mlsstl wrote: > jh901, I think you misunderstood my post. Your reply seems to indicate > you thought that I was suggesting one period's recoding fashion is > superior to another. That's not the case. I was only saying the decades > were different and generally recognizable. There are some excellent, > poor and a lot of mediocre recordings from all periods. I've got well > over 5,000 recordings in my collection from a wide range of genres, > which is a pretty fair selection. My Beatles' collection mainly consists > of the original LPs, with some of the CDs, though not the most recent > version. > > To me, they have a quite distinct sound that clearly marks them as > recordings made in the 1960s. That's fine, I don't want them recorded > differently. About the only time I listen to the Beatles these days is > for nostalgia's sake. I don't need the latest version of the endless > remasters in hopes of hearing one of boys shuffle their shoes at 2 > minutes and 17 seconds into a track. > > The things that I notice that tip me off to the period are generally not > fixable by "remastering" (which is simply preparing an already set mix > for duplication to the storage format). For example, the slightly peaky > vocal mikes often used in the beloved jazz recordings of the 1950s are > quite noticeable to me. Ella Fitzgerald provides a lot of good examples. > I consider them excellent, but still distinctive recordings. The simpler > miking technique of the 50s is also quite apparent when comparing group > jazz or classical recordings from that period to more modern ones. > Contrary to your assertion, I think the difference between an excellent > jazz recording from the 1950s compared to a recent one is quite clear. > > Occasionally, a modern artist will try the old techniques again. > Mellencamp recorded his 2010 album "No Better Than This" with an Ampex > open reel and a single mike. (I thought he missed the mark a bit, but > then I've never been a big Mellencamp fan.) > > Apologies if I've strayed too far from the "active vs passive" monitor > theme (but then that was a departure from the original subject itself).
+1 Yeah fashion in recording techniques and general sound art is in itself very interesting , the recording "quality" is a thing partly separated from the technical quality . Today you can make a technically perfect recording ( apart from microphone influences ) that sounds terrible to us . In the older stuff you clearly have an added tint of unwanted artefacts that you can't do away with but they where known then to so sometimes that knowledge changed how they recorded hmm ? Realy old recordings are clearly limited like 100hz to 5000hz response , but the music can be good I like the old Robert Johnson blues master ,but the music is fantastic . ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98249 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
