Is it lack of electronic compression?
I wish you could.Originally Posted by moecurlythanu
Is it lack of electronic compression?
I wish you could.
Last edited by rcarlberg; 05-31-2018 at 01:55 PM.
No, Rob. mixing and mastering are two very different things. You cannot change the positioning of instruments in the mastering stage, or impact how individual instruments sound (EQ, reverb, compression). You can only apply such things to the entire mix, which means you might be able to bring certain things out more through careful pushing or pulling out of frequencies, but that doesn't change the position in the mix...only that you can hear it more clearly.
There's a reason why there are some engineers who specialize in mastering; it's a specific, and very different craft to mixing.
Steven goes back, with remixing, to the original multi-tracks, which have all the individual parts that were recorded separately addressable and adjustable; remastering, you are going to original analogue master tapes, which are of the finished mix (a mix which, on the analogue master tapes, cannot be altered).
Two different sets of music - one, instrumental and vocal parts discretely available on separate tracks; the other, usually a stereo mix (except for surround sound these days) that can be tweaked to sound better, but is more limited in what can be done.
John Kelman
Senior Contributor, All About Jazz since 2004
Freelance writer/photographer
Bzzzt. We've moved on. (BTW I knew that.)
Sorry..didn't read the whole thread....and (pssst) I figured you did, so wasn't quite sure why you said what you did
Same time, your original post is interesting. I'm thinking about it, as I think I want to respond, but I've gotta try to put my thoughts in order....
...wish me luck
John Kelman
Senior Contributor, All About Jazz since 2004
Freelance writer/photographer
Ah...but can not always be achieved simply through remastering. The perfect example being Soft Machine Third. No amount of remastering has made it sound cleaner.....other than by very small increments.
Were the original multi-tracks to be found (and I'll bet this is one SW would love to do), it might be possible to clean it up and create better delineation between the layers. But that depends upon what went to tape (or, now, disc)...which is the one thing few ever talk about. If the engineer doesn't set up properly, or does other shite in the process of committing instrumental performances to tape, remixing might be able to improve it to some degree, but not to the same degree as a recording where the engineer accurately committed what the instruments (and those playing them wanted them to) sounded like during.
So, I've no idea (but have suspicions) about how well Third's engineer committed Soft Machine to tape in the original recording, so have no idea whether or not a remix could yield big differences (though certainly some could be achieved); but one thing is patently clear: remastering Third has done little to make it sound much better. It's a good thing that it's such a staggeringly good album that those of us who love it not only put up with it, but after 48 years, kinda think of it as a part of it.
Which is why some folks have issues with remixes..even those primarily trying to clean up, broaden, etc rather than repositioning (or inserting actually different performance parts...entirely or fragments). The very problems with an original mix that folks have lived with for nearly half a century are bound, in a weird way, to be missed if they are resolved in a contemporary remix.
Still, I'd love to hear 'em try ....
John Kelman
Senior Contributor, All About Jazz since 2004
Freelance writer/photographer
Hey man, it was your thread. You've the right to derail it if you want
John Kelman
Senior Contributor, All About Jazz since 2004
Freelance writer/photographer
I'm with ya, pretty much entirely....
John Kelman
Senior Contributor, All About Jazz since 2004
Freelance writer/photographer
I tend to agree, but do point to Ry Cooder's Bop 'Til You Drop and Borderline, the former, one of the first rock records recorded, mixed and mastered entirely digitally. Great records, both, but they sound brittle. SO much so, that when Ry returned to record The Slide Area he returned to 2" analog tape and, as far as I know, continues (at least, for his own recordings, like the wonderful new Prodigal Son!) to do use it.
What it comes down to, though, is that Analog to Digital (and vice versa) processing back in the early days of digital recording was not so good. That has been corrected by now, which is why I say that if you cannot make a CD today and make it sound better than vinyl, then somebody's doing something wrong. The technology is, absolutely, there.
John Kelman
Senior Contributor, All About Jazz since 2004
Freelance writer/photographer
Check with Mysterious Traveler (L. Perez). He did the next-best thing, isolating each instrument in the mix and treating each one separately, measure-by-measure., before recombining them. A very meticulous process! To my ears it's a vast improvement. To others -- like Steve F. -- its not an improvement at all. Too transparent or something.Still, I'd love to hear 'em try ....
That's what Steve said!
Last edited by rcarlberg; 06-01-2018 at 12:23 AM.
He has access to individual musical instrument tracks, pre-master? I didn't know that.
According to my research -- and I've done a little -- Bop 'Til You Drop was in fact the very first digitally-recorded pop album to be released in the US, on LP July 11, 1979 -- four years before it was released on CD. It's a very dry recording -- no reverb, no studio ambience, everything was plugged directly into the mixing board, except the vocals which were close-miked. Yes, the result is "dry and brittle." But that's entirely Lee Herschberg's fault (the engineer), not the medium.
The recording itself is nice and clean, though it doesn't try to push the limits on either dynamic range or frequency response. Primarily it's just a really weak album musically (IMO).
A whole year earlier, June 1978, Sound 80 studio (Minneapolis) recorded a classical album (Copland's "Appalachian Spring") and a jazz album (Flim & The BBs debut) on the then-prototype 3M digital recorder. They both sound just fine. Excellent in fact. The engineer there, Tom Jung, was a bit more capable perhaps. In April of that year Frederick Fennell also recorded Holst's military suites on Soundstream's PCM digital recorder, making it the first RELEASED U.S-recorded digital recording. It sounds great too. Previous to that, in 1977, Denon's digital recorder (DN-034R) was used to record Archie Shepp (November 28) and Virgil Fox (August 28-31). All of THESE recordings sound great too.
There are some Japanese digital recordings starting in 1972 but I've not heard them.
I think the general consensus that the early digital recordings were "not so good" is not borne out by listening. Cooder's was the outlier, and that was simply bad engineering.
No, he did what he could to ISOLATE each instrument in the mix, treat them separately, then recombine.
too shrill. Made it very unmusical. Made every part much more apparent (quite an accomplishment), by destroying the way the over all sound came across (quite a detriment).
It made for an interesting listen, but I would never listen to it again for pleasure. IMO.
Steve F.
www.waysidemusic.com
www.cuneiformrecords.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
“Remember, if it doesn't say "Cuneiform," it's not prog!” - THE Jed Levin
Any time any one speaks to me about any musical project, the one absolute given is "it will not make big money". [tip of the hat to HK]
"Death to false 'support the scene' prog!"
please add 'imo' wherever you like, to avoid offending those easily offended.
Then it's not a remix. Only if you have access to the individual instrument tracks, premix, regardless of how you treat those individual tracks, it's still a remix. Only with the individual tracks can you do things like alter the placement of instruments or vox within the Sound Stage, raise or lower the individual volume of said tracks, perform noise reduction or any other kind of electronic enhancement, add instruments or vox that may have been left out previously, use alternate takes or do away with certain instrumentation/vox altogether. That is a remix. What you've described in the case of Mysterious Traveler, how ever painstaking, is a remaster, in that everything he did was post mix. In order to isolate individual instruments in a post mix you would have to use some sort of really invasive filtering and/or waveform manipulation to isolate a particular sound and enhance it while eliminating the other sounds within that frequency range. I cannot imagine a result that wouldn't sound mechanical but I haven't heard anything remastered from MT so I should reserve judgement.
I too use to fiddle around with editing programs like GoldWave and have come up with different treatments and schemes of "remastering" that sounded interesting but ultimately was just interesting. To my ears the best results for improving a heretofore less-than-stellar recording have been from remixing more so than remastering.
As far as the original premise of this thread, the difference between the analog sound and the digital sound??? I really don't know what the point of the question poses, since I don't really have an agenda either way. Just from my own experiences I'd say the difference is quality. The best sounding recordings I've ever heard have had some digital processing somewhere in the chain, or they're a fully digital recording. My favorite albums of all time are almost all analog and with a few exceptions they all make me wish they were recorded better or mixed better or mastered better. Just about every remix that I own of my favorite older albums have had some digital processing done to them. I almost always prefer the CD version to the LP version but once again, there are exceptions. I have no aversion to digital processing. Like I said I have no agenda when it comes to music I like. I like it or I don't. I pushed away from the audiophile table a long time ago. I've never listened to any kind of audio equipment that would make me like music that I disliked previously.
Compact Disk brought high fidelity to the masses and audiophiles will never forgive it for that
I heard it. Yes, it's clearer, and he did quite the job considering what he had to start with was not individual tracks (meaning he could isolate the tracks only to a certain extent, through removal of frequencies), but for that very reason, I kinda know what Steve means: it's very bright, rather brittle to my ears, admirable a job though it truly is/was.
But it's not at all what would be possible if the discrete tracks were actually available without having to use technology to "separate" them, as he did; unfortunately, doing it as he did means that some important frequencies that contributed to the fullness of various instruments' sounds were lost.
Still, it is clearer...but it's sort of a faux-remix, just as those surround mixes that are "pseudo," because the engineer didn't have access to the original multi-tracks, which is simply necessary for a proper remix (as I know you know; just sayin'!).
I'm not at all averse to remixes, in case you've not read my SW remix reviews; but I look for remixes to be, speaking of stereo remixes, more clear and pristine without losing the punch, warmth and oomph of the original. A good example is Jakko Jakszyk's remix of Fish Out of Water (review submitted, coming soon); you can hear things more clearly, but it's actually warmer and fuller than the original and, in this case, since there was not a lot in the way of additional takes/tracks, there's not a huge difference (whereas some of Jakko's remixes are VERY different, again speaking stereo). Anyway, but I think Third would always have to have a certain, um, weight in a remix to be successful, and as good an effort as it was, MT's mix lacked heft, if you know what I mean (And I hope MT doesn't take offense; again, I think he did a great job considering what he had to work with....but the limitations of what he had to work with intrinsically limited what he was able to do).
Cheers,
John
John Kelman
Senior Contributor, All About Jazz since 2004
Freelance writer/photographer
No. As per my previous post, he'd have had to isolate individual tracks (as much as possible) by carefully pulling frequencies out on either side of the range that more clearly defined each track - no small job (which is why I admire him for doing it!). But that's not the same as having access to pre-master multi-track tapes. Without wanting to sound like a dismissal, because it was a helluva lot of work, it was sort of an artificial way of isolating tracks.
But by doing it this way, you lose a lot. Take bass. There may be a range of frequencies that it largely lives in, but if you pull out all the frequencies on either side, you are losing some of it because there are still frequencies outside that range that are a subtler part of the instrument's tone (I'm trying to figure out how to describe this correctly). So, in order to separate the bass, you have to remove frequencies outside the range. Even if you try replacing them again when creating the new "mix," it's not the same.
I hope this helps clarify. What MT did was remarkable and a lot of work. But not the same as a proper remix, with access to the original, unadulterated multis.
John Kelman
Senior Contributor, All About Jazz since 2004
Freelance writer/photographer
I didn't say it was a fault of the medium. I said it had to do with DACs at the time not being as sophisticated as they are now. Nothing wrong with CDs, from the start (even if a few years later); many of ECM's transfers to CD, even in the early days, sounded great. But i think that the Cooder situation was, as much as what you are saying, also fundamental to that it was one of the earliest all-digital recordings (the first pop, if you want to call it that!), and between less developed DACs and, yes, an engineer who probably was learning a bit as he went along, the album remains a personal fave even if it sounds brittle (I've no issue with dry and in-your-face; it's the lack of warmth).
To which I cannot agree. Not his best album, but certainly far, far from his worst (considering, IMO, he's released very few albums I'd call anything less than very good). Weak? Tremendous playing by all (Cooder & Lindley together was magic); great vocalists to augment Cooder, including his regulars Bobby King & Terry Evans, in addition to a couple of strong guest appearances by Chaka Khan. Overall a nice, diverse setlist though not as meaty as albums like Paradise and Lunch and Into the Purple Valley, to name two.
Yes, but everything depends upon what the studio where Cooder recorded vs the others, along with (as you so rightfully say) the engineer (a very good one, but new to digitial - I'd have never put all the instruments directly into the board; bass, maybe - or, as many do, record one track direct, another miking an amp; and ditto, guitars).
I'm not suggesting decent sounding digital recordings weren't made back then (ECM, again, being a good example), but they've gotten a whole lot better in the ensuing years, because the technology that supports digital recording has improved significantly.
To some extent. But you have to understand (remember: I was working in studios when this all started to happen) not every studio could afford (and, at the start, it was all pretty darned expensive!) the same level of gear. So, without knowing what gear was being used with the various studios, along with who engineered the sessions and the decisions they made wrt how they recorded them - again, everything direct was a BIG mistake, IMO, especially then because analogue to digital conversion was, maybe more than the other way around, in its relative infancy. I've done direct-to-board guitar in more recent years (well, late 1990s/early 2000s) and, for certain requirements, it worked fine - alone or in conjunction with a second track miking the amp. Now that there are all kinds of outboard amp and effects emulators, you can go direct into the board because that outboard gear emulates, say, a Strat through a Marshall stack (not 100%, but pretty darn close). Such things didn't exist back in the late '70s, at least not commonly, and so an electric guitar direct into a board would sound clean...and, largely, lifeless.
John Kelman
Senior Contributor, All About Jazz since 2004
Freelance writer/photographer
Yup. I agree. And largely because, as I already wrote, by rolling off frequencies to find where discrete instruments could be separated out means losing those that were lost and help define the nuances of the individual sound. Also, depending on how recorded, doing this also removes (for the most part) any leakage between instruments. I don't know if it was there on Third, but I do know, from my own experience, that depending upon what you're trying to achieve, a little leakage can actually be a good thing, rendering the overall result a little rounder and fatter.
John Kelman
Senior Contributor, All About Jazz since 2004
Freelance writer/photographer
Can you provide an example of bad DACs and a description of what’s wrong with them? I know this is widely believed but I’ve yet to hear any evidence to prove it to myself.
Sure. Every cellphone and tablet. Also, most smart TVs. The smart TVs put a lot of money into video, but put literally a $5 DAC in it (mostly, because those who have decent sound systems feed the audio through their system, so bypass the TV's DAC and use the one in their audio rig). But if you have a high end sound system (or even medium or less, that has a decent DAC), but isten to tv through that device's speakers (or use a sound bar that is low to medium priced), you're listening with that $5 DAC. when I upgrade, I accidentally did not feed my tv through my high end DAC (in my OPPO player), even though I was feeeding it through my amplifier and speakers. It sounded decent. But when I realized it and connected it through my OPPO, in order to take advantage of that device's far better DAC, from the first second I turned the TV on there was a very clear difference in sound quality.
I don't know the technology, so can't tell you why a cheap DAC doesn't sound as good as a good one. But another case is that I bought a portable headphone amp/DAC a couple years back, so when I am not listening to my high res digital audio player but, instead, am listening to CD quality music on my iPad or iPhone, by running it through the portable headphone amp (an OPPO HA-2, which costs just $300 USD), the improvement in sound is instantaneous...even in the rare occasion that I'm forced to listen to compressed formats like MP3 or AAC it's better.
So I cannot tell you why more expensive DACs sound betterm but they do (also, the latest thing is to have 2...one per stereo channel, rather than a single DAC for both sides)...and what I can tell you, is that unless the specifications say anything specific about the quality of the DAC, if you are using cellphones, tablets, computers (unless you've upgraded the sound card) or TVs, smart or otherwise, you're almost certain to be using an inexpensive DAC. So the solution is to feed them through a better one, if sound is an issue for you. And the good news is it's easy to do, even with portable devices and computers (I also use the headphone amp with my Mac, as it has a setting that allows me to connect my Mac through the headphone amp and out to my speakers.
The difference is, as I say, immediately noticeable unless you've totally fried your ears over the years
Hope this helps!
John
Ps: oh, as for why they're not as good? Hmm...everything just doesn't sound as good. Highs aren't as crisp and bright, lows aren't as punchy. Mids are boxier. Soundstage is small, details not as evident and subtle nuances are largely lost. An example: yesterday, I played Crowded. House's Temple of Low Men on my OPUS #1 DAP, with my OPPO PM-3 headphones that are now connecting to the DAP's balanced (rather than usual unbalanced) out, with a new balanced cable (turns out the OPPO 'phones are balanced, but sold with unbalanced cables as they're much less expensive) from Surf Cable (GREAT cable), and I am hearing the smallest subtleties I never heard before...small effects as vocal lines fade, small details in the instrumental parts that we're always part of the overall musical soup I'm sure, but never before heard so discretely, so clearly. Listening to the album was like a whole new experience...a combination of the OPUS' DAC, and using the balanced out. If you were here, I could a/b for you and like I said, unless you've totally fried your ears, I'd wager money that you'd notice the difference immediately.
Last edited by jkelman; 06-05-2018 at 09:56 PM.
John Kelman
Senior Contributor, All About Jazz since 2004
Freelance writer/photographer
We've recorded two albums all analog to tape and two albums on computers.
They all sound great, but to my ears tape compression created a wider sound stage plus its easier on the ears than digital imo
no tunes, no dynamics, no nosebone
Kelman, I thought you were talking about DACs used in recording studios? I don’t think you can equate those to TV sound or iPhone sound.
And are you A/Bing headphone sound to TV sound???
No. I was a/b'ing tv going to my speakers via my amp, and to my speakers via my amp but first through my OPPO UDP-205, so it uses the OPPO's DAC rather than the tv's built-in one. The difference is immediate. Ditto, comparing playing Crowded House, CD quality, on my iPhone (without the added headphone amp) on my OPPO PM-3 headphones, vs on my OPUS, with the ssme headphones. Granted, now that I'm using the 'phones as balanced rather than unbalanced, but that's a new thing (past couple weeks). Before that, I use the same 'phones, same cable into iphone and OPUS. What Going balanced on the OPUS has done is open up the sound even further. Sorry if this was not clearly articulated, Rob (btw, I'd rather be called John than Kelman...we're all friends here, right?).
As for studios rather than home gear...sorry, I've been dealing with migraines lately and not totally with it when coming to boards only once a day /if that, though last couple days I've been hangin' a little more). I can't really answer your question because I don't work in studios anymore. There's more to what makes different studios get different results than just digital to analogue conversion (and vice versa). But my understanding is that it was more prominent in the relatively early days of digital recordings, in the early '80s. Yes, the technology was being developed before that, but like most advances, it took, especially 40 years ago when everything was developing in terms of digital, computerization on small scales, etc, so that things we take for granted as inexpensive today were outrageously expensive then, meaning it took a fair bit of time before said technologies were affordable to the average studio. I mean, the cost of things like memory, hard drives, etc, were so much more, especially pre-PC. What I'm trying to say is: the technologies were being developed far in advance of being adopted for wider use. When studios flipped to digital depended on many things. So the whole thing is rather complicated, but certainly one large part of the picture was conversion.
FYI, I pulled out a couple of '80s Denon label CDs, and while they sound good - clear, reasonably full and not too brittle - neither do they sound as good as more recent all-digital recordings, because conversion technology is better as is recording technology overall. This my comment that if you can't make a CD sound better than vinyl today, somebody's doing something wrong. But these are media at the very end of the chain that starts in a recording studio and ends up in peoples' homes.
To nosebone, I'll say that I do hear ya. When I was active in studios, while digital was becoming more common and pervasive, most studios I worked in still kept their 2" multi-track tape recorders, because a lot of people still dug 'em. As digital improved I personally became more ambivalent....but it must be clear I was a musician with decent knowledge of how studios worked but not an engineer, who knew/knows far more than I do. By the time I stopped spending time in studios in the very early 2000s, digital recordings made in studios I worked in were sounding great. I never could a/b with full analogue, but that was my experience. Based on ears, preferences, how studios were set up and more, thats something that would, I suspect vary greatly from studio to studio.
Off topic, but one thing that my review of Randy Brecker Quintet Live at Sweet Basil 1988, published today at All About Jazz today, reminded, in a time when people send files around on the internet for people to add parts, thus getting total separation (ditto, recording in a studio together but putting everybody in booths, going direct into boards etc for some instruments): total separation may be great and far easier if you want to fix things post-production and do certain things in the mix; but there's something to be said for leakage, too. Instruments leaking into other instruments' tracks can make for a fatter, warmer result. No, you don't want too much leakage, but in a case like this live Brecker recording, which was recorded and mixed direct to digital two-track, is that the leakage helped, I think (especially since there was no post-production fixing or mix adjustments possible), to make the recording sound better, to my ears: fuller, bigger. I wonder how it would have sounded, had they been able to get real, perfect separation (impossible on a stage the size of Sweet Basil's!)...even when recorded and mixed direct to 2-track? Somehow, and for no particularly good reason I can articulate, I somehow thing it wouldn't have sounded as good. It would have been clearer with instruments more fully discrete...but I think it would have lacked some of this recording's raw, rich totality.
Just random - and both tangential and, at times, disconnected (!) - thoughts. But hope some of it helps, Rob. As I cannot give you specifics that you're looking for....more, the culmination of both my own experiences and talking to musicians, engineers and producers over the last 15 years or so as I got more into writing.
John Kelman
Senior Contributor, All About Jazz since 2004
Freelance writer/photographer
Hmmmm. Using my not so keen math skills, that comes to four albums. I have only three AHoG albums. What am I missing, or is there a new one in the works?
Bill
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks