digital equivalent. Also, analogue recording had headroom, something digital doesn't have. They could burn peaks in hot and it wouldn't distort. Although CDs have much more potential for dynamics, LPs generally sound more punchy.

The problem with modern digital recording is that there are so many adjustments being made, the natural sound of the performance gets lost. Simpler is usually better.

By the way, the reason they often master the first song on an album quieter than the rest is to trick you into turning your volume up. But if you don't listen to the tracks in order, it can be mighty irritating.
Edited by bigshot - 3/22/11 at 10:53am
Reply
post #7 of 7
3/22/11 at 10:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazza View Post

As we can't interact with the music directly we rely on the playback hardware (hi-fi) to hear it but when doing so we alter the nature of the music and so the hardware itself becomes part of the art. In other words, recorded music can only be subjective, not objective.
That isn't true. In the 50s, every studio was equipped with the same JBL monitors, calibrated to flat frequency response. If something was recorded in New York and mastered in Los Angeles, it sounded exactly the same. Today, with home recording studios and music mixed on bookshelf speakers, consistency of sound has gone right out the window. But that doesn't mean that carefully controlled baselines aren't possible. Inconsistency isn't a philosophical rule. It's just good old fashioned sloppiness. People make too many excuses for bad sound.
Edited by bigshot - 3/22/11 at 10:50am
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Pre-digital music: How do you know you're hearing it right? (mastering related)