• 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?

Feelas

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2020
Messages
390
Likes
315
Right you are.

Bob Ludwig, mastering engineer for the ages, mastered 'In Rainbows' and actually commented directly about this topic during a presentation:


(transcription below from this site)

“This is a very loud record, but it was designed to be that way. This is a record where every distortion, just like Beck Morning Phase, every distortion you hear on there has been carefully thought about. The Beck Morning Phase record, we had done clean mixes of some of those songs. And then when we came out with it, some stereophile people thought it must be from an mp3 because of this and that.
...
Every Radiohead record, we just keep working on it until Nigel’s happy. It’s funny because - I don’t think it’s telling things out of school - some of these records sound nothing like the mix. You’ll be surprised at what some of the mixes sound like, but they’re all malleable. What I ended up with is what he was imagining. So sometimes these records go quickly. Sometimes they take a very long time, it’s very interesting how it goes. But it’s never put out until he’s like, 'That’s it.'"
I'd say How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love all the Production Techniques, distorting Dr. Strangelove's subtitle.
 

infinitesymphony

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
1,072
Likes
1,806
It's a shame" OK Computer" sounds bad(the original and remastered version)
You take that back right now. :D

Maybe you had to be there at the time, but 'OK Computer' does what it says on the tin, it's like a fight between organic '70s style analog rock and newfangled space egg futurism digital bleeps and bloops. It's true that it's not done in a clean and tidy style like MJ. It uses compression for glue, heavy panning, and real instruments. That's part of the appeal!

'In Rainbows' was recorded using the same MTA 980 series console as 'OK Computer,' but the engineers, mic choices, and mastering were different and 10 years had passed. You never know what's going to come out of a given era.
 
OP
Pearljam5000

Pearljam5000

Master Contributor
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
5,125
Likes
5,354
You take that back right now. :D

Maybe you had to be there at the time, but 'OK Computer' does what it says on the tin, it's like a fight between organic '70s style analog rock and newfangled space egg futurism digital bleeps and bloops. It's true that it's not done in a clean and tidy style like MJ. It uses compression for glue, heavy panning, and real instruments. That's part of the appeal!

'In Rainbows' was recorded using the same MTA 980 series console as 'OK Computer,' but the engineers, mic choices, and mastering were different and 10 years had passed. You never know what's going to come out of a given era.
Lol, it's my all time favorite album but doesn't sound clear at all, Take "Let down" for example.
Even their earlier album "The Bends" sounds much better.
Another tragedy is SP's "Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness"
Also my all time favorite, but sounds like it was recorded in a garage with a 5$ mic
 

infinitesymphony

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
1,072
Likes
1,806
Lol, it's my all time favorite album but doesn't sound clear at all, Take "Let down" for example.
Even their earlier album "The Bends" sounds much better.
Another tragedy is SP's "Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness"
Also my all time favorite, but sounds like it was recorded in a garage with a 5$ mic
"Let Down" sounds empty, then busy, then warm on purpose. You have Thom double-tracked and panned hard L/R, leaving a hole in the center. There's a 5/8 guitar ostinato designed to throw you off and another guitar part with contrasting rhythm. The mix builds and builds and builds density. When you get to the fullest sections you can easily hear the pumping compression caused by a mix that essentially has too many parts and nowhere to go. But it creates this kind of "overwhelming" feeling that works with the track concept. For me, the busy-ness of the mix and the way the vocal struggles to get through until it's like a chorus of hopeful voices drives the point home.

I'm with you on SP even though what I might consider mixing mistakes also contribute in some amount to the sludge-y vibe of that album and others. The bass on 'Mellon Collie' is out of control, needs less mid-bass and more definition IMO, but then you'd have to cut in to the wall of guitars to make it happen. It's funny because most of the singles are mixed well while still matching the rest of the album. Maybe a different engineer or more time / energy / ears were spent on those.

SP and BC's albums after Machina are unlistenable to me because the vocal is so, so hot in the mix. But I will say I saw SP live a few years ago on their reunion tour and they sounded absolutely fantastic. Wish the albums were mixed that way.
 

bluefuzz

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
1,043
Likes
1,772
His albums sound amazing even on crappy 5$ computer speakers.
However, on a decent rig I'm not hearing anything exceptional ...

I admit I've never been much of a MJ fan, so take this as you will, but listening to the History compilation, the eighties stuff sounds fairly run of the mill, to me, for the genre - too much gated drums and 12-bit reverb. The best sounding tracks are from '79's Off the Wall.

Bad, Thriller, and Scream are great tracks, but I can't say they stand out production-wise. He never really made anything that betters I want you back from '71 which is technically The Jackson 5 and sounds pretty terrible now. And yes, I'm old enough to remember the Osmonds vs. the Jackson 5 battling it out on Top of the Pops. And the Jacksons never made anything that matches Crazy Horses. So there! ;-)

For my money, Nile Rogers/Chic productions were always better sounding and musically more interesting than anything Jackson made if we are talking 70s/80s dance-pop.
 

Masza

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
63
Likes
37
Real stuff vs. Pro Tools generated. Too much tinkering with the sound is like smelling a rat: you know sonething is off.
 

RobS

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
174
Likes
238
Location
Appalachia
I think you are confusing formats with production processes. I have some 1950s recordings which sound much more natural than most stuff produced today, analog or digital. It is a matter of subjective preference ultimately but I think the main reason for the difference is that the recordings were more natural with very little, if any, processing. So in a sense, you are confusing digital with later trends in production. To prove that point, take any analog recording, digitise it and play it back on a CD (ie 16/44) and providing it is done properly I doubt you would hear any difference (blind, level matched etc) when played back on the same source equipment. I know, I've done it many times.
Nope. There's still a lot of processing done. Especially in the case of MJ's stuff, none of it is naturally mic'd and not post-processed to shit.

And lol there is absolutely a difference between a digitized copy of analog to just analog. You gotta be kidding. Have you never heard any great analog systems? Don't sound like it.
 

Chrispy

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
7,751
Likes
5,910
Location
PNW
Nope. There's still a lot of processing done. Especially in the case of MJ's stuff, none of it is naturally mic'd and not post-processed to shit.

And lol there is absolutely a difference between a digitized copy of analog to just analog. You gotta be kidding. Have you never heard any great analog systems? Don't sound like it.

LOL. Seriously you think you could determine a difference between such?
 

RobS

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
174
Likes
238
Location
Appalachia
I can tell the difference between a digital master and an analog master vinyl, let alone trying to digitize vinyl which is the worst of both worlds.
 

Prep74

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
59
Likes
137
Nope. There's still a lot of processing done. Especially in the case of MJ's stuff, none of it is naturally mic'd and not post-processed to shit.

And lol there is absolutely a difference between a digitized copy of analog to just analog. You gotta be kidding. Have you never heard any great analog systems? Don't sound like it.
I have a very good analog front end on my stereo and have heard more stereos than most thankyou. What's next, the typical 'your ears are no good' retort?

You may have have a personal preference for analog but that doesn't make it an objective fact. Given there is 'science' in this audioscience forum lets assess your claim more rationally.

Firstly, what measurements of fidelity to source do analog devices or formats exceed, let alone match digital (ie digital that is at least 16/44)?

That is the objective question related to fidelity, but what about subjectivity? Sure analog recordings and equipment can vary considerably in fidelity and may produce distortions which can sound euphonic to some. This seems the case for you. But what about the broader listening population?

I've trawled through what proper science based controlled studies have been done on whether people prefer all analog recordings and playback or all digital. The only published study I found that meets peer review standards is the paper published in the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education by Geringer, J., Dunnigan, P. "Listener Preferences and Perception of Digital versus Analog Live Concert Recordings." 1 Jul. 2000, Number 145: 1-13.

The subjects were music majors who listened to CD digital and analog tape recordings of the same concert performances, recorded unequalised and unmixed (to control for mastering differences you get in commercial products). They were able to switch back and forth between the two at will, and everything was blinded and level matched. Results showed that music major listeners rated the digital versions of live concert recordings higher in quality than the corresponding analog versions. Participants gave significantly higher ratings to the digital presentations in bass, treble, clarity and overall quality, as well as separation of the instruments/voices. Higher ratings for the digital versions were generally consistent across loudspeaker and headphone listening conditions and the four types of performance media.

So there you go, unless you have evidence to the contrary most people prefer higher levels of fidelity than what is capable with analog tape - let alone the inferior vinyl. Note that there was a very small minority that did prefer the analog recordings but only on some of the playback equipment.
 
Last edited:

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
@Pearljam5000 if you dig the production of 80s MJ, you might also enjoy some RnB from the same era. Patrice Rushen's Heartache Heartbreak is a nice example production-wise:


Playlist of some of my favorites from this (very cheesy) genre here. Warning: best in small doses.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
I can tell the difference between a digital master and an analog master vinyl, let alone trying to digitize vinyl which is the worst of both worlds.

A lot of people believe this until they try to distinguish between them under controlled conditions. Do you have the setup to digitise vinyl with a decent ADC and then AB it with the original, blind and level-matched?
 
Last edited:

ThatM1key

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 27, 2020
Messages
1,048
Likes
882
Location
USA
There was this one oldies series called "Senior Prom" that I think had some digitized vinyl tracks. If you intentionally wanna hear some vinyl's clicks and pops, listen to some Hank William songs.
 

bigx5murf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
522
Likes
343
I can't remember the source. But I heard MJ was extremely anal about recording and rerecording. Some albums supposedly took a week per track before recording was finalized.
 

Feelas

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2020
Messages
390
Likes
315
I can tell the difference between a digital master and an analog master vinyl, let alone trying to digitize vinyl which is the worst of both worlds.
Show us on ABX tests, then. Until then, I call this BS. After all, I'm the King of Spain!
The subjects were music majors who listened to CD digital and analog tape recordings of the same concert performances, recorded unequalised and unmixed (to control for mastering differences you get in commercial products). They were able to switch back and forth between the two at will, and everything was blinded and level matched. Results showed that music major listeners rated the digital versions of live concert recordings higher in quality than the corresponding analog versions. Participants gave significantly higher ratings to the digital presentations in bass, treble, clarity and overall quality, as well as separation of the instruments/voices. Higher ratings for the digital versions were generally consistent across loudspeaker and headphone listening conditions and the four types of performance media.
And this type of result is in line with what Toole's research proved: that, in general, when blind testing, both trained and untrained groups of people graviate (and consistently) towards speaker tuned flat anechoically, w/ smooth curve.
 
Last edited:

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
6,948
Likes
22,625
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
And lol there is absolutely a difference between a digitized copy of analog to just analog. You gotta be kidding. Have you never heard any great analog systems? Don't sound like it.

That's pretty ambitious.

Color me skeptical.
 

MRC01

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,422
Likes
4,029
Location
Pacific Northwest
That needs to be a Stickie. Posted often on ASR but seemingly ignored or missed.
I watched that video and he doesn't actually answer the question of "why". He simply states the fact that vinyl is different and DR ratings aren't comparable to CDs, speculating various reasons why that may be, but no real explanations.

Note: personally, I believe a significant contributing factor to "why" is because bass must be summed to mono and attenuated due to vinyl limitations. And most of the amplitude is in the bass, so this affects DR ratings. But I'd like to read a more evidence/math based reason.
 

infinitesymphony

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
1,072
Likes
1,806
I watched that video and he doesn't actually answer the question of "why". He simply states the fact that vinyl is different and DR ratings aren't comparable to CDs, speculating various reasons why that may be, but no real explanations.

Note: personally, I believe a significant contributing factor to "why" is because bass must be summed to mono and attenuated due to vinyl limitations. And most of the amplitude is in the bass, so this affects DR ratings. But I'd like to read a more evidence/math based reason.
My guess is that the way vinyl must be played back, on a machine with a vibrating (hopefully somewhat decoupled) motor, a stylus, cartridge, tone arm, basically a bunch of moving flexible and rigid parts connected together, along with the imperfect connection with the record itself, can have the sum total effect of acting like an expander, increasing the peaks even while the RMS energy remains low.

I agree that it shouldn't invalidate the DR measurement process. Maybe the master that was used to cut the vinyl didn't look like that, but that's what it looked like after going through the playback and A/D processes, so that's how it was for that person with that system.

If the objection is to using those numbers to compare the same release between vinyl and CD, then I would agree, the DR may not work as a direct indicator of better or worse.
 
Top Bottom