Are Modern Production Techniques Really Better?

[Thelonious Nick]

I really don't like the sound of most modern albums. Even if the music itself is great, the production on recent albums is too clean, too bright, too sanitized. I feel like I'm listening to music made on a computer in an office somewhere, not with real instruments. Production on older albums, say before the mid-1980s, seems to me somehow warmer. This isn't limited to jazz, as I've noticed the same problem with music of other genres.

The one instrument that does benefit from modern production technique is the drums. The crispness of the cymbals and the clarity of the snare and toms do sound better. But drums are the exception.

Has anybody else noticed this? Do some people prefer modern production techniques? Perhaps I hold an unfair bias because the music I heard as a kid (I was born in 1975) was not as crisp, and so I prefer that sound simply because I grew up with it, not because it is inherently any better. And which sort of production better reflects live performances: the crisp modern sound, or the older, warmer sound?

[graypencil]

Most of your comments seem to indicate dissatisfaction with the digital recording process ..which has been around since the early 80s ..

many people ( rack and jazz fans both ) seem to prefer the warmer analog sound ,,and even further back the so called" RVG Blue Note "model for jazz sides where a lot of drum bleed seemed inherent in the technology availble at the time ..

However, speaking as a composer/producer, I muct prefer the vast flexibility afforded by the newer digital tapeless technology ( aka ProTools et al ). You have the ability and options to make so may small adjustments to a live performance that it literally takes some of the heat off the performers..

my .02 cents

[Paul B]

I agree that it's hard to beat the old analog sound, especially when listening on vinyl (shrugs will no doubt weigh in here). But I'm not all that put off by digital recording, when done well. Recent releases on Hat, Winter & Winter, Ramboy, and other labels of that sort sound great to these ears. It's probably the big label stuff that has a crasser tone. And I agree with graypencil; some of the new recording programs (with which I've only dabbled) do allow much more leeway to tweak a recording.

Bye-ya.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by Paul B

...when done well...

Yep, and those were great examples. I don't think it's possible to achieve authentic analog warmth with digital recordings, so why try? Instead, these recordings focus on getting the sounds crisp and clear, and well-balanced. Hell, I even like ECM's sound on certain recordings.

[hearsay]

Digital recording with a high enough bit rate can sound pretty darn good, but it still cannot beat the warmth of good old two inch analog tape. The thing is with digital you're basically chopping up the recording into millions of tiny peices, which doesn't really make for warmth. Unfortunately, Analog tape is expensive, much more than hard disk space.

[Enforcer]

I get the same vibe from modern recordings. It sounds overproduced. But my main beef is not with the actual capture of the sound, but the artificial nature of modern mixing techniques.

The old recordings were captured with a handful of strategically located microphones that picked up a certain ambience and balance within the instrumentation. You heard the instruments in the proportions you were supposed to hear them, as if you were hearing the music performed live. Today, the mix is too often engineered to equally capture the slightest sound of every note played on every instrument. As a drummer, it kills me. Ghost notes on a snare drum are captured with microscopic attention to detail and amplified to excessive levels. The human ear is better emulated by two or four microphones. When you're listening to music live, you don't have equal volume levels across the entire spectrum of the instrumentation, and with a recording you shouldn't have that, either.

That's my biggest gripe, really. I don't mind the fantastic sound reproduction. That's good, if sometimes lacking some warmth. But the preoccupation with "leveling out" the various parts of the ensemble is really unnatural sounding to me. Some of that stuff is supposed to be hard to hear, and appreciated for what it is.

Larry

[Gary Sisco]

I've decided that it's not the format but the people doing the engineering that make the difference. Witness the high quality of a Hat CD vs most commercial releases. There were plenty of crappy analogue recordings, too. Whatever the equipment, it won't be any better than the people operating it.

[Bill Barton]

Originally Posted by Rainman

I've decided that it's not the format but the people doing the engineering that make the difference. Witness the high quality of a Hat CD vs most commercial releases. There were plenty of crappy analogue recordings, too. Whatever the equipment, it won't be any better than the people operating it.

Amen to that, brother! Too bad we can't clone Peter Pfister and Jim Anderson...

[hearsay]

Gary you hit the nail on the head. Analog may sound a little nicer, but it doesn't really matter if you have an engineer who really knows what they're doing. And if the music is happenning then I won't even notice the mix, as long as it doesn't interfere.

FWIW, that's my position on styles and instruments as well. Someone could be playing a kazoo for all I care, but if it works and it sounds good then I don't care what it is.

[Gary Sisco]

I agree, pretty much. A bad recording job will often turn me off, though, even if the performance is happening. If the job is not done well enough that I can't listen to the music without being aware of the recording (in a negative sense), digital or analogue, I can't get with it, as it's a distraction. I have several CIMPs in particular that are that way. Real nice performances but the recording job annoys me enough that I don't often play them. But, like I said, there were plenty of bad recording jobs and bad pressings during the analogue days as well, esp in the 70s for the pressings.

[Mark Kleinhaut]

I find the modern recording techniques to be highly preferable. To my ears, the ability to hear all the detail of what everyone is doing is very satisfying and engaging and makes listening to records an experiance apart from live music. I absolutely love the crystaline clarity of digital recording combined with studio isolation techniques (note- use of isolation has a much bigger impact on the sound than whether or not something is digital or analog)

I love live performances the best and recordings never really compare with being there. To me, trying to have a recording emulate the live sound/experience is a fool's errand. Recording (especially with modern techniques) offers a unique parallel universe into the music and works best when it's strong points are exploited fully. Apples and oranges- love em both!

[Jazzooo]

"(note- use of isolation has a much bigger impact on the sound than whether or not something is digital or analog)"

So true. Other things that influence the overall sound of recordings to day are trends in mastering, specifically compression which is often overdone.

[Gary Sisco]

I agree with Doug re mastering. Many commercial releases have been mastered such that they have a dynamic range of a 78 rpm record. (No exaggeration. It's been measured. See Vlad's columns in Cadence. This is one of his favorite rants.) I often wonder whether anyone actually listens to the masters before they get sent out for pressing -- or, better yet, before the pay the guy who did the mastering.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by mark kleinhaut

I find the modern recording techniques to be highly preferable. To my ears, the ability to hear all the detail of what everyone is doing is very satisfying and engaging and makes listening to records an experiance apart from live music. I absolutely love the crystaline clarity of digital recording combined with studio isolation techniques (note- use of isolation has a much bigger impact on the sound than whether or not something is digital or analog)

I love live performances the best and recordings never really compare with being there. To me, trying to have a recording emulate the live sound/experience is a fool's errand. Recording (especially with modern techniques) offers a unique parallel universe into the music and works best when it's strong points are exploited fully. Apples and oranges- love em both!

I agree - I know somebody mentioned drums being a real plus - but for me it's double bass that really comes across much better in modern recordings!!

So - if you listen to many recordings from before the 60s - it is almost impossible to hear the bass - try transcribing a bass line from a Charlie Parker recording!!

Even in 60s recordings, the bass is more "felt" as a bassy pulse, than actualy heard!

Now listen to someone like Palle Danielsson on a good ECM recording and you can actually hear the fantastic rich tone of a great double bass, played well - the actual pitch of the notes, the rich sustain and vibrato, the melodic invention on solos etc. etc.

Other great Jazz bassists have also benefited from this - like Dave Holland, NHOP etc. etc.

[Gary Sisco]

True nuff, but one has also to remember that in those days having the bass way up in the mix was not yet a conceit like it is today, and esp since around 1990. It wasn't the recording format. Huge bass just wasn't the thing 50 years ago or more. Hell, cats played live in those days with no amplification on the bass at all.

And I'd be willing to bet that most people could hear it a lot better than they can today, because they hadn't been subjected routinely to the volumes we've become accustomed to, and wouldn't have liked it if they had, and so hadn't suffered the hearing loss that comes with it (whether or not people are aware of it).

I think this everyday high volume thing also has something to do with the way people mix and master today. Many of them have been subjected to high volume and headphones for so long, they probably can't hear much unless they turn everything up and master it really loud. This is certainly true of soundmen. Ever try to talk to one of them? Many are deaf as a fencepost. You look at the board and it's red lights all the way across, not even blinking red, just red. Why a soundcheck needs to take as long as it does if in the end the cat's just going to max everything is beyond me.

[graypencil]

Originally Posted by Rainman

I agree with Doug re mastering. I often wonder whether anyone actually listens to the masters before they get sent out for pressing -- or, better yet, before the pay the guy who did the mastering.

Any artist/producer who not only doesn't listen to a reference master prior to duping ( or better yet, attending the mastering session in person to make sure he is getting what he wants in relation to the mixed master ) is really asking for trouble ..

A good mastering engineers work should be almost invisible ..some subtle level adjustments to make the CD sound even ..and the LEAST amount of compression necessary for decent sound for airplay ..)

I've had two artist I've worked with this year call me and bitch about the way their CDs sounded ..when I asked if they'd attended the mastering session, neither had .."thats the engineers gig "

wrong answer ..

[Jazzooo]

UPS just dropped off my new CD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No excuses from me about mastering--I mixed it myself and spent a total of 24 hours listening and tweaking the mastering engineer's work. It helped that he's an audiophile and jazz lover who was knocked out by the quality we got (thanks to engineer Dan Richards). He didn't want to mess with it much, but I was insecure--if everyone else's CD is heavily compressed, I didn't want mine to stand out as seeming wimpy.

The funny thing was, in the beginning, he sent me a rough mastering job on one song with heavy compression and EQ, just so i could tell him what I didn't like about it (a very effective technique for producers who aren't sure how radically their product should be mastered). You know what it sounded like?

It sounded exactly like a Blue Note release. Solid, tight, and a diminished dynamic range. Perfectly professional...but we both knew we had lost something. I had him scale the EQ back to only a few trouble spots, and the compression to about an 8th of that level and suddenly the openness of the recording reappeared.

As for bass not being heard that clearly back in the 50s, Gary's right--no one expected to really hear it that clearly, and most drummers seemed more aware of volume back then. You just couldn't play like Tony and expect the bassist to compete. )I loved the bit about trying to transcribe a bassline from an old Bird recording!)

But today, bassists are prized not only for their time and feel but also for their note choice, and it's just a shame to not let the listener hear it all. It can be done without sounding artificial--it just takes care. It does NOT happen casually, however. Recording acoustic bass effectively is far more challenging than drums, piano or sax imo.

By the way, did I mention that MY NEW CD JUST SHOWED UP?????????????

[Mark Kleinhaut]

Originally Posted by Jazzooo

By the way, did I mention that MY NEW CD JUST SHOWED UP?????????????

Wanna do a trade?

[Jazzooo]

"Wanna do a trade?"

Thought you'd never ask, Mark.

Email your address to me at Jazzooo@aol.com. Are you using City Hall?

Back to this thread, I think it's very easy to get sucked into an academic discussion of whether music should be free or not, but just for the excercise of it, go to www.dougrobinson.com, take a listen to the mp3s (you need pretty fast 'net access for these as they are 320 bitrate--pretty high), check out the cover art and even follow the links to www.thelisteningsessions.com/jazzooo.htm to see gorgeous photos of the sessions and my studio.

Few people ever get to be inside a recording session or follow the progress of an album from conception to execution. I wonder if the inside view will give anyone a different perspective.

Oh, and you can order a copy from the site too!