In Reply to: Re: I don't completely agree with all of that. posted by audioengr on November 23, 2006 at 10:12:08:
.......they didn't do multi-tracking and overdubs like we do today. They had a few mics in the room and very few tracks of tape running in real time. And for that reason alone the musicians were expected to perform well into the recording medium of their day. That's exactly what I meant about "performance" accounting for most of how the record is going to sound. The same concept still applies today, even though we have 96 tracks of Pro Tools and we think we can "fix it in the mix".We can use tools like EQ, reverb, and compressors in the recording process to enhance the multitrack experience. For example, some guys really know how to play the bass into a compressor and get fantastic results. It's an extension of their instrument and it's how they get their sound. That's why I don't think it's fair to say that all compression is bad, or all processing ruins the dynamic range.
Of course none of my comments are directed at controling a home playback system. I have absolutely no experience trying to integrate electronic room correction or digital EQ into my home stereo. I think I would get confused trying to decide how to make all my records sound better with such tools.
I think we're saying the same thing.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- That's right. Back in the 50s and 60s . . . - Quiet Earth 21:51:15 11/23/06 (2)
- Re: That's right. Back in the 50s and 60s . . . - audioengr 12:19:53 11/24/06 (0)
- The late 30's to the early 60's were the golden years of audio! nt. - George Mann 02:24:36 11/24/06 (0)