Jump to content

J. Gordon Holt on recording quality- 1975


Recommended Posts

So what do you think?  Should we do as he suggests, and mail letters to the record companies asking for "answers to the questions we all ask ourselves when we audition a new recording?"

 

To this end, we are going to start by mailing letters to the major record companies, asking for answers to some of the questions we all ask ourselves from time to time when we audition a new recording. Where we go from there will depend on whether their response indicates an interest in cooperating with us, or whether they dismiss us as insolent spokesmen for the lunatic fringe. We will publish our letters, as well as the replies, for the edification of all.

 

 

Do people still audition new recordings these days?  Does one audition an MP3 from iTunes and then return it to Apple if it isn't satisfactory?  :unsure:

 

I'm afraid times have moved on a bit since the article was published in 1975.  I'm just old enough to remember when articles were "published" on quaint paper missives called "magazines" one could purchase with "cash" at a "store front" to which one actually had to drive?   :lol:

Edited by wvu80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, there were some GHASTLY LPs in the 70s.  Rumors of a lot of recycled vinyl and people finding bits of old label sticking out of the record, "Dynawarp,"  thin sound,  etc.

 

I've thrown away a lot of LPs with sonic values too low to make their contents worth having. 

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what do you think? Should we do as he suggests, and mail letters to the record companies asking for "answers to the questions we all ask ourselves when we audition a new recording?"

 

If we do nothing, then nothing will change.  Email is a lot easier (and cheaper) than snail mail was.  Web sites that sell downloadable music that also have comments and ratings should be used including (but not limited to) Amazon, etc.

 

I remember when I was young, that when I saw a new phonograph record with either "Capitol" or "Atlantic" on the cover that there was a high probability that the music on that record was somehow hosed up.  Basic statistics proved my gut feel to be correct.

 

Nowadays there are similar labels (or even the same ones) that really screw up the mastering of digital releases and other labels that release "remastered" discs that are categorically trashed: these music tracks are compressed and clipped, sometimes with EQ that boosts highs and cuts lows even more than the original releases.

 

Squeaky wheel gets the grease.  What Mr. Holt wrote in 1975 is even more apropos today, IMHO.

 

Chris

Edited by Chris A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do people still audition new recordings these days? Does one audition an MP3 from iTunes and then return it to Apple if it isn't satisfactory? :unsure:

 

I listen to the short clips on Amazon before buying discs, and I return discs or otherwise ask for my money back if there is something wrong with the discs themselves. 

 

By way of example for my prior posting, here is a title that I bought with my hard earned money in 1974 (Atlantic):

 

cover_27288182010.jpg

 

The sixth track on this record ("Heather") had so much surface noise on it that the solo Fender-Rhodes piano parts couldn't be heard above the noise. I had to wait until 2013 when I bought the CD to actually hear the track without the noise.  Even then, the track needed remastering (IMHO).

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that things really haven't changed much in terms of poor quality recordings.

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/weakest-link-2

 

Maynard

 

Then and now, the recording companies don't give a sh*t.  They tell themselves that "most people" could not tell the difference between a good recording and a bad one.  I disagree.  I will bet if you brought in hundreds of people off the street and played them a series of recordings off the first generation masters either as is, or limited, compressed, midrange/treble boosted, and what ever other evil things they do to recordings to customize them for the mythic audience of "most people," the vast majority would prefer the unaltered recordings.

 

We should remind them that we like it good.

Edited by garyrc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

His point seems to be SS vs. Tubes

"We will also be investigating such things as what happens when you replace the solid-state electronics of an excellent recorder like the Revox A-77 with tube electronics patterned after the Audio Research SP3A-1, why it is that some of the most sought-after custom recording studios in the country are using tube-type electronics, and why manufacturers of professional tape recorders consider a frequency response of ±2dB to be "adequately smooth" when most of us can readily hear a broadband deviation of less than ±0.5 dB."

It is going to be interesting to see what he says about these subjects. His facts are wrong about the specs, and he doesn't seem to understand the recording process, at least the analog chain part of it, but always glad to see people write up about reel to reel.

Travis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

"If we do nothing, then nothing will change. Email is a lot easier (and cheaper) than snail mail was. Web sites that sell downloadable music that also have comments and ratings should be used including (but not limited to) Amazon, etc."

GaryRC made the very astute comment that the record companies mix/master for the masses, and I obviously agree with that. I looked up Chris's example of the LP with a bad track on Amazon and the lp (they obviously don't rate by track) was rated 5 out of 5 stars. I don't think the general public will ever get it, they are happy with Beats and MP4.

Forums like Steve Hoffman's site have a lot of folks who give some excellent thoughts about which version of what particular recording.

"I remember when I was young, that when I saw a new phonograph record with either "Capitol" or "Atlantic" on the cover that there was a high probability that the music on that record was somehow hosed up. Basic statistics proved my gut feel to be correct."

What do you attribute that to? The stampers, the raw vinyl, pressing equipment, the technology if the times?

I don't think it is the recording equipment, well I know it isn't.

It isn't the studio design, Capitol was state of the art, so was Atlantic. I have toured the Capitol Studio A and B and have read about Atlantic. I guess it could vary based on the recording engineer, but Atlantic had a guy named Tom Dowd who was at the forefront of multitrack recording, which was in turn based on the work that Capital had pioneered.

The early stereo mixes by Capitol were terrible, not to mention the fake stereo, Duophonic, but the mono versions are all fine.

Would be interesting to see if there is any commonality in the bad recordings.

Travis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you attribute that to? The stampers, the raw vinyl, pressing equipment, the technology of the times?

 

Travis,

 

All the issues that I heard were clearly related to pressings.  When you buy yet another brand new phonograph record to replace the one that you believe was scratched, and you find that all the copies that you and your friends own have the "scratches" at the same places on the albums--it doesn't take much deduction to figure out why.  The same comment applies to the surface noise and warps on the discs. 

 

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link--so they say.  Capitol and Atlantic made it clear to me that they didn't really care about my purchase of their products in the late 60s and all through the 1970s.  I remember, too...quite clearly.  I really don't care for phonograph records in general due to the apparently never ending problems that I personally experienced during the "heyday of LP sales".  It was one poor experience after another, I'm afraid. The medium itself isn't robust...it's quite delicate and perishable in fact when considered in terms of its supposed "hi-fi reproduction" characteristics--just playing the discs.

 

However, I've personally never owned a CD that had significant quality control issues from the time of purchase: all of them are far superior in terms of effectively deployed quality control relative to LPs.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...