have audiophiles taken over home recording?

[4tracker]

just watching youtube and reading forums, people seem obsessive about having perfectly clean signals with perfect speakers in a perfectly soundproof room. just wondering why this is considered musical nirvana. delta blues, 90s lo-fi, etc to me show that the song is all that matters. can you imagine delta blues on hi-fi gear? i bet it would lose a lot. people obsess over this stuff, imo. just wondering if it bugs anyone else.

 

[Greg_L]

Having a clean recording doesn't make anyone an audiophile.

 

[c7sus]

just watching youtube and reading forums, people seem obsessive about having perfectly clean signals with perfect speakers in a perfectly soundproof room. just wondering why this is considered musical nirvana. delta blues, 90s lo-fi, etc to me show that the song is all that matters. can you imagine delta blues on hi-fi gear? i bet it would lose a lot. people obsess over this stuff, imo. just wondering if it bugs anyone else.

I don't get that same impression.

There are plenty more folks out there trying to get a million-dollar sound out of $500 (or less) worth of gear and wondering why it isn't working out.

 

[JimmyS1969]

Huh?

 

[4tracker]

I don't get that same impression.

There are plenty more folks out there trying to get a million-dollar sound out of $500 (or less) worth of gear and wondering why it isn't working out.

Why is the million dollar sound the goal, though? What is wrong with a $500 sound? So many great recordings were done on terrible equipment.

Maybe I've watched too many youtubes today. The people on there are doing a good service but putting up informative videos, but I think they've completely lost the spirit of music by focusing on gear and specifically everything being clean as possible. I wish there was more acceptance and embracing of lo-fi.

I feel computers are somewhat to blame because they cleaned up the signal compared to 4-tracks.

 

[miroslav]

I wish there was more acceptance and embracing of lo-fi.

Stop by the Analog forum....lot of guys there doing the lo-fi thing.

Personally....I think computers or tape recorders have little to do with "hi or lo-fi" sound.
You can record with pristine mic techniques, using very transparent gear....and still make a "lo-fi" sounding record.
IOW....to me, lo-fi isn't about using crappy or limited gear...it's about the intent of the recording.
You can set up a very grungy guitar sound, and then capture it in the cleanest way possible....and it will still be a grungy guitar sound.

Also...ignore the majority of home-recording info YT videos.
Many of those people are misguided about recording in general, IMHO.

 

[4tracker]

Also...ignore the majority of home-recording info YT videos.
Many of those people are misguided about recording in general, IMHO.

Yes, I think this is the problem. A guy reciting blues licks into a $3,000 mic and spouting rhetoric how you need shielded this and that because you can't have any noise. It just really annoyed me. Some noise sucks, some is interesting, and some is neutral/doesn't matter.

 

[c7sus]

Why is the million dollar sound the goal, though? What is wrong with a $500 sound? So many great recordings were done on terrible equipment.

Maybe I've watched too many youtubes today. The people on there are doing a good service but putting up informative videos, but I think they've completely lost the spirit of music by focusing on gear and specifically everything being clean as possible. I wish there was more acceptance and embracing of lo-fi.

I feel computers are somewhat to blame because they cleaned up the signal compared to 4-tracks.

So when was the last time you heard an Alan Lomax recording on the radio?

And once upon a time 4-track recording cleaned up the signal compared to mono recordings.

Hell, once upon a time before there were DC servo motors Abbey Road studios employed physicists to run their recording process. They built a tower with a heavy stone that powered the cutting lathe that the records were made on. They liked to get tracks in one take because nobody wanted to crank the stone back up to the top of the tower for another take.

If Lomax had digital field recorders in the 30's and 40's he would have used them. As it was he was using the latest portable recording technology available at the time. Same goes for ribbon and condenser mics which were the ultimate in US and German engineering at the time they were introduced.

In terms of lo-fi, how much more lo-fi does it get when most folks are listening to MP3's, which have a fraction of the original WAV content that was committed to disc and using cheap earbuds and bass-hyped headphones? No part of that signal chain represents a high-fidelity playback of the original recorded source material.

 

[c7sus]

Do you think the noise in your recordings adds something to the content that would be lacking in a better-recorded and mixed final product?

You don't seem to be having any problem sounding lo-fi.

 

[4tracker]

I'm not sure. Those recordings are old, done on a 4-track as a teenager.

Is the point to get on radio?

I get your point about lomax. But was he obsessing over noise in his signal chain or was he out there recording? We'll never really know. Watching youtube, it seems like everyone is obsessed with pristine signals. Zero noise. I understand that noise can fatigue the ear, but not low levels. So what is actually so great about a pristine signal? Is all noise bad? What about brown, pink, and white noise. What about feedback? Distortion. Even analog clipping. All of it has been used in recordings, and each can sound good.

By the way, I have a PC studio, a digital field recorder, and a 4-track. All have their place. The pristine signal even has its place. But why is it the gold standard and why obsess over it? That's what I don't understand.

 

[mixsit]

It is about the music first. And it is easy to get the cart before the horse- in priorities. (I.e. we're all flawed' in various ways, or varying degrees at different times..
Heck, wasn't there someone in this thread stressing about having a too clean palate !

 

[Seafroggys]

Its all about the source. Make the source dirty and low-fi, and then capture it with the best stuff you have access to.

 

[Greg_L]

But why is it the gold standard and why obsess over it?

Because most people don't want to sound like shit if they can help it. How is that a bad thing? If it's all about the song, why not make it sound good? It goes both ways. I think it's equally lame to make a shitty recording on purpose when you can do better. A lot of old lo-fi shit isn't lo-fi on purpose or because it's cute, it's because those bands didn't have the time, budget, or support to make better recordings.

 

[gecko zzed]

It doesn't matter what era you are in, nor what technology you had available to you, since recording first began with Edison sing "Baa baa blacksheep", practitioners (generally) have been trying their hardest to get the best recorded representation of the musical performance.

People use the technology that's available, and do their best with it. This point has already been made in earlier posts. People did not set out to deliberately degrade their recording efforts. I concede, though, that some studios were not as particular about their sound as they might have been: I was listening to some sixties music which was very poorly recorded compared to what else was available at the time. However, that too applies to all eras.

But I do agree with the OP to the extent that there are many cases where the technology and love of it has taken over from the quality of performance, and the ability to ultra-refine the music has, in many cases, robbed it of life, spontaneity and geniuneness.

 

[DM60]

I think Gecko hits pretty close to the mark. You always want to get the best sound you can. I am not a purist but still want as fine a recording as I possibly can.

OP - best way to look at this is, use this purist approach as a reference. Then apply it to the best of your ability. Case in point, room treatment. I watch all of these guys going for gold. I probably won't go for the gold, but knowing where that is and taking some tips get's me to a better place. I was able to improve my room sound for tracking and mixing for less than $100. Just by reading the tips and then applying them to the best of my abilities and budget. While you may not get to the top, having reference information to improve is still always the goal, whether it is performance or recording the performance.

 

[Steenamaroo]

BING BING Gecko wins.

It's not that long ago that the musicians were here and the men in white coats (literally) were over there.
Look into Motown, if you don't already know. That place was closer to a science lab than a recording studio.

People bang on about Nirvana and 'raw' sounding this yada yada blah blah, but look at some of the documentaries.
They were recording through gold.

The engineers goal, with some exceptions, has always been to capture the sound as best he can.

everyone is obsessed with pristine signals.

Don't worry about what everyone appears to want.
'Everyone' who arrives on this forum wants abbey road recordings for less than $50. It means nothing.

 

[Btyre2013]

Classical music is 100 times better on digital than it ever was with analogue gear, what's wrong with actually liking clarity and clean sounds? It depends on the style you are creating, some things do suit a bit of character, like rock, some forms of popular music, and jazz. It's knowing when to use lofi and knowing when not to use it that counts

 

[Seafroggys]

Yeah digital recording and playback was entirely intended for classical music, that was the driving force behind CD's.

 

[DM60]

Yeah digital recording and playback was entirely intended for classical music, that was the driving force behind CD's.

I have a digitally remaster vinyl recording of Star Wars music. I have some early CDs that were remaster for digital that made a disclaimer that some of the noise was part of the source. Probably tape hiss was the main source issue.

 

[4tracker]

It doesn't matter what era you are in, nor what technology you had available to you, since recording first began with Edison sing "Baa baa blacksheep", practitioners (generally) have been trying their hardest to get the best recorded representation of the musical performance.

People use the technology that's available, and do their best with it. This point has already been made in earlier posts. People did not set out to deliberately degrade their recording efforts. I concede, though, that some studios were not as particular about their sound as they might have been: I was listening to some sixties music which was very poorly recorded compared to what else was available at the time. However, that too applies to all eras.

But I do agree with the OP to the extent that there are many cases where the technology and love of it has taken over from the quality of performance, and the ability to ultra-refine the music has, in many cases, robbed it of life, spontaneity and geniuneness.

I agree with this post the most. Doesn't mean it's right or anything. Just like lo-fi or pristine aren't right. They are opposite ends of a spectrum so tend to generate passion/emotion when discussing (i.e. nobody argues about mid-fi, really).

I guess my overarching point is this: is it possible we're taking the clean signal too far? My gut, when watching people get OCD about it on youtube, was yes. If we concede lo-fi is usually more from necessity than the ideal, and that the modern pristine signals are the polar opposite, can't it be reasoned that both of these extremes lack something? Lo-fi lacks clarity, spacing, etc. Pristine lacks...something. It's like being on the phone and hearing silence on the other end. We expect to hear some noise and it's comforting. Zero noise is distant, cold, etc. Maybe this is why there's so much demand for plugins that make digital music seem analog. I don't think it's possible to get a pristine, noiseless analog recording.

Also, side point: does anyone feel Lomax's recordings would lose the "mystique" (whatever intangible that is) if they were recorded pristine on modern daws? I ask because I go to that music many times for the sound rather than the songs...

I spoke to a friend about this, and he felt that the gearheads and people who are really into pristine signal are compensating for bad songs. Interesting theory. But in all the youtube videos I watched yesterday there did seem to be this unspoken idea that "if i only get piece of gear ___ i will make a great record."