Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo What makes a recording "good"?

My M60s are on order and, although I haven’t received them yet, I think I’m going to order the rest of my system in the meantime. I can’t wait, but until I can actually be enjoying them, I can do nothing but think about how they will be set up and what I can expect. The frequent comments of “you hear things in the music that you’ve never heard before” and “Axioms make a good recording sound great, but a bad recording shows it’s flaws” has gotten me thinking:

What do people consider a good recording or a bad recording?

My thoughts would be that dynamic range and compression of the final mix are probably two of the biggest factors, since there is much pop music that is recorded on top current equipment without any budget limitations yet still manages to not “wow” listeners of very good systems. There are older recordings, on older analog equipment that do, indeed “wow” listeners. Is it the actual recording of instruments and voices, or is it the way they are mixed together? Is it that so many layers get mixed together that each loses it’s individual flavor in the recipe? Is it that effects are added too often, and the reverb, compression etc that are added to a vocal just take away from the “cleanliness” of the timbre of that voice?

I’m determined to bring up questions in these forums that will get people thinking… but I’m trying it off the “Questions and Comments” board ‘cuz everything gets lost in the politics over there!

i dont know all the technical terms, but i can give you my impressions..

a lot of the newer stuff that sounds bad, is due to the compression that you mentioned. when mixed, it seems that they try to pack as many layers on layers of sound, to where it ends up just being to 'bright' and busy. there tends to be a lot of harsh effects and restructering of the sounds, that on a good speaker, just end up becoming confusing and hard to listen to.

on older recordings, the flaws often come up due to simply poor recordings. especially some of the older guitar driven stuff.. the guitar can sound so enhanced and way forward, while the rest of the band and the vocals are muddy and left in the rear. good example is led zepplin. great band, but not well recorded. also, the old KISS stuff on the casablanca label is not very good.

you will know pretty quick when listening, if it is a good recording or not. there is a big difference. but dont let this deture you. there are much more good cd's than bad.

bigjohn

Mark, as I've commented before, the original recording technique and the mixing and mastering then applied to the result are what determines the quality of a disc(not whether it's CD, DVD-A or SACD). There's about a zillion(a number beyond human comprehension) variables involved. Although I listen almost entirely to classical music, when I've checked some pop items the apparent desire of the producers to have the loudest product on the market was evident in a compressed dynamic range with the top of the range sometimes set so high as to result in digital clipping with associated distortion. Another flaw appears to be an intentional boost in the upper midrange/lower treble around 2-6KHz so that the sound seems to be more immediate and impressive when played on mediocre equipment. Of course when they're played on accurate speakers such as Axioms, the result is sometimes criticized as being "bright" or even harsh.

Mark,
I bet you're about to embark on a rediscovery of your collection. After a month with M3s, I've come to appreciate the different ways good recordings can be made. Acoustic instruments should sound natural. Take Miles Davis's Kind of Blue and John Coltrane's A Love Supreme. They're both well recorded but quite differently. The Columbia studio for Miles was a spacious converted church which gives depth to the recording. For Coltrane, the smaller studio of Rudy Van Gelder and closer microphone placement give more immedate, intense results with less resonance. Each style matches the material. What's great about the Axioms is how they let both shine. Kind of Blue is a forgiving record, but it still opens up in detail with better speakers. Steely Dan records are the same way to my ears. Trane's horn on A Love Supreme can sound harsh or weak (or both), but the M3s keep the energy without screeching -- it really brought home to me the frequent reviewer's praise for the extended, smooth treble from Axiom's titanium tweeter.

So I guess the bottom line is a good recording is one where technique complements the music and doesn't call attention to itself.

Since I got my M80's, I've been going through all my CD's. Surprisingly enough, not all CD's are created equally. I've got some CD's that are less than a couple months old that just sound like crap, while some older CD's sound phenomenal. Two older CD's that I have that sound amazing are Steve Miller Band, Number 5 and Ten Years After, A Space in Time. Both were recorded in 70/71. This would lead me to believe that the way the music was mixed and the level of detail the studio put into them is what makes a CD sound good. Not so much modern technology. Good luck finding # 5 though. Not a well known album, but dam good and nothing like the better known 'Jungle Love' Steve Miller sound.

I believe a good recording should mimic or shadow the entire live performance, or atleast as close as possible. Though it doesn't necessary apply to certain type of music, such as techno, where special sound effects were added purposely.

Why does a band like me Metallica put out horrible audio crap like St Anger? The sound on that album is atrocious.

I keep coming back to Pink Floyd time and again. Except for the very early stuff their albums all sound incredible, especially the remastered MFSL recordings.

The problem when buying audio is that it is so hit and miss as to what can be expected to sound good. One album sounds great, the next crap. Just depends on the producer and studio.

In reply to:

---

Why does a band like me Metallica put out horrible audio crap like St Anger? The sound on that album is atrocious.

---

Mid-life crisis. Trying to show they still have some garage-band anger creds. Yeah, lo-fi production, we're bad to the bone.

Just follow their bassist choices for their focus.

Kill Em All to Master of Puppets - Cliff Burton, a biker-bar bassist, honestly not very good at the instrument but he played it hard.

...And Justice(...) to Garage Inc. - Jason Newsted, incredibly technical bassist wasting away in Flotsam and Jetsam, Metallica picks him up, treats him like a red-headed stepchild. The band is forced to learn to play their instruments and think a lot more about composing and less about powerchords and their albums become technical masterpieces but they lose their "hook" and become a band pumping out one single an album (One, Enter Sandman, King Nothing, Fuel, and the Misfits cover on Garage Inc - Die Die My Darling) at this point, they can't buy a self-written single. Jasonic moves on to join the prolific Quebec-based guys in Voivod.

Enter St. Anger (grr... mean... anger... we're angry... get it?) and Rob Trujillo - who according to the press kits was the bassist from Suicidal Tendencies. What they forget to mention is that he was the bassist during the "bad old days" of ST (Lights, Camera, Revolution and on)... he's not on the S/T and Join The Army releases. Rob's one of those bassists that should have a metronome permanently implanted in his head. If you're part of the rhythm section and have no rhythm...

Bren R.

i think the "technical masterpice" albums had more to do with who was recording them and producing them, rather than the greatness of newsted. there is no question he is the better of the three bass players, but i would not go so far as to say he was the driving force behind those albums.

and i agree about rob.. he is way over-rated.. but he does get cool points for his ponytail..

bigjohn

Producers were: Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets and ...And Justice were Flemming Rasmussen (one of Denmark's best), the Black Album, Load, Reload and St. Anger were Bob Rock (best known for his work with Motley Crue, Bon Jovi and the Cult)...

So it's hard to say... a technical player comes in, one album later they move to a producer who's more at home with glam acts than heavy metal. Probably 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Hard to tell if it was Flemming that kept ...And Justice heavy and hard, or if it was just a transistion period.

Bren R.