early eighties recording quality...

[cheddatom]

[quote name='tinyd' timestamp='1418920766' post='2634898']
It's probably too much hassle, but what would be really interesting is if you don't tell people which is which, then ask them to vote somehow. Of course, people will be able to guess by the file size so it might be impossible to do....
[/quote]

It's impossible to do a blind test over the internet

Discreet I hope you're open minded about this!

[cybertect]

[quote name='lojo' timestamp='1418920486' post='2634889']
True, theres a great bit in a show (star trek I think) where they are in a museum in the future , there is a large 50s juke box that gets called an iPod, which in the great scheme of things time wise (only 40 years) its not that far out.
[/quote]

Sure you're not thinking of the BeatleBox?

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcVS9ssNYVQ[/media]

[discreet]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1418920932' post='2634903']
TBH, given most people's listening habits nowadays,I think dynamic range is a bigger issue then bitrate.
You could be listening to a lossless recording through £30K's worth of boutique audio, but if the mix is standard 2014 fayre, it's going to sound like junk.
[/quote]

That's a good point. You do need good source material, i.e. something recorded by people who know what they're doing.

[quote name='tinyd' timestamp='1418920766' post='2634898']
...what would be really interesting is if you don't tell people which is which, then ask them to vote somehow. Of course, people will be able to guess by the file size so it might be impossible to do...
[/quote]

More likely impossible because both tracks will be heard on the same system and if you're listening to both through a pair of crappy laptop speakers for example, you're not going to hear the slightest difference between them, so it's a moot point.

[tinyd]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1418921238' post='2634918']

More likely impossible because both tracks will be heard on the same system and if you're listening to both through a pair of crappy laptop speakers for example, you're not going to hear the slightest difference between them, so it's a moot point.
[/quote]

I agree that a crappy system won't be a good test bed, but a decent pair of headphones in a laptop, ipod or whatever will probably be capable of showing some difference, even if it's small.

[lurksalot]

but then every part of a system needs to able to reproduce the given sound to the quality that it was recorded to surely , and the listening pleasure to the vast majority of listeners really doesn't rely on that,, thus giving the listener the added bonus of being able to search and improve their listening skills and technical equipment as and when they wish to delve into their own listening experience.

[51m0n]

Discreet, mate, I can assure you I have access to some very very nice systems for comparative listening purposes. A great set up for me is a pair of reference quality cans plugged into my UCX, but thats not nearly expensive enough to assuage some people

I can also assure you that a well encoded 320kbps mp3 of decent material (ie not crushed) is virtually impossible to tell from a wav in a double blind test. Because I've tried it with myself and some other people (some engineers, some 'golden eared' audiophile naysayers). There are some types of material where it does become noticeable, but to my ear its only stuff thats been rogered with clipping in the wav, and that clipping then becomes more obvious in the encoding process (or is it the minute ratio between peaks and average level that screws up the algorithm? I'm not sure).

Never got better than a 50/50 reult in 3 different tests, I know I'm such a laugh to hang out with ....

Thanks for considering me childlike though

[uncle psychosis]

So much nonsense, pseudo science and frankly outright lies are told about digital audio. Britain's physics teachers need to up their game!

Modern recordings don't sound bad because of technology, they sound bad because of the way they've been deliberately mixed and mastered. Don't blame technology, blame studio engineers.

[ubit]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1418921238' post='2634918']






More likely impossible because both tracks will be heard on the same system and if you're listening to both through a pair of crappy laptop speakers for example, you're not going to hear the slightest difference between them, so it's a moot point.
[/quote]

So now your saying, that there would be no discernible difference.

I said before, we have played a CD player and an iPod through our very high quality PA, with bass bins, and mate, no one could say, oh that sounds like a crappy MP3 . It all sounds immense. My own home system is a very good Sony system that people have commented on as being a very good sound.
My friend, I will say again, I'm no expert on sound compressing etc, but I know what sounds good!

[taunton-hobbit]

I think it was Pink Floyd who had a ghetto blaster in the mix room to hear how the track would sound to the 'average' punter - knew a thing or three, those old-timers............

[scalpy]

[quote name='taunton-hobbit' timestamp='1418929113' post='2634998']
I think it was Pink Floyd who had a ghetto blaster in the mix room to hear how the track would sound to the 'average' punter - knew a thing or three, those old-timers............


[/quote]

And again, I've seen them check mixes on smartphone speakers, iPod healdphones, and still even cassette by driving round in a 50s mg!

[dincz]

[quote name='Norris' timestamp='1418907936' post='2634698']
I do, but tbh cannot be bothered with another argument

/coat
[/quote]

There's really nothing to argue about. 16 bit PCM audio inherently has a signal/noise ratio of over 100dB - much better than analogue systems can manage. That's not an opinion but fact. Unless you're talking about 8 bit audio?

As for mp3 , it gets an unfairly bad rap. As mentioned previously, almost no-one can tell the diff between a CD and 320Kb/s mp3. After all, the mp3 algorithm was developed after listening tests determined what parts of the signal could be thrown away without anyone noticing. The result is as you'd expect. Admittedly there were some dodgy mp3 encoders in years gone by.

Edited December 18, 2014 by dincz

[cheddatom]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1418921140' post='2634915']
Discreet I hope you're open minded about this!
[/quote]

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]

Edited December 18, 2014 by cheddatom

[notable9]

Great responses but i think most of u have missed the point.

My point was that it seems old fashioned analogue recording techniques reached a peek in the early eighties, especially on the pop stuff. Nothing to do with dig, or mp3's or whatnot.

Listening to those old tunes via the PC through phones and inspite of all the compression the signal has gone through today you can still hear what I call the "soft seperation" of instruments, it all sounds kinda chocolatey but crisp and that is all to do with studio technique, personel and above all.....money!

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!

[taunton-hobbit]

My musical education started in the late 60s with the Jackson Studios in Rickmansworth & I was lucky enough to rub shoulders with, among others, Jon Hiseman, Mat Ross, Jeff Reid, Jimmy Page & David Bowie. All amps were valve & I can recall hearing some Ronettes tracks mastered at 15ips - replayed for me on a Revox..the crispness was simply unreal. I've just about got something similar happening on my own system, but it's taken half a century to get there - I'm thinking that I won't bother buying an mp3 player yet.............

[EliasMooseblaster]

[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]

Never mind the production quality, even: do you have any idea how hard it is to find a performance of Debussy's [i]Clair de Lune [/i]on Youtoob that doesn't sound rushed?

[Sonic_Groove]

[quote name='notable9' timestamp='1418939726' post='2635131']
Great responses but i think most of u have missed the point.

My point was that it seems old fashioned analogue recording techniques reached a peek in the early eighties, especially on the pop stuff. Nothing to do with dig, or mp3's or whatnot.

Listening to those old tunes via the PC through phones and inspite of all the compression the signal has gone through today you can still hear what I call the "soft seperation" of instruments, it all sounds kinda chocolatey but crisp and that is all to do with studio technique, personel and above all.....money!

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 tried to point this out Notable9, but no one seemed to listen!!

B

[Ben Jamin]

Format shouldn't be a problem these days at all. It's all about production. I do a lot of live sound and usually work with a digital desk with all the toys that costs tens of thousands, along with a great PA. Other times I use a cheap budget Behringer mixer and a basic rig.
I can get great - and really bad - mixes from both.

Another thing though: A key part of getting a good sound is good musicians who know how to make a good sound. I could use dynamic EQ or whatever to sort out a guitarists' tone or I can ask him to change the settings on his guitar/amp a bit. Guess which sounds better.

The industry is rife with artists who aren't actually that good (see: X Factor etc) so engineers are relied on more and more to 'fix' things in production and it makes a big difference. We have to get it right at the source first.

[Ziphoblat]

MP3's are not the devil. One could debate the audibility of the data that an MP3 "looses" endlessly - the reality is that the vast majority of listeners would fail to identify the difference in a blind test, even on a high end system. The hit to audio integrity from brick-walled dynamics, anemic low end, and an exaggerated mid-range, however, are far more immediately observable. The loudness war is far more detrimental to the sound of modern music than any particular digital format.

[scalpy]

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.

[cheddatom]

[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 hope you're wrong! This is a recording I did of bassfunk's band The Jukes

https://soundcloud.com/rifffactoryrecordings-1/the-jukes-superstition

Ignoring the fact that soundcloud has compressed it and ruined the top end with mp3ish artifacts, I think the mix on this is perfect. Feel free to explain why, if you think this falls short of what you could acheive with more money. Incidentally, the musicians were all in the live room with guitar amps turned up, loads of bleed on the drum mics etc.

[PaulWarning]

as several posters have said, IMO, it's todays production values that are the problem, no space around the different instruments, not all old is good, always thought Spectors stuff sounded horrible.
On the subject of mp3's I saw a TV show a few years ago where they did a blind listening test in a acoustically designed theatre. top notch HiFi listening to Floyds Other Side of the Moon, on vinyl, CD and mp3 at 320mbps, the mp3 won.

[obbm]

[quote name='notable9' timestamp='1418939726' post='2635131']

My point was that it seems old fashioned analogue recording techniques reached a peek in the early eighties, especially on the pop stuff. Nothing to do with dig, or mp3's or whatnot.

[/quote]

It was in the early 80s that the transition to digital started. Firstly the ubiquitous Studer 24-track analogue tape recorder was replaced by the Sony PCM-3324. I seem to remember that Mitsubishi made a similar recorder. Some studios ran two PCM-3324s in sync. Later Sony introduced the PCM-3348 and these were sometimes run in pairs.

Analogue desks but with digital recorders and then in the mid 80s Neve introduced their DSP, the first all-digital multitrack desk. Other manufacturers followed; SSL, Sony, etc.

It was the advent of higher powered computer workstations and software that changed things.

[PaulWarning]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1418978905' post='2635338']

I hope you're wrong! This is a recording I did of bassfunk's band The Jukes

[url="https://soundcloud.com/rifffactoryrecordings-1/the-jukes-superstition"]https://soundcloud.c...es-superstition[/url]

Ignoring the fact that soundcloud has compressed it and ruined the top end with mp3ish artifacts, I think the mix on this is perfect. Feel free to explain why, if you think this falls short of what you could acheive with more money. Incidentally, the musicians were all in the live room with guitar amps turned up, loads of bleed on the drum mics etc.
[/quote]nice, although IMO of course, you've followed modern fashion by having the bass drum to high, but then again I've got a thing about it, drives me mad

[cheddatom]

but the bass drum is the most important part! It's driving the song!

but yeh, my main point was that you don't need to spend a load of money, or time travel back to the 80s, to get a good sound.

[PaulWarning]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1418986445' post='2635454']


but yeh, my main point was that you don't need to spend a load of money, or time travel back to the 80s, to get a good sound.
[/quote]of course you don't, maybe I'm talking out of my arse here but when recording was done for vinyl would you have to be careful about dynamics to keep the needle in the grooves whereas now there are no such constraints so the temptation is to record and mix as loud as possible