• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Early Classic Rock: Why So Many Bad Recordings?

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,204
Likes
16,986
Location
Riverview FL

TBone

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
1,191
Likes
348
I don't believe I painted the entire lot -- I certainly never said every classic rock album and/or remastering was crap.

Perhaps not, however it a very common misconception, and something I hear far too often, that classic rock mastering suffers in comparison to other genres. I don't find this to be true what-so-ever, much like the misconception that Pink Floyd's DarkSideOfTheMoon is one of the "greatest" mastered recordings; while some cuts are really good, one can make the argument that it's not even close to being the best mastered Floyd recording (The Wall).

I go on (and on and on...) about dynamic range capability, but in my main system, DR (or lack of compression) with ANY kind of music is really the key difference between one recording sounding pseudo "real" and other like a plain ole studio facsimile ... given any format.

And, to that end, it really is a shame that so much wasted publicity has been put into different formats, and not the amount of compression within the mastering provided. I mean, look at how many audiophiles spew on (and on) about one format sounding more dynamic than another, and yet the numbers simply don't support 'em. The first time I heard SACD in my system (the venerable SonySACD777) I was expecting a near live performance given the spewing ... but on first listen, something was obviously missing. Years later, the DR numbers of those original SACD recordings supported my initial critique, but it was my hearing, or the 777 which got most of the blame instead.

Hell, how many reviewers compare one specific recording within several formats, declare a winner (usually the reviewed product, go figure), but never consider the inherited mastering (and added compression) of each individual recording per each format, as if they are all identical. It's as if all DSOTM recordings are the exact same, but the format itself is the key difference. 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.

Audiophiles are misguided dweebs in general ... most would rather blame a genre, or tubes, or solid state, passive or active, turntables or digital ... while missing the entire point of audio home reproduction in the process.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
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?
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,759
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
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?

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.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
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.
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.
https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...92-from-hdtracks/?tab=comments#comment-530714
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,500
Likes
5,417
Location
UK
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.
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.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
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.
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.
This just may be the golden age for those who's music is a big part of their life.

So now as geeks we have little left to do but bitch and moan about the minutia of which master, the data rate, etc. :D
 

Phelonious Ponk

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
859
Likes
215
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.

I don't think it was the equipment. I think it was extensive multi tracking. Even 8 channel and early 16 channel recorders were known to build up distortion as the tracks were stacked. By the time good, clean, multi channel recording became ubiquitous, it was on the verge of being replaced by digital. Jazz and classical recordings were for the most part, recorded "live," in the studio. I listen to s lot of that late 60s/early 70s music, too, and feel your pain.
 

Phelonious Ponk

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
859
Likes
215
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...

The "loudness wars" have been waging for decades. Even in the 50s, singles were commonly compressed, so they would sound "right" on car radios. Of then, it was analogue compression, which is much more musical.
 

Phelonious Ponk

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
859
Likes
215
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.

The engineers were not in charge, then or now.
 

Phelonious Ponk

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
859
Likes
215
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 ...

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.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl

Analog Scott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
451
Likes
44
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.
Compression for the sake of balancing instruments is generally a good thing.
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
Can you say "Coyboy Junkies" LOL
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 ...
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
Compression for the sake of balancing instruments is generally a good thing.
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.
 

Phelonious Ponk

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
859
Likes
215
Can you say "Coyboy Junkies" LOL
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.
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia

JS Hoover

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
30
Likes
27
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.
 
OP
watchnerd

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,409
Location
Seattle Area, USA
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.

In 1967 we have also have "The End" by The Doors, on Elektra.
 

MusicNBeer

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
333
Likes
478
Zeppelin should not be in this conversation except for II and maybe Physical Graffiti. Zeppelin I sounds absolutely awesome for 1969. Get the old Diamont 80s CD and turn it up to 11. III, IV, and Houses Of The Holy are also well recorded.
 
Top Bottom