early eighties recording quality...

[cheddatom]

It was in response to this...

[quote name='notable9' timestamp='1418939726' post='2635131']
It takes a lot of money to record music properly.....I dont hear it today anymore, not even in live TV. As I said before it all sounds to me anyway grey...mushy. Horrible!
[/quote]

I'm too young to know about vinyl, although I should know the answer from my degree :-/

[notable9]

[quote name='scalpy' timestamp='1418972082' post='2635278']
Recording technique aside, the players were (on average) better and more experienced. Couldn't make chicken soup out of chicken shi*, unlike now, of course.
[/quote]

This.
A lot of those guys and the arrangers were schooled in jazz and blues, they knew how to play and how to arrange. Even the average disco tune from the period will have immaculately arranged orchestra pieces, piano fills etc etc..... those days are over me thinks.

[The Admiral]

[quote name='notable9' timestamp='1418988416' post='2635482']


This.
A lot of those guys and the arrangers were schooled in jazz and blues, they knew how to play and how to arrange. Even the average disco tune from the period will have immaculately arranged orchestra pieces, piano fills etc etc..... those days are over me thinks.
[/quote]

I also think the term 'Producer' has been devalued in recent years. There are certainly some great young producers, but if one thinks back to the varied work that someone like Tony Visconti did in the 70s and 80s with Bowie, T Rex, Thin Lizzy and lately, Morrissey etc. - you have a guy who can arrange and create orchestral parts, is a good guitarist and a very good bass player. He's a musician, not just a knob twiddler. Not to say that every good producer has to be a great musician, but it helps I think, and whilst there is definitely a place for people in the Rick Rubin mould - "that's good, that not so much. More of this, less of that" - acting as the external voice of authority, there are far too many kids with laptops, who have done a few months on a college course, who don't play anything, or understand what is going on in a piece of music. Great ears can get you a long way, as can good ideas, but a base of musical knowledge and a common frame of reference for everyone involved has to be a major plus, doesn't it?

Edited December 19, 2014 by The Admiral

[Hugh971]

If you are listening / watching on youtube you're listening to a compressed digital medium even if the original source was analogue.

This proves that it's not the digital compression that's causes newer recorded stuff to sound worse.

It's all down to the mixing and mastering techniques used.

[51m0n]

Oh to hell with it, in for a penny, in for a pound

I'm still rather pleased with this old thing I mixed for Kit Richardson, I didnt get to track a bit of it, so there was plenty of twisting things to my will all the way through, I think it sounds pretty splendid as mixes go, it could be a little better in a couple of places, but you can always think in retrospects of changes you might make to improve something:-

[url="http://kitrichardson.bandcamp.com/album/submission-chords"]http://kitrichardson...bmission-chords[/url]

Entirely mixed in the box, soundcard is an RME UCX, plenty of different listening systems from floorstanding monitors to mobile phones and reference cans to cheap earbuds. There is absolutely masses going on in some of these tracks, but the point is you can't hear all of it in one listen.

Do enjoy!

Bear in mind though, if you aren't listening on £100,000 worth of monitoring kit, it shoudl still sound bloody fantastic.....

Edited December 19, 2014 by 51m0n

[leftybassman392]

I actually bought a copy of that EP on CD when it came out - very good it is too!

[notable9]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1418991900' post='2635527']
Oh to hell with it, in for a penny, in for a pound

I'm still rather pleased with this old thing I mixed for Kit Richardson, I didnt get to track a bit of it, so there was plenty of twisting things to my will all the way through, I think it sounds pretty splendid as mixes go, it could be a little better in a couple of places, but you can always think in retrospects of changes you might make to improve something:-

[url="http://kitrichardson.bandcamp.com/album/submission-chords"]http://kitrichardson...bmission-chords[/url]

Entirely mixed in the box, soundcard is an RME UCX, plenty of different listening systems from floorstanding monitors to mobile phones and reference cans to cheap earbuds. There is absolutely masses going on in some of these tracks, but the point is you can't hear all of it in one listen.

Do enjoy!

Bear in mind though, if you aren't listening on £100,000 worth of monitoring kit, it shoudl still sound bloody fantastic.....
[/quote]

Sorry old fruit but ur track is exactly what Im going on about....it lacks dynamic range and separation. Sure her voice sounds clear but the interplay between everything else sounds like mud. The whole thing just doesnt sparkle. Sorry.

[Billy Apple]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1418991900' post='2635527']
Bear in mind though, if you aren't listening on £100,000 worth of monitoring kit, it shoudl still sound bloody fantastic.....
[/quote]

Well, it sounds a bit crap through my laptop with a busted speaker, so I think you need to try harder. Plus it needs more cow-bell and the bass is a bit glovey.

[51m0n]

[quote name='notable9' timestamp='1419002673' post='2635637']
Sorry old fruit but ur track is exactly what Im going on about....it lacks dynamic range and separation. Sure her voice sounds clear but the interplay between everything else sounds like mud. The whole thing just doesnt sparkle. Sorry.
[/quote]

Yeah, if you streamed it the streaming quality does lose some extreme top end sparkle I grant you (way lower than 256Kbps I thknk), the wavs and my mp3s of this are definitely brighter.

There's a tonne of dynamic range in those mixes, compared to contemporary pop mate. Celo Greens Forget You has about 6dB of dynamic range, this has about 15dB, after mastering. Before, well, a [b]lot [/b]more.

Although yes as opposed to the ultrabright production of the 80's where the top end around 8 to 12Khz is turned up to overload on everything (Clannad for instance) some aspects of the mix are not super bright, there was a deliberate intent to meld certain instruments together as opposed to carving everything out on its own.

Its a stylistic approach that tends to lead you to hear more things the more you listen, thats why its mixed that way. Not everything should be clear in every mix, or else there are no surprises.

There is plenty of top end and sparkle on those parts of the mix that were chosen to 'sparkle'. In itself that generated seperation where it was wanted.

However I accept that if you hanker after 80's style production above all else, its not for you.....

Edited December 19, 2014 by 51m0n

[51m0n]

[quote name='Billy Apple' timestamp='1419003637' post='2635646']
Well, it sounds a bit crap through my laptop with a busted speaker, so I think you need to try harder. Plus it needs more cow-bell and the bass is a bit glovey.
[/quote]

I did suggest more cowbell, honest J

[discreet]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1419003879' post='2635651']
There is plenty of top end and sparkle on those parts of the mix that were chosen to 'sparkle'.
[/quote]

I agree, it sounds not half bad on my studio monitors (39Hz-20kHz) and I like that it's not completely crushed to death.

I find that listening to combatants in The Loudness War extremely tedious, mainly because you can't listen to more than about thirty seconds of a track without it becoming very tiring.

Edited December 19, 2014 by discreet

[51m0n]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1419004606' post='2635657']
I agree, it sounds not half bad on my studio monitors (39Hz-20kHz) and I like that it's not completely crushed to death.

I find that listening to combatants in The Loudness War extremely tedious, mainly because you can't listen to more than about thirty seconds of a track without it becoming very tiring.
[/quote]

Phew, thought my ears were knackered for a minute there

[notable9]

Whether I "hanker" after anything is irrevelant. The whole point of the thread was to debate what appears to be quite an interesting topic.

Here is a tune which I hope illustrates my interest in the thread title. And I accept that this particular tune will find very little if any love on this forum but then that's not the point, I just think it's a good example.

[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38L7S-L9vXg"]https://www.youtube....h?v=38L7S-L9vXg[/url]

Thats what I mean by sparkle...

Edited December 19, 2014 by notable9

[PaulWarning]

[quote name='notable9' timestamp='1419024072' post='2635888']
Whether I "hanker" after anything is irrevelant. The whole point of the thread was to debate what appears to be quite an interesting topic.

Here is a tune which I hope illustrates my interest in the thread title. And I accept that this particular tune will find very little if any love on this forum but then that's not the point, I just think it's a good example.

[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38L7S-L9vXg"]https://www.youtube....h?v=38L7S-L9vXg[/url]

Thats what I mean by sparkle...
[/quote]I've just got in from the pub so judgement might be a little flawed, but isn't that just a loud trebley snare drum?

[notable9]

[quote name='PaulWarning' timestamp='1419035189' post='2636022']
I've just got in from the pub so judgement might be a little flawed, but isn't that just a loud trebley snare drum?
[/quote]

listen to the whole thing, everything is clear as a bell, each tone set has its own space..

[tauzero]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1418904578' post='2634634']
Lossy compression (mp3s for instance) refers to file size compression using algorithms that bin parts of the original recording deemed not important. I guarantee that no one on this forum can detect a 320kbps mp3 against an original 16bit 44.1KHz wav on any speakers they wish to use with any accuracy in double blind testing.
[/quote]

In the interest of completeness, there's also lossless compression, where all the data is retained but compression algorithms are used to shrink the overall size - much like zip files, where people would be rather cross if they zipped up their latest novel and it omitted every "a" and "the". FLAC and OGG files are examples of this.

[tauzero]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1418920532' post='2634891']
I look forward to it, but I'm already pretty certain about what I'll think! It saddens me that children don't have access to high-quality systems and that most music is apparently consumed alone while staring at a screen.
[/quote]

You mean unlike when I was a teenager, when I used to listen to music (I didn't consume it, I consumed Mars bars and Pepsi) on a little transistor radio?

[tauzero]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1418932096' post='2635032']
OK, here it is:

[font=arial, sans-serif][size=1]rifffactory.co.uk/golden_brown.mp3[/size][/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif][size=1]rifffactory.co.uk/golden_brown.wav[/size][/font]

[size=4][font=arial, sans-serif]This was just a quick thing I did the other day for my own amusement (and a performance video) so no judgement on the mix or playing please![/font][/size]
[font=arial, sans-serif]EDIT: I don't know what BC's software is doing to my post, I'm just pasting URLs into here, so in case it doesn't work I'll write it with words[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]rifffactory DOT co DOT uk SLASH golden_brown.mp3[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]rifffactory DOT co DOT uk SLASH golden_brown.wav[/font]
[/quote]

I've just had a listen and couldn't tell any difference. That snare sounds like it could do with tightening up a bit, very rattly.

I'm using a built-in soundcard on the PC motherboard, which is going into a Behringer UB1202 mixer then a middle-aged Technics hi-fi amp and a pair of Mordaunt-Short bookshelf speakers. Certainly not up to audiophile standards but better than your average all-in-one compact system and streets ahead of a lapdog.

[discreet]

[quote name='tauzero' timestamp='1419077694' post='2636265']
You mean unlike when I was a teenager, when I used to listen to music (I didn't consume it, I consumed Mars bars and Pepsi) on a little transistor radio?
[/quote]

I had the same, and a Dansette-type mono record player. Admittedly I was only able to get into 'hi-fi' because my Dad got into it... he was always an early adopter and a GAS-fuelled gear-freak as well.

Edited December 20, 2014 by discreet

[krysh]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1418991900' post='2635527']
Oh to hell with it, in for a penny, in for a pound

I'm still rather pleased with this old thing I mixed for Kit Richardson, I didnt get to track a bit of it, so there was plenty of twisting things to my will all the way through, I think it sounds pretty splendid as mixes go, it could be a little better in a couple of places, but you can always think in retrospects of changes you might make to improve something:-

[url="http://kitrichardson.bandcamp.com/album/submission-chords"]http://kitrichardson...bmission-chords[/url]

Entirely mixed in the box, soundcard is an RME UCX, plenty of different listening systems from floorstanding monitors to mobile phones and reference cans to cheap earbuds. There is absolutely masses going on in some of these tracks, but the point is you can't hear all of it in one listen.

Do enjoy!

Bear in mind though, if you aren't listening on £100,000 worth of monitoring kit, it shoudl still sound bloody fantastic.....
[/quote]
yep, well done. sounds great!

[cheddatom]

Discreet - No comment on 320kbps mp3 vs WAV?

[PaulWarning]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1418932096' post='2635032']
OK, here it is:

[font=arial, sans-serif][size=1]rifffactory.co.uk/golden_brown.mp3[/size][/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif][size=1]rifffactory.co.uk/golden_brown.wav[/size][/font]

[size=4][font=arial, sans-serif]This was just a quick thing I did the other day for my own amusement (and a performance video) so no judgement on the mix or playing please![/font][/size]
[font=arial, sans-serif]EDIT: I don't know what BC's software is doing to my post, I'm just pasting URLs into here, so in case it doesn't work I'll write it with words[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]rifffactory DOT co DOT uk SLASH golden_brown.mp3[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]rifffactory DOT co DOT uk SLASH golden_brown.wav[/font]
[/quote]Couldn't tell any difference, with or without my hearing aids in cymbols sound really splashy though

[discreet]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1419155746' post='2636974']
Discreet - No comment on 320kbps mp3 vs WAV?
[/quote]

Problem is, it's obvious which file is which and I want to avoid any possible placebo effect - so I'm going to burn each file to a CD and get the current mrs discreet to play them to me randomly thorugh my Linn system. Will report back with my findings.

[taunton-hobbit]

I suspect that both will sound fine - my problems start when I try and play something 'mastered' (loose use of over-used term) at 200watts plus(& yup, if I'm gigging, I really do use that sort of volume - probably explains why I don't get asked to work lots)(my current 'potential' amp power is around 3000 rms.........)

[VTypeV4]

I haven't listened to the links however I know I can't tell the difference at 320K, I can't tell at anything above192K to be honest..

With regards to '80s production, there's not much wrong with 'Running in the Family' last time I listened..