What’s Up with Modern Audio Releases?

[tonyo123]

It is many factors: 1) over production, over processing, sound effects and filters 2) over compression, 3) increased loudness, 4) recording of individual voices and instruments then mixing into artificial space rather than recording in natural space. Having 24 bit provides more headroom (that and higher frequency range should be used for mixing) and is preferred, but, 16 bit is sufficient for listening purposes (I still prefer 24 bit).
Music today is not mainly consumed at home on a stereo, but, on mobile devices wearing headphones, or cars, over background noise. Digital capabilities including the use of Pro Tools, the emergence of the ipod and the smartphone 'mobile' generation, have accelerated these production techniques by the music companies.
Maybe we need two versions of each music release: 1) mobile on-the-go and 2) natural and minimally processed

 

[TTT15]

Agreed I just use AAC on the go and would prefer a master for a noisy environment and than at home in quiet environment on transparent system stream lossless/hi-res and there I would prefer a better master. I find the master quality tends to depend on the music genre.

 

[Chr1]

I think that there's little correlation with music genre and mastering quality personally.

Where the musicians don't have the resources or ability to pay for top quality recording and mastering, there's obviously often issues with the quality.

This can be, but is not always really genre dependant.

 

[tonyo123]

Mastering is the final step to prepare it for media and consumer delivery (vinyl, streaming, CD, digital). Don't disagree better or unmastered would help (there are a few out there), but, there are many steps I mentioned that already alter the recording and cannot be undone. Check old stereo Blue Note recordings or classical recordings. Very open and natural. Done in space w/2-3 microphones. If modern music were done this way with minimal follow-up processing, we'd be able to hear the true music in its environment. Generally for most recordings released today, we are very far away from that.

 

[Chr1]

Depends what you mean by "the true music". Lots of modern music deliberately uses processing as a part of the creative process.
So it is part of the "true music".

Also, lots of modern music could not actually be recorded with just three mics.

I suspect this is just another thread where people pine for the "good old days".
(Before all this horrible modern crap.)

Things have not gone backwards. Modern production and recording techniques are better than ever.
There's always going to be exceptions though.

 

[tonyo123]

Sure, even the Beatles decided not to tour and indicated 'they' could not do their music live. So, agree with part of your post.
Production and recording technique 'capabilities' have advanced significantly, just the choices made with compression, auto-tune, filters, and others make it less natural sounding.

 

[TTT15]

I think that there's little correlation with music genre and mastering quality personally.

Where the musicians don't have the resources or ability to pay for top quality recording and mastering, there's obviously often issues with the quality.

This can be, but is not always really genre dependant.

Im just wondering whether different mastering decisions are made for pop music generally heard on less transparent transducers.

 

[Chr1]

Sure, even the Beatles decided not to tour and indicated 'they' could not do their music live. So, agree with part of your post.
Production and recording technique 'capabilities' have advanced significantly, just the choices made with compression, auto-tune, filters, and others make it less natural sounding.

True. However I would argue that compression, auto-tune, filters etc have evolved into being a part of the creative production process in lots of modern music.

Just like some of the earlier innovations in recording techniques and technology, the Beatles and George Martin employed in the 60s.

Whether you/we actually like the style or sound is subjective.

Here's a (jazz) example:
Herbie Hancock
Future Shock (1983)

Artificial sounding. Could never be recorded with three mikes only. But an innovative jazz album.

 

[tonyo123]

I guess we should go back to the original post that old recordings sound natural and new recordings sound artificial. On average and generally (LOL) I agree.,

 

[Chr1]

Indeed. Reckon it would have been worth mentioning at the start that "the sound" is usually deliberate.
Lol

 

[mhardy6647]

Production and recording technique 'capabilities' have advanced significantly, just the choices made with compression, auto-tune, filters, and others make it less natural sounding.

Just to stir the pot -- I'd extend the hypothesis quoted above: modern video techniques have the same "feature" (N.B I used that last word ironically, in the sense once associated with Microsoft's "features" ).
The hyper-reality presented by modern video/graphics is, I'd opine, neither natural nor real. Thus, from my perspective, it's not desirable, either. It's not what I'm looking for -- not that I am part of anybody's target market any more.

I'll even go a notch farther along the old guy yells at cloud then chases whippersnappers off his lawn trajectory. An old-school, low-resolution, low-bandwidth all vacuum tube CRT (NTSC!) color television, in good tune and a darkened room, does a more convincing job of reproducing the glorious Technicolor worlds created with film and projectors in the golden age of (color) motion pictures. B)

OK, gotta go - the nurse just came to escort me down to bingo...

 

[levimax]

Things have not gone backwards. Modern production and recording techniques are better than ever.

I would say modern recording techniques are a different style than older techniques and that modern equipment is higher performing. Calling old or new techniques "better" is a subjective preference. I have recently discovered some live recording from the late 1950's that I really enjoy, Sarah Vaughn "At Mr. Kelly's" as an example. I find the style of these recordings very enjoyable and subjectively "more live sounding" than current recording styles. I can't say one is "better" than the other. Like the OP I do wish that someone would try to emulate these "old" style live recordings with modern equipment but it may not even be possible as some of these old techniques have been lost to time as people pass away. Fortunately we still have these old recordings to enjoy in perpetuity.

 

[Chr1]

I'm sure there are plenty of people who can and do record this way. Absolutely. Within the genre of vocal jazz, these will be amongst the recordings that are aspired to.
As long as people are making this type of music, there will be a people who will be able to record it. Well.

Re: jazz. I am a big fan of Bugge Wesseltoft. His sound varies hugely.
From straight up jazz, to modern sounds involving synthesisers and modern production.
Like Herbie Hancock.

(PS. Scandalous as it may be: I often add valves to my signal chain to emulate the "sound" of these old recordings.)

 

[mhardy6647]

It wasn't that long ago (2010) that John "Cougar" Mellencamp recorded an album (No Better than This) on a venerable Ampex 601 tape recorder.

The Audio Beat - John Mellencamp - No Better Than This

read audio reviews, ratings, and user opinions on audio equipment before you buy an audio system

www.theaudiobeat.com

couldn't find a photo of Mellencamp with the Ampex (?!? -- I know I've seen one!), so here's a photo of my father with one, ca. 1957.


The guy holding the mic isn't particularly famous (outside of Baltimore) -- but his daughter's pretty well known.

 

[Anton S]

For those who requested examples of what sound to me like good and bad releases, I have numerous examples of both, but I just played these two and consider them prime candidates in the jazz category:

Excellent, well-balanced, and natural-sounding production:

Sonny Rollins, Saxophone Colossus, Original Jazz Classics # 0JCCD-291-2, Prestige label # P7079, originally recorded in 1956, remastered - smooth, clear, natural sounding mids & highs; clean, crisp transients; tight bass; balanced overall tonality - I'm listening to an actual performance with acoustic instruments when I play this disc.

Super-hot, artificial sounding production:

Eric Darius, Goin' All Out, Blue Note Label Group # 0946-3-87848-2-1, released 2008 - undefined, over-blown bass; brittle, harsh-sounding (clipped?) highs - I'm listening to a disjointed, almost surrealistic interpretation of a jazz performance with overly exaggerated top and bottom ends when I play this disc.

I enjoy the Rollins album immensely, and can listen to it over and over again without having any audible flaws jump out at me. I spend a lot of time trying to ignore the edgy, shrill highs and tubby bass of the Darius album, so I don't really enjoy playing it as much as I should. That's a shame, because Darius is an accomplished horn player who sounds great live, and the tunes are fine, but the production sucks.

 

[DVDdoug]

I have to assume it's intentional (unless the musicians, or producer, etc. are incompetent). With digital recording & editing there are far-fewer limitations compared to analog.

It could be related to The Loudness War, either to literally to be as loud as everybody else, or just because musicians and producers have been living with loudness war for a couple of decades* and they think that's how music is supposed to sound (constantly loud or "intense" with little dynamic contrast).

It's not the format. CDs have more dynamic range and resolution than analog tape and far more than vinyl (both limited by analog noise). CD quality is generally better than human hearing so if you down-sample a high-resolution file to 16/44.1, you are unlikely to hear a difference in a controlled blind listening test. If a high resolution file sounds good, a copy down-sampled to CD quality will also sound good... It's not going to make it sound bad.

The same goes for MP3... MP3 is lossy compression but if the high-resolution original sounds great a high-bitrate MP3 will sound great! You can get minor compression artifacts but you probably can't be sure that you're hearing an artifact unless you carefully A/B... Again, you may not even reliably hear a difference in a controlled blind ABX test or you'll have to listen very carefully to hear the difference. Note that MP3 is file compression (to make a smaller file) and it's unrelated to dynamic compression. MP3 doesn't have a fixed bit depth (it doesn't store individual samples) but it has more dynamic range capability than 16-bit audio.





* The loudness war existed in the analog days but they didn't have modern digital weapons.

 

[TurtlePaul]

I have to assume it's intentional (unless the musicians, or producer, etc. are incompetent).

It is intentional.

I believe that the primary culprit is that headphones connected to a phone on the go have replaced in-home stereos for listening as the primary listening venue for recorded music. We aren't even the second place market - that is car stereos. Us in-home stereo speaker hi-fi listeners are in a very small minority.

I note that the original loudness wars started around the time of the rise of the Discman and iPod and think it is no coincidence. Go listen to an old classical recordings in the car on the highway or with earbuds in the city noise - you will think it is muted when the flute solo is being performed.

 

[levimax]

I have to assume it's intentional (unless the musicians, or producer, etc. are incompetent). With digital recording & editing there are far-fewer limitations compared to analog.

I think it is more than just intentional although that is part of it. In the late 1950's "Hi-Fi" was high tech, in style, and attracted a lot of attention and talent, similar to "AI / ChatGTP" today. The "goal" was realistic sound and the recording equipment was limited compared to what is available today so the recording engineers, in addition to being talented and motivated really had to "work" to try to get realistic sounding recordings. The number of channels was limited so the Mic(s) had to be carefully set up and tested and during recording more often than not "gain riding" and other "live" adjustments were made. The engineer had to be tuned into the performance as it was happening and rather than recording the musicians separately they all played together. The engineer actually heard what the complete performance sounded like and was literally "hands on" during the recording process.

Contrast that to many modern recordings where multiple close and distant Mic(s) are used with the musicians often playing separately with 24 bit recording with no worries about levels so the recording engineer is removed from the sound of the final recording. The mixing engineer who often never even heard the original performance then takes all the multiple tracks and mixes them into the final performance which never really existed. The goal in this case is to make the "customer" happy (the musicians and studio executives) and "realistic" has not been part of the goal for many decades.

There is nothing wrong with either approach and both can be successful but it is not a surprise to me that there is a different "sound/ style/aesthetic" which goes beyond the performance of the recording equipment.

 

[levimax]

Excellent, well-balanced, and natural-sounding production:

Sonny Rollins, Saxophone Colossus, Original Jazz Classics # 0JCCD-291-2, Prestige label # P7079, originally recorded in 1956, remastered - smooth, clear, natural sounding mids & highs; clean, crisp transients; tight bass; balanced overall tonality - I'm listening to an actual performance with acoustic instruments when I play this disc.

I picked up this CD awhile ago and never really listened to it, the first song is not my favorite I guess. I just put it on now and listened to the whole thing and it is great, the performance, the sound quality, and the recording style. Just a pleasure to listen to.

 

[IPunchCholla]

True. However I would argue that compression, auto-tune, filters etc have evolved into being a part of the creative production process in lots of modern music.

Just like some of the earlier innovations in recording techniques and technology, the Beatles and George Martin employed in the 60s.

Whether you/we actually like the style or sound is subjective.

Here's a (jazz) example:
Herbie Hancock
Future Shock (1983)

Artificial sounding. Could never be recorded with three mikes only. But an innovative jazz album.

I came very close to buying that LP yesterday. Had it on cassette in my teens.