What makes a good recording?

[rgriffin25]

I know many of us have several recordings of various popular works. I know I have at least 5 different recordings of Beethoven's 5th Symphony. I also know it is very easy to create a bias to a certain recording because it is what we are familiar with. For example, I know the tempo the conductor chooses to use is one of the first things I notice. Perhaps a recording has a Double Bass solo that really projects over the orchestra in one recording and in the other it is non-existant.

So what are the criteria a recording must meet for you to really like it?

Here are a few that are important to me:

1. There must be a lot of depth to the recording. It is important to hear all the instruments on the stage. I feel that the timbre and the note building the chord are very important and should not be covered by other instruments. I also feel that there should be a huge dynamic range which adds to the depth of the recording.

2. I generally pick a newer recording over an older one. We all know how much recording technology has improved over the years. It is not as pleasing to me to listen to an older recording no matter how good the performance is.
(Not to say I can't appreciate the quality of a great performance)

3. I try really hard not to form biases on recordings I own and try to appreciate each one for what it is. Unless the symphony was recorded with the composer conducting (in most cases NOT LIKELY) we should understand each conductor will have his own unique style and interpretation. (that is after all what they are paid for)

4. Realism. When I close my eyes do I feel like I am in the concert hall? I know this can have a lot to do with my equipment and my room but, even with that being said I know there can still be a big difference between recordings.

I am very interested in what any of you might have to say regarding this. Even if you disagree.

 

[Mudcat]

What's Best?

I'll agree with your points and add my observations based on what my wife tells me I want!

I'll limit my observations to classical because most rock/jazz/other is limited to the company the act is signed with.

The Orchestra is probably the most important single aspect of a good recording. Listening to Brahms 4th by the Podunk Symphony Orchestra of West ButtF_ _ _, Idaho in no way compares to the Cleveland, NY Phil, London, of even my own NSO. It's who can afford the talent.

The conductor has a lot of control over the sound of said orchestra, especially when the piece is very dissident.

The label. The recording company and the engineers it hires can make the best sound like a high school marching band. Companies like Sony and Telerac can do this to the greatest of outfits. Therefore my wife tells me to get Columbia (even though it is owned by Sony I think) or a European label. For some reason, the European companies know how to record classical music better than those on this side of the pond, whether the master is analog or digital.

And if I want your opinion, I'll give it to you.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

I happen to be the assistant guest conductor and locker room attendant of the Podunk Symphony Orchestra of West ButtF_ _ _, Idaho, and I find your remarks very offensive!



Actually, that somehow reminded me of one of Peter Schickle's old "P.D.Q. Bach" records, which was in the form of a "broadcast" from WOOF, the radio station of "The University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople", the "center" of P.D.Q. Bach research. Anyway...

4. Realism. When I close my eyes do I feel like I am in the concert hall? I know this can have a lot to do with my equipment and my room but, even with that being said I know there can still be a big difference between recordings.

That's it, basically!

Anal-retentive type that I am, I tend to regard the "recording" (the combination of microphone choice/placement, sound engineering, and hall or studio acoustics) as separate from the performance, which y'all seem to have conflated here.

Not sure I agree with the comment about Europeans doing a better job with classical. Not many others could top John Eargle's recordings of various American orchestras over his career, for instance, purely as "recordings" in the sense above. Deutche Grammophon's recorded orchestral sound was pretty mediocre in the 70s and 80s IMO. Too bad for all those otherwise great performances they recorded.

 

[rgriffin25]

For some reason, the European companies know how to record classical music better than those on this side of the pond, whether the master is analog or digital.

From what I have read some of these "Major" European Orchestras have a sizeable collection of fine instruments. This could be an explanation as to why they may "sound" better.

 

[rgriffin25]

I happen to be the assistant guest conductor and locker room attendant of the Podunk Symphony Orchestra of West ButtF_ _ _, Idaho, and I find your remarks very offensive!

Hey Rip,

I'll be graduating soon, and I was wondering if you can get me a position in the Double Bass section.

 

[fdrennen]

2. I generally pick a newer recording over an older one. We all know how much recording technology has improved over the years. It is not as pleasing to me to listen to an older recording no matter how good the performance is.
(Not to say I can't appreciate the quality of a great performance)

I find that most of the older recordings esspecially the Living Stereo, Mercury and a lot of other recordings have a much more realistic sound because of their minimal mike recordings. Not to mention some of the great conductors. the newer recordings remind me of going to a outdoor concert these days. You have over zealous engineers with a mike on everything and you lose the perspective of the group that is playing before you.

 

[Dan]

I think good recordings art partly engineering, art and psychology. Some of the best jazz recordings are the old Blue Notes of the 50s and 60s. More modern examples include Chessky and Mapleshade. They all have in common very simple setups with minimum miking and minimal eq, electronic reverb and other "post recording processing".

Commercial studios also are not very kind to any but the most famous artists. Less famous artists operare under time pressures due to hourly rates and other related expenses. Mapleshade for instances houses and feeds the musicians and does not charge an hourly rate. The record is done when its done.

Marketing concerns affect how some popular albums are mixed as well (negatively) which have been well documented previously at this site with regards to elevated recording levels and subsequent loss of dynamic range.

When a great recording is made it is truly a thing of beauty. I now have to consider this factor during listening sessions. I have to work up to the best recordings and then stop. You can't go backward.

 

[hopjohn]

my thoughts

2. I generally pick a newer recording over an older one. We all know how much recording technology has improved over the years. It is not as pleasing to me to listen to an older recording no matter how good the performance is.
(Not to say I can't appreciate the quality of a great performance)

Yes, but doesn't it bother you to know that there are say 85 recordings of a particular performance and say 6 of them are outstanding and you just want to buy one over another becuse it's newer. I don't get why you would give so little regard to the perfomance simply because the clarity may be a little better on a newer recording. Is the added noise really so bothersome so as to overlook a great performance? It's like buying a movie with a great transfer that has 23 chapters of dookie.

Anyway....

Often technically good recordings are fluke recordings

The best recordings happen in part by mistake in my opinion. There are definitely fundamental things that you want to do with mike placements and arrangement etc., but there are so many other variables. I feel in large part it just comes down to trial and error. An engineer has to work frequently in a particular place, with particular musicians, playing particular kinds of music, for a particular period of time, to get all the best. Even then they may not get it completely right. Then on the other side of the coin, someone might just luck into the perfect setup, and then never be able to replicate it quite the same again.


Perception

Another thing is, as listeners, we will learn a certain way of hearing something played, particularly the first time we hear it, that makes everything afterward seem different and frequently not as good in our minds. A perfect example of that occured with me with my first experience with Pink Floyd. It was their work on The Delicate Sound of Thunder, a live recording. I recommended it to a few people who'd already heard their studio work and they later told me that they thought it was awful. I'd already learned to enjoy it and appreciate it since it was the first thing I'd listen to by them. Later when I heard their studio recordings, I felt that the studio work didn't have all the raw emotion in it that the stage perfomances did, but I could understand from a fidelity standpoint why those I had suggested it to felt the way they did, even if I didn't agree.

 

[toquemon]

Perception

Another thing is, as listeners, we will learn a certain way of hearing something played, particularly the first time we hear it, that makes everything afterward seem different and frequently not as good in our minds. A perfect example of that occured with me with my first experience with Pink Floyd. It was their work on The Delicate Sound of Thunder, a live recording. I recommended it to a few people who'd already heard their studio work and they later told me that they thought it was awful. I'd already learned to enjoy it and appreciate it since it was the first thing I'd listen to by them. Later when I heard their studio recordings, I felt that the studio work didn't have all the raw emotion in it that the stage perfomances did, but I could understand from a fidelity standpoint why those I had suggested it to felt the way they did, even if I didn't agree.

The same thing happened to me. I don't like earlier Studio Recordings of Pink Floyd; i love The Delicate Sound of Thunder because i think a have the band in front of me. This is a masterpiece of recording technique (let's remember this is a live recording). The Pulse Album is even better.

 

[jaxvon]

Steely Dan. 'Nuff said.

 

[gregz]

I'z GOTS to chime in with fdrennen on this one. When it comes to recording anything acoustic, less is more. Leave close miking and aggressive mixing for rock'n roll.

I enjoy the symphonic recordings from the 60's that weren't overly dickered with. You can hear the coughs in the audience, you can hear a bit of microphone hiss... But with along with that baggage, you can hear the hall, and you can FEEL the music!

 

[gregz]

Toquemon and Hopjohn, true about Pink Floyd's 'Thunder recording. Early U2 is also MUCH better on "Under a Blood Red Sky" than studio. The band has to be up to the task though; Crosby Stills and Nash, for instance, were strictly a recording studio group.

Best of all live VS studio is the Eagles "Hell Freezes Over." No adjustment period is even necessary for those biased to the original studio recordings.

 

[rgriffin25]

Beethoven Symphony Cycle

I have recently added some new DVD-A recordings of Beethoven Symphonies to my collection. They are performed by Berlin Philharmonic and conducted by Claudio Abbado. I have Symphonies 1-6 and plan to add the others soon. If you are looking for a good multi-channel recording of these symphonies look no further. The performances are very energetic and have great dynamic contrast.