[BluePotato]

On this forum and others, when asked about the best sounding albums, it's almost more common to hear older albums mentioned, for example:
-Steely Dan - aja: now ~40 years old
-David Bowie - Ziggy Stardust: now ~45 years old
-Mingus - Black Saint and Sinner Lady: now ~54 years old
-The Who - Who's Next: now ~46 yeas old
 
My question is: Has music recording sound quality not improved in the past 40-50 years? Is a reduction in tape hiss really the only thing we've improved on? If, in 1977, Steely Dan had access to all the recording technology we have access to today, how much better would the aja album sound?
 
While I know the recording technologies have improved, it doesn't seem like they've resulted in noticeable sound quality improvements for listeners like us.
 
Could you imagine if other technologies improvements for consumers would have been as stagnant as recording sound quality has in the past 50 years? We certainly wouldn't be streaming 1080p TV shows from our multi-megabit Internet connections looking at our multi-monitor setups, editing photos from our 20 megapixel digital cameras.
 
Or did we already hit the recording sound quality plateau 40-50 years ago and no other improvements will be noticeable by our human ears?
 
Maybe the only improvements have been in the equipment that we use to playback/consume our media. Is my Schiit Modi2/Magni2 setup with Sennheiser HD-650 headphones (a very common mid-fi setup around here) putting better sound into my ears than headphone setups my ancestors would have used?
 
Any of you in the Head-Fi community have opinions on this matter? I look forward to reading your thoughts.

 

[icebear]

Interesting topic and surprising that there aren't any responses yet.
 
I'll throw in my $0.02:
The music that is produced for the masses is
1) not suitable to reveal sonic improvements and latest high-fi quality possibilities
2) the production objectives of this type of music is to make it palatable for the masses and to make it sound exciting so it sells well, best sonic quality would rather reveal the poor vocal capacity of a lot of popular singers, take away their "autotune" and they're toast.

 
Classic recordings from the late 50's and early 60's made by sound engineers who had a sense of how to capture the sound of a live orchestra in natural reverb concert hall do still sound amazing today. Some direct to disc recordings with minimal processing way before the advent of digital recording techniques sound stunning. So, yes given these examples of excellent sound recordings that were made by passionate individuals who maxed out what their equipment was capable of reached a sonic quality that is already good enough. There can be small improvements but ultimately to get significantly better than 35mm magnetic tape running at 30ips on calibrated machines, capturing live sound with properly positioned mics just isn't going to happen.
 
So, I guess your assumption is right.

 

[jegnyc]

There are some phenomenal sounding classical recordings being released nowadays.  Try something from Channel Classics.  Or Harmonia Mundi, Linn or Bis.  Whether you find them superior to the classical recordings of the 50's and 60's may depend on how you feel about analog/tube vs today's state of the art digital.  
 
As for pop/rock, there are some very good recordings (e.g. at least some of the music I have by Beck), but they are few and far between.

 

[icebear]

Sure, there are high quality classical music recordings produced today but for me the quality then sometimes gets in the way of enjoying the music. It seems difficult to explain... the older recordings convey a sense of being in the live performance. I close my eyes and imagine Glenn Gould is playing in front of me. The recordings are so good that this is relatively easy. So how can this possibly improved further? Dynamic range of the orchestra or e.g. a violin soloist has been captured realistically already 50 years ago. Maybe the most essential part of getting a great recording is the performance and not the equipment

. Today so much can be corrected in post process of the recording so the artists sometimes don't put in their best effort and if the sparks don't fly, even super high rez recording equipment can't capture them.

 
Often the audiophile titles have really stunning sonic quality but the performances are not really exciting. I listen to those maybe 2 or 3 times and then these collect dust on the shelf. BIS has some really good recordings and the performances are great but for the mainstream music business outside of classic, high quality sound is not really the objective.

 

[jegnyc]

Odd that you should mention Glenn Gould as he depended on the technology available in a studio more than almost any other pianist of his time. His recordings are made up of multiple takes spliced together. I'll take Murray Perahia's 2016 release of Bach's French Suites any day.

As for me, the instrumental timbre and hall ambience on Rachel Podger's baroque recordings for Channel Classics seems more natural than any of the Living Stereo SACDs (all but 1) and Mercury discs I have of recordings from the 50's and 60's. And that's without adding surround channels.

Finally, can you give me one example of an artist who didn't give his/her best effort? Maybe some pop artists who are coasting. But classical artists or jazz musicians?

 

[serman005]

I believe that good recordings exist from every decade going back to the fifties. The producers, engineers, the board and other recording gear, the recording environment and its ambient energy, microphones and placement, mastering process--all these things come together to create the recording we listen to on our DAPs. I  was listening to Free's 1970 recording of 'All Right Now' the other day. It is a remarkably simple piece of music, but the quality of the recording is just phenomenal. So much better than much of the stuff recorded since 1970. Aja. Alan Parsons Project 'Eye in the Sky'. Also amazing recording quality from a noted producer of the era. Despite being from what is considered to be the bad 80s digital era. There is plenty of well-recorded stuff thirty, forty years old. Plenty.

 

[icebear]

Odd that you should mention Glenn Gould as he depended on the technology available in a studio more than almost any other pianist of his time. His recordings are made up of multiple takes spliced together. I'll take Murray Perahia's 2016 release of Bach's French Suites any day.

As for me, the instrumental timbre and hall ambience on Rachel Podger's baroque recordings for Channel Classics seems more natural than any of the Living Stereo SACDs (all but 1) and Mercury discs I have of recordings from the 50's and 60's. And that's without adding surround channels.

Finally, can you give me one example of an artist who didn't give his/her best effort? Maybe some pop artists who are coasting. But classical artists or jazz musicians?

As I mentioned earlier, hard to explain ... the super high quality resolution, the aim to make everything perfect seems to put a straight jacket on the performer. Maybe they are being told how to play to make it sound in a certain way, maybe the close miking takes away the music's floating effect in the room and you hear so many details in a recording that you would never hear in an actual live concert. You just don't stick you head into the piano, you are sitting at least 10 to 15ft away, if you got a first row ticket that is.

 

[BluePotato]

Great replies and thoughts. To clarify, I'm not referring to the decisions that the recording engineers and producers make with respect to crippling dynamic range. I know that the industry has made some disappointing decisions. I am, however, talking about technology and sound quality to our human listening ears.
 
I'm suggesting that if you took the same performances, engineers, producers, and recording/mixing decisions with equipment from 40 years ago or equipment from today, the improvements would be negligible if discernible at all.

 

[jegnyc]

 
As I mentioned earlier, hard to explain ... the super high quality resolution, the aim to make everything perfect seems to put a straight jacket on the performer. Maybe they are being told how to play to make it sound in a certain way, maybe the close miking takes away the music's floating effect in the room and you hear so many details in a recording that you would never hear in an actual live concert. You just don't stick you head into the piano, you are sitting at least 10 to 15ft away, if you got a first row ticket that is.

So none of this.

 

[icebear]

   
So none of this.

Not that close

 

[icebear]

  ...
 
I'm suggesting that if you took the same performances, engineers, producers, and recording/mixing decisions with equipment from 40 years ago or equipment from today, the improvements would be negligible if discernible at all.

 
The greatest impact on how the sound is captured and how it will sound when reproduced is the type and position of the microphone.
It's not the recording medium or the ADC or DAC or analog or tubes vs solid state or the mega burrito filter 512 bit with a million taps and a gazillion Mhz

.
 
I think your suggestion is pretty spot on.