On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 10:34:24AM -0600, Bearcat M. Sandor wrote:
> So, my question to you is what causes these bad recordings most of the time?
It's impossible to answer your question, since as far as I can see you use the
term 'bad' in a purely subjective way - it's 'bad' when you don't like it.
The first thing to ask yourself when evaluating a recording is what has
been the intention of the recording engineer or producer:
1 - To recreate at the listener's side a sound that is as close as
possible to the original.
2 - To create at the listener's side a sound that the listener will
think is close to the original even if it is in reality something
quite different.
3 - To create a sound that most listeners will like, that is in fact
synthetic but still sounds natural.
4 - To create a sound that doesn't even exist as real acoustic event.
Or on a different scale:
A - Create a 'you are there' effect.
B - Create a 'they are here' effect.
C - None of the above.
For classical music, or any type requiring the acoustics of a concert
hall or other space normally used for that type of music, most recordings
are of type 2. Even people who go to classical concerts, and know how e.g
an orchestra sounds in a good hall, do in general *not* like type 1 when
listening at home. So what is 'good' and 'bad' in this context ?
The recordings that most people prefer are not the most faithfull ones.
The situation changes when you can listen using a real 3-D surround
system (not an ITU 5.1 one, that's a joke). In that case type 1,A do
work well. A type 2,B recording also works well with solo instruments
or chamber music, after all they could be in your living room while
an orchesta clearly can't.
For things like jazz and folk where there is still some pretense to
making things sound natural, most recordings are type 3. Usually, the
less processing the 'better' it sounds, 'better' meaning 'natural'
or authentic here.
For all the rest, almost everything is type 4,C and there is no
relation at all to any 'real' sound. Assuming things are more or less
in balance and the sound is not overly distorted, filtered or compressed,
or drowned in effects, anything goes. It's purely a matter of personal
preference if you like it or not. The terms 'good' and 'bad' can still
be used, but they would refer more to the skill of the producers than to
the anything else. Most people don't even know how a kickdrum, a snare
or cymbals sound in reality. What you hear on most pop recordings and
what many people take for reality is in fact very far from it.
> As far as the compression goes, would i do better to buy vinyl and master
> it to my hard drive or is the compression done before the mastering to
> vinyl takes place?
These are two questions, and the two answers are not necessarily related.
With very few exceptions all recordings are compressed, either manually
(as for classical music), or during mastering, or even individual tracks
during recording or mixing.
Mastering techniques for vinyl and digital media are different, so it's
no surprise they sound different. If you prefer the typical sound of
vinyl, go ahead and buy that. But don't think it's better since it
isn't. You may just like its imperfections.
--
FA
Follie! Follie! Delirio vano è questo !
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
