I have been listening to some of my "older" cds again.

It occurred to me, that much of the problem with these cds is not the mix..........(as many often say), most of the time it seems to be two things.

The problems are the way the drums, and bass are recorded.
If you listen to one of the older, less enjoyable cds...you will find the drummer sounding like he's thrashing away on a drum kit of all snare drums, or a drum kit made from empty milk cartons....recorded with one mic., in the next room.
The bass sounds like the treble on the amp. is all the way up, and the volume is down low.

The rest of the recorded tracks usually sound pretty good, vocals, guitar, etc.
This makes the whole "record" sound sub-par, when everything is mixed down to the two-track stereo mix down tape, and mastered.
It's too bad more time, and $$$$ were not spent on these classic albums.

When one listens to Pink Floyd"s: DSOTM, Eagles: Hotel California, or Elton John's: GBYBR, etc. we can see what COULD have been, with most of the "classics".

i was listening to a few older cd's last night that sounded real good.

it was 'kansas', greatest hits, 'bad company', greatest hits, and the original 'boston' self titled cd. these wernt the re-mastered cd's, just the original recordings. all were real good, abut the boston was a little better than the others. of course, thats not hard to believe being that most of the band members were audio engineers. i was about to put on 'bostons' third stage cd, but the wife got home, and i had to turn it down.

speaking of old recordings.. has anyone seen the story of the guy who is suing sony for the 'diary of a madman' cd he bought? apparently, he bought the ozzy cd, which is a remastered version, and he thought it was what the cover said, remastered.. but apparently, it wasnt remastered, it was redone.. ALL the drum, bass, and guitar parts were completely re-recorded, and the only original element is ozzy's voice. so, he felt it was false advertising by sony, and is suing them. i dont know for how much, but i thought the concept was interesting. make s agood point though.. when you buy a cd of one of your older favorite artists, do you want the original recordings that have been improved.. or do you want completely new songs with none of the original band members.?

food for thought...

bigjohn

I like your taste in Music bigjohn

B.J.

The "older" cds , I ment were from about 67' to 79'. After that period the recordings started to get "muddy" with so many tracks to record on, (at least 24) that the strides made in the 70's were all but erased, with exceptions, of course.

dude, i listen to just about everything..

i got doo-wop stuff from the 50's.
peace and free lovin stuff from the 60's.
AM smoothies and story tellers from the early 70's.
disco fever and roller rink favs from the late 70's.
i got almost ALL of my albums from the musically confused days of the early 80's.
all the super heavy metal from the late 80's.
my grunge stuff from the early 90's.
all the way up to today.. throw in some country here and there, little bit of bluegrass, a shake or two of rap, a hint of raggae, and you got my whole collection.

EDIT- LT61, yes i agree with what you are saying. ALL of my KISS stuff sounds absolutely horrible. my lynard skynard(sp?) can be hard to listen to at high volumes, and i got a stepphenwolf album that sounds like they recorded it in a bathroom stall..

bigjohn

You basically have described my tastes also, although the only Rap I ever liked was the Boogie Boys and some Run DMC back in the later 80's. Also, I'm not to much into some of this new head banger stuff.

why not just upgrade your cd's see link here
upgrade cd post

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk..........

I tried that gizmo on my cds...it didn't work.
BUT....I accidently left it on top of my TV......and now my old TV is HD!

I dislike your taste in music, John. Well, not really, but seriously, dude... Boston?

I cannot believe that someone would DARE remove Randy Rhodes from an Ozzy album. That's just sacrilege. I've got the gold remaster disks, and they're the original recordings, remastered. I guess Sony wanted to milk more money out of it.

What is wrong with Boston? Ok, maybe the newer stuff "Walk On" for example, as Barry is not with the band anymore. It is hard to replace that talent. I don't know to many people that don't like Boston: Boston, Don't Look Back, or even Third Stage, unless they are to young to know the band

You don't know the pain of Boston (and the Eagles for that matter, but I'm mostly over that--they're good in concert) until you've been in a car for 8 hours with people who ONLY listen to Boston and the Eagles, while playing chicken with big rigs.

i understand that sentiment.

when i was in high school, i was riding with a good friend of mine in his Nissan 280ZX. he had it decked out with alloy rims, rear window louvers, and a bitchin stereo system. he even had an in-dash cd player, which was damn near cutting edge in 1988. long story short, we were on the outskirts of town, on a section of road called "roller coaster hills". they went up and down, with sharp right and left turns at the top and bottom of each hill section. he came down a hill too fast, hit some sand making a hard right, and kicked the a$$ end around. when the tires finally caught, the car was sideways, and we did a half a barrel roll onto the roof, and slide about 100 feet til we drifted into the bar-ditch. we both had seatbelts on, and climbed out with mere scratches. but, the thing i remember the most from the whole ordeal was... when we were coming down the hill, he was BLARING 'baracuda' from heart, on the stereo. and thru all the noise of the motor, and the wheels, and the car flipping and grinding to a stop, i still remember hearing that steady, solid guitar riff during the entire thing.

DUN-DA-DA-DUN-DA-DA-DUN-DA-DA-DUN-DA-DA-DUN-DA-DA-DUN-DA-DA-DUN-DA-DA-DUN-DUN.. WAH,WAH,WAH,WAH!!!

i still quiver to this day when i hear that guitar riff.

bigjohn

Man, that's hairy. I can't imagine having an accident that bad...

I had my first car accident (rear ended someone) because I was turning down the treble on a Gary Hoey album. I have not listened to that CD since. Mastered like crap, I tell you...

When you listen to some 60's and early 70's cd's that sound very good, you are probably listening to albums created by producers and engineers that were masters of their craft and equipment. Take the Beatles' SPLHCB. Using the "bouncing" method, this album was recorded on a mere 4 tracks, bounced to 7, in a sense. George Martin and the various Abbey Road engineers recorded the instruments live, in groups, in an almost orchestral set up. This way, much of the mixing was complete before the tape even rolled. Then 2 instrumental tracks would be "bounced" to 1 track, freeing up another track. The meticulous attention to detail involved is astounding. As equipment evolved and producers and engineers with less trained ears began pushing these machines further the overall quality of recordings became somewhat spotty. Many people refer to Dark Side of the Moon when listing great recordings of the early 70's. It is no suprise when you consider that Alan Parsons was the main engineer, having been under the tutelage of George Martin and crew during the later Beatles recordings. Also, remember that good audio gear with bring out the worst in a recording, as well as the best. Many Rolling Stones recordings of the 70's were somewhat messy to begin with, and the early CD releases were inferior. Remixed and/or remastered versions are much more pleasant to listen to. Ditto on most Led Zeppelin CD first released, although I think my vinyl versions sound quite good.

I agree.

Another thing I've noticed,
many late 70's - 80's recordings, as well as many "new" DDD cds suffer from being too "busy" .
Too many tracks, mixed down to stereo = mud.

True. As the number of available tracks grew the recording process changed. Instead of recording the band more or less live, then dubbing additional parts as required, it became the norm to record a basic track (say drums with scratch guitar and bass) then record each instrument individually (and in stereo). At this point the track would be mixed down. Now, each instrument individually may sound great but after mixing down say 10 to 12 instruments, each in stereo for a total of 20-24 tracks plus vocals (lead vocals alone may be recorded twice, possibly both in stereo (most likely both in mono, then each track panned an almost microscopic amount from each other, this makes the voice fuller without being distracting; listen to any Beatles or Beach Boys or any album from before the time of digital voice "dubbing"), for up to 4 tracks!). So now you have 30-plus tracks and possibly MANY more. Well, you can see what might happen. Now, not all track are always mixed in 2-channel stereo. Take the bass guitar. But you will still have at least 2 tracks for the bass, DI and a mic on a speaker. More likely, you will have more than one mic since bass players are likely to have a mix of speakers, like 1 15" and 2 10" or 2x15 and 4x10 or blah blah blah. Drums are usually either placed in the middle or each drum is panned just slightly to either side to give the spatial impression of a live drum set. Each individual drum doesn't need to be recorded in stereo for this. And to this whole thing there are overhead drum mikes, an omni or 2, maybe a piezo or 2 around the room for ambient sound. Throw in a mike on the pedal side of the kick drum, maybe an extra mike on the back side of the guitar amp (?) etc, etc, etc.

There are, of course, many recordings from any rock/pop era that stand the test of time, regardless of equipment used or the style of music or the recording techniques. It comes back to the competence of the personnell involved, from band to engineers to producer. Equipment used is not the deciding factor. Listen to the remarkable "The Pet Sounds Sessions" by the Beach Boys. The whole backing track on each session was recorded "live," as a group (by some of the best studio musicians of the day, to be sure). Overdubs usually consisted only of strings and vocals. The remarkable clarity and cohesiveness of the sound is a testament to Brian Wilson's and the engineer's (tracks were laid in more than one studio)mastery of their craft. Believe me, there are PLENTY of professional producers and engineers that couldn't reproduce that sound with all the gear in the world.

Glad to hear you survived that accident bigjohn. I also owned an 81 280ZX that was mint. Used to love to cruze for hours at a time and listen to "Let me take you home tonight" over and over and over and over again Just kidding Ken, I know what your talking about, one of my drinking buddies back in highschool used to love The Clash, as I did, except when he played "Should I Stary or Should I Go" over and over on a road trip to K.C. one time..

I had a '76 280Z (bought in '79) and I LOVED that thing. We also looked at Vettes. At 6'3" and 230 (at that time), I needed a 46 long and the vettes came in a 44 regular. Also rode like a truck.

With the Z, I actually pulled the seat 2 notches forward to drive it. Also had plenty of room under the hatchback for golf clubs and such. Finally, it ran like a scalded dog and held the road like a piece of tape.

I am now driving my 3rd Maxima (bought in May) since 1994. At the point where both my wife and I are retired, I see a 350Z convertible in my future. Of course, at my age, I'll probably forget.

Er, what were we talking about?

i am not sure on the year model of his, but i thinkm it was like a 79 or 80. it was that silver grey color, had an inline 6 motor with a 6 speed manual transmission. it was definitely a BAD ride, er, it was before he flipped it. that was the car that i went my fastest ever in an automobile. there is a little town outside of san angelo called eola, population of about 6. there was a rancher out there that ran a little bar for the fellow ranchers and 'help' to come have a beer. he used to serve minors, so we would always go out there and get beer when we were in high school. its a 21 mile trip, and we made it in 9 minutes in that 280ZX. he hit a top speed of 165MPH. my a$$ was so puckered, i could have made diamonds from coal. i was scared, very scared. i have never gone that fast since, and have no desire to.

but, it was one fantastic car. in fact, i had my 15 year high school reunion this past summer, and him and i talked about the whole incident. our wives thought we were crazy

bigjohn

This may be just a bit off topic, well, maybe not.
But, if anyone is interested in hearing some of the most amazingly recorded "modern" stuff out there, pick up something from David Grisman's Acoustic Disc lable, especially one of the "Tone Poems" discs. The attention to the craft of playing is only exceeded by the attention paid to the craft of recording and mastering.
And the other stuff that has really stood out for me lately is Bill Frisell's stuff on Nonesuch. Especially "Blues Dream" and the Frisell/Holland/Jones disc.
The above stuff sounded damn good on my old system, now it is simply jaw dropping.
And I'm not even going to get started on any of the old stories about me and a buddy scaring the PISS out of ourselves in his old TR7 back in '76 or '77.
Oh What the F**K- The one where we were sliding down the side of the road, sticky side up, shiny side down, with mud and grass getting shoved in under the t-top, while J. Geils Blow Your Face Off was blasting is pretty funny in retrospect.

That is great Ray3....my 81 was silver and had the straight 6, awesome engine, and 6 speed to boot, dang I mis that car, maybe I'll have to check out the new 350Z My wife wants one of the new Mustang convertibles, hmmmm those are pretty sweet also..I'm actually more of a GM man now, so if the internet rumors come true and the Camaro comes back in 2007 for its 40th anniversary, I'm all over that as I've owned an 81 Berlinetta Camaro and a 91 RS also...