Well, even though I listed rap and hip-hop in my list, I must admit there are far far fewer tracks in my collection and very little time exploring. I guess one of the stipulations I do make about music is that it has to be creative MUSICALLY, not just socially or lyrically. I worked years ago with a music producer who likened rap to comic books - that the whole idea is to listen once, get the effect, then throw it away. Nothing wrong with that - nothing wrong with comic books - but for me I’m looking for something with some musical staying power. I have found a few rap artists who do seem to care about the innovation of the music behind their words. One is K’Naan, a Somali-born musician. The album of his I’ve heard most is 2005’s The Dusty Foot Philosopher. Check out “If Rap Gets Jealous” and “Strugglin’” And don’t just turn it off after a few seconds, they develop musically.
Just a follow-up… No. 22 got published today. As mentioned, no HDTT content but all excellent pure DSD256 recordings from Eudora, Hunnia and Yarlung.
Hi Ruston, I couldn’t figure out at who best to direct this post, but since it has to do with HDTT, I figure you’re a good target.
One of my favorite musicians, since dedicating more of my attention to the QUALITY of recordings, not just the quality of performance, is Madeleine Peyroux. With my being more of a jazz fan than other styles, her association with the genre certainly got my attention, but I also love how she pushes the borders of her music into the alternative, singer-songwriter realm. I also love how she seems, like certain other musicians, like Rebecca Pidgeon, Diana Krall, Sara K., Amber Rubarth, etc., to just naturally fit well into the audiophile world. I just purchased her newest album - came out yesterday - “Let’s Walk” and it doesn’t disappoint in either music or audio. Wonderful capture of her rich vocals, beautifully-crafted sound staging for her backup “choruses” and phenomenal rendering of other instruments. Her songwriting and lyrics are better than ever. My only disappointment was the lack of improvised instrumental solos, which she almost always has, but that’s a small quibble in this case.
But here’s where you come in. Peyroux is often compared to Billie Holiday - stylistically and she just sounds like her. So after listening to “Let’s Walk,” I had to check out my recent purchase from HDTT of Billie Holidays 1957 album “Songs For Distingué Lovers”. I have to tell you that the more pre-1965 stereo recordings I get from HDTT, the more I think the engineers at that time might have been close to the best at creating a realistic soundstage. Closing my eyes, I was surrounded by the music in every dimension - IN the studio. The sound of Ben Webster’s sax and Harry “Sweets” Edison’s trumpet are so perfect for the “venue” and the rhythm section swings - not just musically, but sonically as well. I am honestly hearing a component of swing I didn’t appreciate as much before - made possible by high-end audio. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m fine with 96/24, so if I’m getting what I am from that resolution, the value of these recordings is in the remastering, not the format for sure.
Simpler miking is almost always better.
Amusingly, Ms. Peyroux denies she sounds like Billie Holiday, at least in early interviews.
and @JLawry
For what it’s worth, I asked Pythia (what I call Chat GPT) to help me define what makes pre-1965 recordings sound better.
Here’s what she told me:
My question: Hello Pythia! Please, can you tell me why musical recordings, from around the mid-1950s up to the mid-1960s and maybe into the 1970s seem to sound better than the recordings that came afterwards?
Her answer:
Hello! The perception that musical recordings from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s (and perhaps into the 1970s) sound better than those from later periods can be attributed to several factors, both technical and cultural. Here are some key reasons:
-
Analog Recording Techniques:
- During the 1950s and 1960s, recordings were typically made using analog equipment, such as magnetic tape and tube-based amplifiers. These analog recordings are often praised for their warm, natural sound, which many listeners find more pleasing compared to the digital recordings that became prevalent later.
-
High-Quality Engineering:
- This period saw some of the best recording engineers and producers, who placed a strong emphasis on capturing the best possible sound. Techniques like careful microphone placement, minimal overdubbing, and live recording of musicians together in the studio contributed to a high-quality sound.
-
Tape Saturation:
- Analog tape recording can introduce a pleasing distortion known as tape saturation, which can add warmth and richness to the sound. This subtle effect is often lost in digital recordings, which strive for more clinical precision.
-
Mastering Practices:
- Mastering practices in the 1950s and 1960s were often more conservative, focusing on preserving the dynamic range of the recordings. In contrast, the loudness war that began in the 1990s led to more aggressive compression and limiting, reducing the dynamic range and sometimes affecting the overall sound quality.
-
Vinyl Records:
- Music from this era was primarily released on vinyl records, which many audiophiles prefer for their analog sound characteristics. The process of mastering for vinyl often involved careful equalization and dynamic range control to suit the format, contributing to a distinctive sound.
-
Cultural and Musical Factors:
- The music itself, along with the cultural context, plays a role. The mid-1950s to mid-1960s was a period of significant musical innovation and creativity, with genres like rock and roll, jazz, and early pop music flourishing. The excitement and experimentation of the time are often reflected in the recordings.
-
Nostalgia and Subjectivity:
- Personal and cultural nostalgia can also influence the perception of sound quality. People who grew up listening to music from this era may associate it with positive memories and experiences, enhancing their perception of its sound quality.
While digital recording technology has its advantages, such as greater flexibility and precision, many listeners and audiophiles continue to appreciate the unique qualities of recordings from the mid-20th century. Advances in digital technology and techniques such as high-resolution audio and digital-to-analog converters aim to bridge the gap, but the charm of those early recordings remains significant for many music enthusiasts.
I then asked: With reference to my question above, can you elaborate more on the engineering and mastering practises that make the recordings from that era sound better?
Certainly! The engineering and mastering practices of the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s played a significant role in creating recordings that many listeners find appealing. Here are some key practices from that era:
Engineering Practices
-
Microphone Placement and Selection:
- Engineers used high-quality condenser microphones, like the Neumann U47, RCA 44 ribbon mics, and Shure SM57, known for their warmth and natural sound.
- Close attention was given to microphone placement to capture the best possible sound. Techniques like the “three-microphone setup” for orchestras and “close miking” for individual instruments and vocals were common.
-
Live Recording:
- Many recordings were made with musicians playing together in the studio, capturing the natural interaction and energy of live performances. This approach often resulted in a more cohesive and dynamic sound.
-
Minimal Overdubbing:
- Overdubbing was less common, and many recordings were made in one take or with minimal takes. This preserved the integrity and spontaneity of the performance.
-
Use of Analog Equipment:
- Tube-based equipment, such as preamplifiers, compressors, and equalizers, was widely used. Tube gear is known for adding warmth and musicality to recordings.
- Analog tape machines, such as the Ampex 300, were used to record and mix tracks. Tape saturation added harmonic distortion and compression, which many listeners find pleasing.
-
Room Acoustics:
- Studios were designed with acoustics in mind, often using natural room reverb and carefully placed baffles and gobos (portable walls) to control the sound.
Mastering Practices
-
Preserving Dynamic Range:
- Mastering engineers of the era focused on maintaining the dynamic range of recordings. They avoided excessive compression, allowing for a wide range of volume that conveyed more emotion and nuance.
-
Equalization:
- Equalization was used judiciously to enhance the natural tonal balance of recordings. Engineers aimed to bring out the best in the recordings without making them sound artificial or overly processed.
-
Mono and Early Stereo:
- Early recordings were often mono, which required careful attention to balance and mix. When stereo recording became more common, engineers used innovative techniques to create a natural and immersive stereo image.
-
Analog Mastering Chains:
- The entire mastering chain was analog, including tape machines, equalizers, and compressors. This contributed to the overall warm and cohesive sound of the final product.
-
Vinyl Mastering:
- Mastering for vinyl required specific techniques to ensure the record could be played back without distortion or skipping. This included careful management of low frequencies to prevent groove jumping and optimizing the high frequencies to avoid sibilance and distortion.
Examples of Renowned Engineers and Studios
-
Engineers:
- Rudy Van Gelder: Known for his work with jazz legends like John Coltrane and Miles Davis. His meticulous recording techniques and innovative use of space and equipment contributed to the iconic sound of many classic jazz recordings.
- George Martin: Often referred to as the “Fifth Beatle,” Martin’s innovative production and engineering techniques were crucial to the sound of The Beatles’ recordings.
-
Studios:
- Abbey Road Studios: Famous for its state-of-the-art equipment and innovative recording techniques, especially during the 1960s with The Beatles.
- Motown’s Hitsville U.S.A.: Known for its distinct sound, the studio’s use of live musicians, tight arrangements, and the in-house Funk Brothers band created many hits.
These engineering and mastering practices, combined with the musical talent and creativity of the era, contributed to the distinctive and beloved sound of recordings from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s.
Again, for what it’s worth.
Or, to the point, what Rushton has answered,
An ingesting experiment
Again, for what it’s worth.
It’s worth a LOT. Man, I am so torn - on one hand to read such a great summary, but on the other for it to be written by a computer. Scares me so much, all I want to do is go hide and listen to the music the computer just told me so much about.
Seriously, thanks. It really is a good summary in my opinion. The one thing I was concerned about is that so many of those techniques are still in play in the recording industry, so I’m left with my own further condensation for what constitutes the biggest differences between now and then:
- All-analog chain, including tape saturation
- Live recording - I have always found overdubbing and heavy emphasis on “sweetening” making it harder to keep the “humanity” element in the music.
- Vinyl mastering - Sometimes limitations are better - I was especially reminded of how even though one of the biggest advantages of digital is its extended dynamic range capability, it has so often been screwed by a preference for compression
- Culture, Music, Nostalgia - it’s impossible to go back entirely. It was what it was, and I’m grateful to have been alive to see some of it.
I think it was you who told me about the new HDTT release of the 1955 recording of Bartok’s Concerto for Orchestra / Fritz Reiner, Chicago Symphony I listened to that last night and what a phenomenal experience. I’ve always loved the CSO, but most often for its “balls to the wall” - not-afraid-to-let-instruments-do-what-they’re-capable-of – approach. OK, I’ll admit I’m a trumpet player and the CSO knows brass. But I was really surprised at how SUBTLE this recording is - fantastic dynamic range. The brass were big when they needed to be big, but the recording pulled out the amazing hidden gentleness of the brass beasts. And such a soundstage - a true “stage-stage” where you know exactly where everything is and is supposed to be. It also achieves something the best recordings do: creates defined space “between” the instruments. Every instrument unto itself. I really think this particular recording is what Bartok had in mind when he wrote the piece. Seriously.
Yeah, I’ve read that, but I know, she knows, she knows I know.
I was amazed when I heard her deny she sounds like Billie Holiday - delusion or remarkable lack of self-awareness.
No need to thank me. I just asked her a couple of questions.
Thank Pythia.
From her response the one thing that I have not heard of before is, Tape Saturation.
This is interesting, I think, because, I’ve often wondered why the reel-to-reel tapes, especially old reel-to-reel tapes, could be such a revered source for recording to and making copies from.
To me tapes were what you recorded your albums to to play in your car and with your walkman.
I know cassette tapes are not the same as reel-to-reel. Still, magnetic tape, subject to degradation over time.
Very good to hear that you enjoy the Bartok.
If I remember correctly, I was casting a supporting vote for the recording.
The initial mention of it came from someone else. Perhaps Rushton?
And, with your enthusiasm for the benefits of (some? most?) of the HDTT recordings, you make the exact arguments for DSD. 
If I may suggest that you, dare I say, owe it to yourself, to at least, find a way to hear some DSD files?
delusion or remarkable lack of self-awareness.
I would think it’s more of a typical artist thing. “WHAT? You’re saying WE sound like the BEATLES?” Nose in the air, “Please…”
OK, OK, I’ll run down to Walmart and buy a DSD player next chance I get. Seriously, you’re right.
For those looking to get into listening to DSD256 at a “modest” cost, I’ve been told by several the the FiiO line of equipment does a very good job on DSD. Their “all-in-one” desktop player, the FiiO R9, is a bit pricey at $1499, but is reported to me as doing a very good job on both DSD256 and DSD512. I haven’t heard this device, so I can’t offer a personal opinion, but I trust the ears of several who have recommended it.
But seriously. Not trying to brow-beat anyone into anything.
Is there a way that you can do a “taste-test” before committing to the format?
At least to hear if you are missing out or not?
Or, just tell us that you did get a DSD player of sorts and say that you love it and that you have new meaning and purpose for your musical life.
Would shut us all up and how would we ever know?
I have a “lesser” FIIO music player. The player does sound nice with headphones, and while it does have an analogue line out, the sound quality is MUCH lesser than my Panasonic 4k blu-ray disc player when using the audio line out, which at $1100 the Panasonic is a huge bargain.
I have not tried the more expensive FIIO that you have mentioned.
Find an audio friend you can visit and listen to different formats. Once upon a time I would have said “audio store” but they are so hard to find now.
No, I get it, and I don’t think you’re “brow-beating” as much as just telling me how stupid I am, to which I’ll say unequivocally, “You’re not alone.” But I’m afraid at this point in my musical and working career, there are some other improvements, like better loudspeakers, better DAC, standing in front of DSD. If I’m going to experiment with improvement - and I’m sure I will at some point - I think those are going to be my first picks. My brother, who has been an audiophile decades longer than I am, said after listening in my audio room, that from here on, the improvements aside from possibly loudspeakers, will be minor tweaks. Are those tweaks worth it? I guess for me it depends on how my retirement planning works out.
No. Not calling you stupid.
Stupid would be if you somehow do hear a better difference with DSD and then still do not set plans in motion for that upgrade.
Honestly, I cannot really say that DSD is better than PCM. I think/believe that it is a better format for listening and “archiving”. Kind of like RAW files for images, at least in my mind.
And I think that I have already mentioned that my current DSD capabilities are capped at DSD128. And I am not really looking to upgrade, yet. I still buy DSD 256 (HDTT) files when all of the lower resolutions files are included.
Follow your plan, as time and budget allow.
I think finding a way to somehow hear DSD files should be a short-term goal. So that you can then be able to maximize your future upgrade plans?
“…better DAC, standing in front of DSD” - Can’t this include DSD for you?
Curious what your brother has to say about DSD?
Pretty much any better DAC you buy today will play DSD files. Buying a better DAC should be compatible with outfitting yourself with both DXD and DSD256 playback capabilities. All of the mass market DAC chips being designed and manufactured today are designed around DSD512.
So, no conflict in these goals of upgrading your DAC and giving yourself the opportunity to play DSD256 files.