Early Classic Rock: Why So Many Bad Recordings?
Maybe same reason as now.
Incompetence.
Early Classic Rock: Why So Many Bad Recordings?
I don't believe I painted the entire lot -- I certainly never said every classic rock album and/or remastering was crap.
I wonder if anyone has done any measurements on this to see if the quality streamers like Tidal are doing any further compression or like to it's supposed CD quality streams?Currently, the fad is streaming services, which in my opinion, more often than not, sound way too compressed, yet so many reviewers rarely, if ever, mention such limitations based on the recording itself.
I wonder if anyone has done any measurements on this to see if the quality streamers like Tidal are doing any further compression or like to it's supposed CD quality streams?
I had more in line with dynamic range compression in mind as TBone referenced. (or any other type of skullduggery). But the real trick would be to identify which master of any particular album is being streamed, a few are identified on Spotify, but mostly not. So many of the most popular recordings had been remastered with supposed increases in SQ only to find they have been dynamically squashed to death. Witness the massacre on Jackson Browne's Running On Empty that is sold on HDTracks as a 24/196 high rez recording.First, can we use "compression" for level adjustment, and "coding" or "bit rate reduction" for things like MP3, MP4, AAC, AC3, WMA-*, etc? If bit rate reduction is what you meant, then it is possible to look at the rate. Some services that work at high rates undoubtedly use FLAC, which should be ok, for instance. Some may not. I am not entirely in a position to state everything under the sun here.
Everything seems to get remastered multiple times, for different countries or labels, often silently so this can be hard to pin down, but when I have compared recent CD releases I have bought to tidal I've not noticed anything, so I don't believe they are systematically 'adjusting' things. But for older material it's not easy to work out what version was uploaded, and some seem quite different, but I blame the master, not the service. My purely subjective sighted opinion is I do think spotify sounds very very slightly different, more often slightly better than worse when I had a preference. I think my expectation bias is to favour the streaming services being identical to CD, because it's amazing having access to all that music, and I don't want some other opinion.But the real trick would be to identify which master of any particular album is being streamed, a few are identified on Spotify, but mostly not.
Yes, just a few years back we couldn't have imagined being able to click our way to almost any piece of recorded music we could ever want to listen to for a tiny monthly fee.I think my expectation bias is to favour the streaming services being identical to CD, because it's amazing having access to all that music, and I don't want some other opinion.
I think it's a plausible theory.
But then it begs the question of, "why do it like that"?
Rudy Van Gelder has been recording ensembles of jazz quartets, sextets, etc, using equipment that was no better.
Interesting...so the teens were using relatively crappy, low fidelity systems and the market optimized for that?
Reminiscent of today's loudness wars + autotune pop charts...
Yes, it begs the question of where was the engineers integrity? Are you an artist or not, do you not put your best effort into your work for no other reason than personal pride? Some of my favorite music is the 60s Motown stuff, much barely listenable on good equipment.
They were interested in playing with, putting down musical concepts, rather than capturing it "perfectly". And their intention was smart: if played back on a competent system the ideas come through brilliantly, with full impact - I've learned to generally keep well away from anything that's got the audiophile tick of approval, because it will be, 1) boooriiiing, 2) empty of ideas, full of technically accomplished twanging, etc, which goes nowhere, 3) leave me feeling, why did I bother acquiring, or listening to that ...
So much interesting music to listen to - superbly recorded dullness is just a waste of time ...
Can you say "Coyboy Junkies" LOLI've found little "audiophile approved" music that didn't bore me to tears.
Compression for the sake of balancing instruments is generally a good thing.Wow. I just agreed with Frank. Go figure. With the exception of jazz recordings from the 50s and 60s, I've found little "audiophile approved" music that didn't bore me to tears. On the other hand I streamed a short Allman brothers performance captured live in studio in 1971 the other day. It was clear enough, but obviously compressed, as everything was the same volume, from the kick drum to Gregg's mumbling. It was great fun.
Since this group didn't record for audiophiles, their material doesn't suffer the usual problems - their infamous "Trinity Sessions" is brilliant to listen to, and only gets better when the system improves. I have a mishmash CD of theirs, with tracks that I bet very few could guess came from this group - hard drivin', high energy efforts ...Can you say "Coyboy Junkies" LOL
The old style of compression is never a problem, I find - I have yet to find a recording from the 60's, 70's, 80's - no remastering, please! - that doesn't yield great riches when the rig is good enough to do them justice. Only the most recent stuff has had too much 'clever' manipulation of dynamics, etc - and this is a much harder obstacle to overcome.Compression for the sake of balancing instruments is generally a good thing.
Yeah, that’s always been a bit of a mystery. Otis well-recorded, in the semi-live way of the 50s and early 60s jazz records, but it’s hip-deep in reverb, and not just room ambience. I always thought heavy processing was an audiophile no-no.Can you say "Coyboy Junkies" LOL
The biggest promotional venue for it was mono AM radio. There wasn't a stereo Rock/Pop FM station in America until October 1966 (NYC's ex-98.7 "WOR") nor...were there widely available stereo 45's until 1968. A combination-of: crappy AM radio; crappy suitcase $39 phonographs; and "teen beat music" (as it was known until the late-'60s) having really been considered "disposable" --- there was no priority given to it like there was with the Classical and Jazz of the day.
I would say, however, that the two labels which strove to give Pop/Rock an above-average engineering quality early on (before mixing would become an Art-within-itself in the '70s) were: Atlantic and Columbia.