Interesting, would that be a good listening environment for the end user though?
Everyone knows its ' Jesus juice ' that makes Jackson's recordings sound so good..
-
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!
Why do Michael Jackson albums sound better than anything released in recent years?
- Thread starter Pearljam5000
- Start date
Everyone knows its ' Jesus juice ' that makes Jackson's recordings sound so good..
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,332
- Likes
- 12,293
I have often used Micheal Jackson's song PYT as a demo (LP version, actually). It's just amazing production sound!
As for the analog/digital thing: I work in digital sound and you couldn't drag me back to analog!
But for home music listening: I hear greater accuracy in digital, coloration in vinyl, and I can appreciate both. Both can have aspects that remind me of the "real thing" in different ways. Digital for the ultimate clarity, lack of grain, and fine instrumental timbre. Vinyl record playback often has a slight vividness and textural density that feels a bit more like the instruments are "there" in the room. I can easily imagine that in comparing the digital vs the vinyl version of a track, that I might zero in on that latter aspect and prefer the vinyl version, where someone else may zero in on other aspects and prefer the digital version.
As for the analog/digital thing: I work in digital sound and you couldn't drag me back to analog!
But for home music listening: I hear greater accuracy in digital, coloration in vinyl, and I can appreciate both. Both can have aspects that remind me of the "real thing" in different ways. Digital for the ultimate clarity, lack of grain, and fine instrumental timbre. Vinyl record playback often has a slight vividness and textural density that feels a bit more like the instruments are "there" in the room. I can easily imagine that in comparing the digital vs the vinyl version of a track, that I might zero in on that latter aspect and prefer the vinyl version, where someone else may zero in on other aspects and prefer the digital version.
Speaking of which, I saw this recently and thought about how much the world has changed.
Pretty impressive for razor blades and scotch tape.
'Key' seems to be having the right people on the job.
I've always appreciated the recording quality of Chesky records, if not the music on them.
Bruce Swedien did a great job on Off the wall, Thriller, and Bad. The 25th anniversary remastered versions of Thriller and Bad are pure cr@p!
And speaking of the bad album, here is something interesting - Mike Fremer used as an expert witness in a loudness war lawsuit between Quincy Jones and the MJ estate because of the cr@py remastered release of Bad:
https://www.analogplanet.com/conten...uincy-jones-vs-estate-michael-jackson-lawsuit
And speaking of the bad album, here is something interesting - Mike Fremer used as an expert witness in a loudness war lawsuit between Quincy Jones and the MJ estate because of the cr@py remastered release of Bad:
https://www.analogplanet.com/conten...uincy-jones-vs-estate-michael-jackson-lawsuit
dasdoing
Major Contributor
I don't like the Bad album production at all. it's way overprocessed. and I am not talking about compression here.
take Another Part Of Me and compare album version to single version; especialy the snare. also the castration of the bass (this is something the remaster fixed for me). I love this song, but I always hated the album version.
take Another Part Of Me and compare album version to single version; especialy the snare. also the castration of the bass (this is something the remaster fixed for me). I love this song, but I always hated the album version.
infinitesymphony
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,072
- Likes
- 1,809
The single mix of that song also seems to be played back at a higher speed and pitch using varispeed.
I read in one of his interviews that on Bad, vocals were recorded in 24-track analog, and instruments were recorded on twin Sony 3324 digital 24-track, all SMPTE'd together.
He used to have a Sony Oxford console in his recording studio back in the day. The mic pres sounded amazing on the that console. That console was a bear to work on but it sounded really good. Wonder if any of the albums were mastered on it ?
Bruce's original words about the MJ recording process, as posted by him on Gearslutz forum:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/q-a-with-bruce-swedien/82546-gt-acusonic-recording-process-lt.html
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/q-a-with-bruce-swedien/82546-gt-acusonic-recording-process-lt.html
Kind of puts an interesting spin on peoples' thoughts that there is something missing from digital recordings and playback, considering Swedien's expertise, and this being in the '80s. (And I don't know what digital recorders, but that must have been 16-bit and 44.1k or thereabouts.)
Yes, I know Swedien preferred the sound of recording on analog back then, but apparently even then he trusted the authenticity of digital in reproducing the sound after he captured what he wanted.
infinitesymphony
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,072
- Likes
- 1,809
It's less about digital being able to capture the sound and more about how certain pieces of gear impart their own sound. Now you've got people taking material recorded entirely in digital and sending buses or whole mixes through consoles, summing boxes, tape machine transformers, etc. to modify the whole signal. Back then almost every piece of gear was imprinting its own sound.
Check out this comment from Dave Way from the Gearslutz thread featuring engineers who worked with MJ (well worth a close read if you're interested in those details):
"Blood On The Dance Floor was an Oddity.. Before we came to L.A. Teddy and I holed up at Soundtracks Studios for a couple of weeks where Teddy came up with a bunch of tracks to get things rolling. They were all live midi tracks running into the SSL where we added some more eq and compression from the console. These tracks were then recorded to DAT and not multitrack.
This DAT had the original writing tracks for In The Closet, Remember The Time and I think I Can't Let Her Get Away plus about 8 or 10 other ones. When we got to L.A., we sat down in the control room with Michael and played him these ideas. I'll never forget pushing play and the first track slamming out of the monitors at Record One's Neve room. It was a hard hitting, powerful groove that we thought was the best track from the Soundtracks sessions. They of course had no titles, maybe some working title. But after this first track was done, Michael said, " Wow, play it again!".
So we did, and we then went on to play the others, all of which seemed to get Michael excited. But that first track was always his favorite and he played this one a lot.
So Michael and Teddy picked out about 5 or 6 tracks to start with and we got to setting up Teddy's massive amounts of gear and putting them down on multitrack. We were now tracking through the vintage 8078 rather than the SSL G series. When Michael heard them again after they'd been multitracked, he commented that it wasn't as hard hitting as on the DAT. This was most likely because it was no longer coming thought the SSL with compressors on every channel and when I said so, his reaction was "Well, can we get one of those?". Of course we couldn't just "get" an SSL, we had to go to where there was one, and the only SSL rooms in L.A. that I'd worked in were at Larrabee. They'd just opened a new facility on Lankershim called Larrabee North which was literally down the road from the Universal Hilton where we were staying so within a few weeks, we moved everything over there and ended up being there for the remainder of the album, while Bill Botrell and Bryan Loren continued at Record One. In the meantime, Michael came up with melody and lyric ideas for other tracks including Remember The Time and In The Closet but the first song from the DAT never developed any further.
Cut to 5 or 6 years later when I'm mixing for Blood on The Dancefloor. Michael plays me some of the other tracks that were being worked on and he plays me the "title track". He pumps up the monitors and out comes that first track from the DAT we played him at Record One, but now with lyrics, vocals and some extra claps and synths. But the basic track, which was very developed and immediately obvious to me, was directly from that original DAT. Apparently, he was never satisfied with how the track sounded after being multitrack when compared to the original DAT and so they just transferred the DAT mix to multitrack and built on top of that."
Interesting stuff, thanks. But I think you missed my point. It was about digital. Swedien, even back then when digital gear was not as good as today, trusted digital to preserve what he created with analog gear analog. He didn't say, as some might, "it's just not the same, listening back to it on digital". He said that as a storage medium, it was unparalleled. And he seemed to mean that in a nice way
My comment was not to the recording process, or whether people should use analog processing or digital, it was to the audio listeners who don't like the "sound" of digital. Well, not to them directly—more the observation that Swedien make a good argument that digital preserved what they had created. For instance, I have nothing against vinyl, and nothing against people who prefer to listed to it over digital. But they should understand that the digital version is closer to what the artists created, whether they like listening to it that way or not. And that's true whether the artist and team created it with analog gear or all ITB.
dasdoing
Major Contributor
I know.... that part sucks.
this shows what saturation does to the sound. I know it's an emulation, but a quite good one
personaly I prefer clean sound. It sure makes the center image thinner though, but there are other methods around it
First, I'll state the obvious that I think everyone understands—recording engineers are most often crafting a sound, over capturing a performance accurately, when creating a recording. And most of us here prefer to reproduce that recording as accurately as we can.
One common compliment on recording forums, when someone presents an audition of their new $5k mic (which most often strive to recreate 60-70 yer old mics, btw) is "it sounds just like a record". So, part of the experience is certainly one of familiarity. And I guess that's why some feel more comfortable listening to vinyl.
In a way, it's funny we are rarely interested in hearing something that sounds like an actual performance in our living room. I think when people hear a singer, be it Sinatra or Adele, they imagine the singer in front of a mic, because the mic and signal chain is part of the sound.
Still, some go for that kind of familiarity more than others. While a Neumann U47 (as in 1947) still rules the world (either directly or via clones), and is the one most likely to get "it sounds just like a record" plaudits, a more "modern sound", more forward and even in the midrange for instance, is also popular, and this includes cleaner preamps etc.
And as always, it's not that they used to make things so much better, it's more that analog gear requires compromises. The gear with compromises that sounded especially good are the ones that survived. And especially compromises that gave a certain sound to a particular type of music (various rock styles are heavy in this), we come to expect. A classic mic preamp may have somewhat poor transient response, but tend to make the signal warmer or thicker. The drums might not be as snappy as in real life, but sound much beefier.
Not trying to make a big point here, just musing...
(LOL—I have to admit I don't find MJ the acme of recorded music—I think there are some incredible examples today that blow any of those recordings away, audibly and musically. But it's all about listening to what we like, right? I do get the point of the OP, it's worth asking.)
One common compliment on recording forums, when someone presents an audition of their new $5k mic (which most often strive to recreate 60-70 yer old mics, btw) is "it sounds just like a record". So, part of the experience is certainly one of familiarity. And I guess that's why some feel more comfortable listening to vinyl.
In a way, it's funny we are rarely interested in hearing something that sounds like an actual performance in our living room. I think when people hear a singer, be it Sinatra or Adele, they imagine the singer in front of a mic, because the mic and signal chain is part of the sound.
Still, some go for that kind of familiarity more than others. While a Neumann U47 (as in 1947) still rules the world (either directly or via clones), and is the one most likely to get "it sounds just like a record" plaudits, a more "modern sound", more forward and even in the midrange for instance, is also popular, and this includes cleaner preamps etc.
And as always, it's not that they used to make things so much better, it's more that analog gear requires compromises. The gear with compromises that sounded especially good are the ones that survived. And especially compromises that gave a certain sound to a particular type of music (various rock styles are heavy in this), we come to expect. A classic mic preamp may have somewhat poor transient response, but tend to make the signal warmer or thicker. The drums might not be as snappy as in real life, but sound much beefier.
Not trying to make a big point here, just musing...
(LOL—I have to admit I don't find MJ the acme of recorded music—I think there are some incredible examples today that blow any of those recordings away, audibly and musically. But it's all about listening to what we like, right? I do get the point of the OP, it's worth asking.)
Which versions of MJ albums are good recordings? I have some version of Thriller that Roon says has an average DR of 5. It sounds terrible too.
infinitesymphony
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,072
- Likes
- 1,809
Most people say the 2001 Bernie Grundman remasters ("Special Edition").
https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thre...er-bad-best-sounding-version-cd.238132/page-2
I think the first-print Epic CDs don't sound too bad, although they're more "of the era." The original 'Off the Wall' Epic CD sounds pretty good if you take care of the pre-emphasis curve by convolving with the relevant impulse response. Very dynamic percussion.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/111805
Similar threads
