[gloco]

I have noticed over time that there are a lot of jazz and classical lovers in these forums. I also have noticed that they talk about how great a recording sounds within these two genres. What i'm trying to say is i rarely read a post regarding a rock record that was recorded well (RHCP's poorly recorded Californication comes to mind as maybe why). I consider Metallica's "black album" to sound amazing, am i wrong, or just ignorant of what is a well recorded album?

 

[Xevion]

The biggest reason why people seem to note how good the recording is with jazz and classical is because much less is done to the sound before it is "finished". Most rock has been equalized, compressed, clipped and changed in many ways, whereas most classical is a direct recording of the music, perhaps compressed a little bit, but nothing like most rock.

The black album dosen't sound bad to me, but in my opinion is compressed a bit too much. I would say if you wanted to use a reference recording for rock, try Pink Floyd - Comfortably Numb or The Eagles - Hotel California. While Comfortably Numb (Or the rest of The Wall) may sound a bit dark, I think it is whatever medium that it was originally recorded on that did that. Other then that minor flaw, it just sounds much more natural than most rock recordings like the aforementioned Metallica one.

If you want to hear how not to make a recording - Transatlantic has one of the worst sounding CDs I have ever heard, distortion is all over the place, and it seems to sound like an average recording from the 70s.

Some Santana also seems to sound pretty good IIRC, but I don't generally listen to it so I am just basing that off a quick listen.

 

[gloco]

I also remember "layla" from Eric Clapton sounding horrible, complete **** is a better way to put it. I'm surprised to read that the Metallica's black album was compressed, i think it was recorded all on dat tape, so why would they compress it? My understanding of using compression is mainly due to people recording on HD's then having to master it for cd consumption. Which leads me to ask, does compression affect recordings done before the PC age? Oasis "be here now" sounds compressed to my ears but not the black album. Another great sounding cd has to be Duran Duran's "Notorious," which sounds brilliant, to my ears, what do you all think?

George

 

[SEK]

Fundamentally, I think that if you like the way the music sounds, then the recording is fine. Indeed, Metallica might sound better in your home than in your local venue.

I think that a reason why true jazz and classical fans can be more discriminating about recordings is that music in these two categories often has less or no multitracking, and electronically processed or synthesized sounds. Therefor, the listener can have a better idea of what the various instruments are supposed to sound like.

 

[Wes]

I think the reason classical and jazz listeners comment on recording quality is because they constantly have in mind a reference: the live concerts they have heard. You can--you can hardly help--judge how well a recording matches or reproduces the live concert experiences you've had in those (mainly) acoustic genres.

A rock concert, however, is a huge manipulation, often a very objectionable one. Even when the "live" concert sound is wonderful and you hear it from a favorable location, it is nothing like the recordings you know of the same numbers--and isn't intended to be. The recordings of rock and pop are also huge manipulations of the acoustic and electronic input. You can say these recordings sound good or bad, meaning pleasing, involving, exciting, moving or the reverse, but there is no basis of comparison for the accuracy of the recording as such.

So, "recording quality" in the sense used by classical and jazz listeners just doesn't apply to rock and pop. Those rock and pop listeners are always inventing what they may mean by "recording quality" while the jazz and classical ones have a pretty obvious shared standard to go by.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Xevion]

gloco - I could be wrong, but I think most music today undergoes heavy dynamic compression, Metallica included.

Listen to some classical music at an authorative volume level, and don't change the voume and pop in the black album. Sure, rock by nature dosen't have as wide a dynamic range as classical, but the quiet parts are made louder then they should be in most music, in order to sound better on the average stereo, boom box, and car radio.

Also, more simplistic recordings are definantly compressed - for example Victor Wooten - Overjoyed - the only insturment is Wooten's bass, thats it, so some dynamic compression makes it audible

, and in this case it is fully warranted.

Someone correct me if I am wrong please.

Wes - I think you said it right, but it isn't entirely subjective. Transatlantic's CD sounds like crap because it has a load of distortion. Therion's CDs occasionally have some distortion on them too, but not nearly as bad.

There is a good example - Therion shows the use of compression in rock - the strings are much more prominent then in an orchestral type setting even against the loud, distorted huitars.

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by Xevion gloco - I could be wrong, but I think most music today undergoes heavy dynamic compression, Metallica included.

I agree with you on the basis that present time recordings use compression due to HD use, correct? Am i correct in this assertion that compression is used because master recordings are done to HD?

Second, i'm interested to know whether or not compression is needed, or used, in recordings mastered to tape (analog).

George

 

[coolvij]

I thought people compressed the dynamic range to make EVERYTHING sound louder, and therefore better, on cheap stereos and the like.............

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by gloco I agree with you on the basis that present time recordings use compression due to HD use, correct?

No, that is not why. Quote:

Am i correct in this assertion that compression is used because master recordings are done to HD?

Nope, compression existed long before HD mastering. Quote:

Second, i'm interested to know whether or not compression is needed, or used, in recordings mastered to tape (analog).

Needed -- no, not if done well. Used -- yes, all the time.

 

[Xevion]

Quote:

I thought people compressed the dynamic range to make EVERYTHING sound louder, and therefore better, on cheap stereos and the like.............

Less to make everything louder, and more to make the quiet parts louder. A lot of music, pop in particular, dosen't really have varying volume levels throughought the song. So - if the sound isn't really compressed it will sound rather quiet, so they compress it as much as they can so it is loud.

Now, in pop music that does have drastically changing volumes, the quiet parts are usually compressed more, so they seem louder then they "should". Imagine a metal song where guitars are blaring and suddenly they change to softer acoustic guitars with perhaps some clean vocals - in my mind the acoustic music would be a lot softer, but if you have an SPL meter out you would find that it dosen't get that much softer.

If they tried to heavily compress some classical music (I use Holst's Uranus as an example because it has a very wide dynamic range, and my recording of it has a lot of distortion at the loudest parts even though it has this 20 bit high definition crap on the CD cover). But - if I turn the volume up loud enough so the quiet parts are at a pretty loud volume level, the loud parts would just be way too much for my amp and speakers.

Lets say the max volume signal on a line out is 1, and the minimum is 0 - pop music wants to stay around .8, whereas classical music will often range from .1 all the way to 1. If the volume goes over the "1" then it will clip, and you get distortion in the recording.

 

[MuffinMan]

I stumbled over..

http://member.newsguy.com/~stigerik/dyn.html


NP. Grateful Dead - Blues for Allah.

 

[dngl]

gloco- there's some terminology confusion.

The compression you are thinking of is to reduce the size of the audio file (mp3, atrac, etc.)

The compression we're talking about has nothing to do with reducing the size. It has to do with eliminating dynamic range so everything occurs in about 3db (loudest is twice as loud as the softest) because a lot of cheap stuff has high noise floors, etc.

 

[Hirsch]

Imagine, if you will, the effect of a highly dynamic recording on a car radio, or the speakers of the average TV. Ouch!

Record companies know quite well that in order to get that platinum record, they have to get it heard by the great mass of people who have never heard high-end sound, and who own equipment that cannot play dynamics. The solution? Dynamic range compression. Sacrifice a bit of quality, but make a product that won't offend on a low-end system.

A more acceptable use of range compression is to make a recording listenable during the late night hours...uncompressed, the low passages will be too quiet to be heard at low volumes, while loud passages may wake the neighbors if uncompressed recordings are played loud enough for low volume passages to be heard. However, this feature should be on the playback equipment. It should not be a limitation of the recording.

Xevion: Note that compression isn't necessary to alter recordings that have very little change in dynamics...those are compressed already. If you want to increase the perceived volume, simply up the gain. On dynamic rcordings, it's a bad idea to play quiet passages at loud volumes...the quiet passages are quiet for a reason. But yes, if you raise the volume to "loud" on a quiet passage, a quick burst of loud material can do some serious damage to your equipment (and ears).

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon Beilin gloco- there's some terminology confusion. The compression you are thinking of is to reduce the size of the audio file (mp3, atrac, etc.) The compression we're talking about has nothing to do with reducing the size. It has to do with eliminating dynamic range so everything occurs in about 3db (loudest is twice as loud as the softest) because a lot of cheap stuff has high noise floors, etc.

Jon, thanks for the clarification. You are right, I was in fact questioning compression as reducing the size of the audio file. Why does it have to be done? I assume with HD recording (my understanding is an average track 5 minutes long recording to HD is 500 mb's), they must be recording at very high quality (easy transfer to SACD, DVD-A, etc) then compressing the size to fit onto a Compact disc. Ok, heres a question, why does Californication sound so terrible (as does oasis' whats the story morning glory, eric clapton's "layla"). I it because of poor recording techniques, poor studio recorders, was the engineer deaf? What gives?

George

 

[pigmode]

Compression? I just took a chance on the Warner 20 bit remaster of Rush--Permanent Waves. Let me just say that all of the life was literally sucked out of it to the point where no equalizer could make it even bearably listenable. Among other things, there is hardy any bass to speak of.

I've been heading over to the import section more and more, since I've seen better than even odds that an identical title will have a much fuller sound overall.