Should sound quality determine reviews?

The quality of the music is definitely the top point for me, and sound quality is certainly an important reviewing point. I don't know of many albums that sound quality is the make or break consideration, but I sure love the remastered classics with DVD audio. The early Genesis albums were given new life by the DVD audio treatment, and several King Crimson, Yes, and Tull albums also benefited greatly from the Steven Wilson remixes. Tales was great despite the muddy sound of the original pressings and CDs, but the remixes brought out a whole new dimension. Regardless, original versions were already 5-star affairs before getting the audio quality they deserve.

totally up to the reviewer, as with pretty much any evaluation of the music.  They can make the sound quality as big or as small an issue as they want, as long as they are compelling in their argument.  Or they can not mention it at all

Going back to my argument that sound quality doesn't matter , I would certainly think that good music always shines through. I've always loved every remix or release of Foxtrot because the music is brilliant. Abacab will never become a great album regardless of the sound mix because you can't 'polish a turd' . Ultimately the music is pretty much everything and as long as you can hear different instruments and the vocals then that is all there is. Admittedly though a live experience can be a different matter . I do believe that the penchant for just turning up the volume regardless is a terrible idea. I remember seeing ELP in 1992 and they had the confidence to let the music speak for itself. BUT that changed and now going to see bands live is very hit and miss. King Crimson were absolutely superb from this aspect of things when I saw them but that seems to be a rare experience.

Frenetic Zetetic wrote: SteveG wrote: Frenetic Zetetic wrote: SteveG wrote: Frenetic Zetetic wrote: Few have the actual experience and understanding of the work involved to make a record sound good. Old records sounding fuzzy is fine. New recordings sounding bad is no excuse IMHO! For the record (lol) I think the production on Foxtrot is crystal clear to my ears. I  disagree. Almost all audiophile grade recordings were done back in the day on analogue equipment, with great care, proper microphones and the right expertise. Foxtrot  sounding good to you is an indicator of the rule as opposed to the exception. As someone that records, mixes, and masters music as a professional hobby I fail to see how your comment contradicts mine. Of course it was analog, what the hell else would they be using...? How does that preclude some recordings sounding more clear than others...? Even other users have chimed in with personal experience with clarity of sound on this one. I have two versions of the album and while the 2008 remix is obviously the most clear, my other copy (assuming a 90's pressing) sounds plenty passable mix-wise. First off, I said that Foxtrot sounded good to you. Audio quality ultimately is subjective, and there's no accounting for taste. Secondly, there's no guarantee that a recording will sound great based solely on the fact that it's digital, as a a single sub par microphone and can wreck the sound.  Thirdly, a monkey cannot record music, equalize it, mix it and master it. There appears to be plenty of monkeys that record music as a professional hobby. How do I know? I recorded music professionally for 45 years, starting out in NYC and then went to Nashville before going with Capital Records in California and then returned to Columbia Records in NYC. Before retiring in 2013, I was a freelance mixer and lacquer cutter in London. And in most of my later time I was employed to fix the botch jobs recorded digitally by numerous "professional hobbyists". Mixing and mastering engineers make good coin cleaning up after people. I'm not saying that you're of simian class, however, your credentials may impress the man on the street but they don't mean much to a professional who spent so much time fixing digitally recorded disasters. Edit: friendlier response. Post some of your work and back up those big, friendly words.

No, as it would embarrass you.

SteveG wrote: Frenetic Zetetic wrote: SteveG wrote: Frenetic Zetetic wrote: SteveG wrote: Frenetic Zetetic wrote: Few have the actual experience and understanding of the work involved to make a record sound good. Old records sounding fuzzy is fine. New recordings sounding bad is no excuse IMHO! For the record (lol) I think the production on Foxtrot is crystal clear to my ears. I  disagree. Almost all audiophile grade recordings were done back in the day on analogue equipment, with great care, proper microphones and the right expertise. Foxtrot  sounding good to you is an indicator of the rule as opposed to the exception. As someone that records, mixes, and masters music as a professional hobby I fail to see how your comment contradicts mine. Of course it was analog, what the hell else would they be using...? How does that preclude some recordings sounding more clear than others...? Even other users have chimed in with personal experience with clarity of sound on this one. I have two versions of the album and while the 2008 remix is obviously the most clear, my other copy (assuming a 90's pressing) sounds plenty passable mix-wise. First off, I said that Foxtrot sounded good to you. Audio quality ultimately is subjective, and there's no accounting for taste. Secondly, there's no guarantee that a recording will sound great based solely on the fact that it's digital, as a a single sub par microphone and can wreck the sound.  Thirdly, a monkey cannot record music, equalize it, mix it and master it. There appears to be plenty of monkeys that record music as a professional hobby. How do I know? I recorded music professionally for 45 years, starting out in NYC and then went to Nashville before going with Capital Records in California and then returned to Columbia Records in NYC. Before retiring in 2013, I was a freelance mixer and lacquer cutter in London. And in most of my later time I was employed to fix the botch jobs recorded digitally by numerous "professional hobbyists". Mixing and mastering engineers make good coin cleaning up after people. I'm not saying that you're of simian class, however, your credentials may impress the man on the street but they don't mean much to a professional who spent so much time fixing digitally recorded disasters. Edit: friendlier response. Post some of your work and back up those big, friendly words. No, as it would embarrass you.

Have you done sound on docus too, Steve?

RockHound wrote: The quality of the music is definitely the top point for me, and sound quality is certainly an important reviewing point. ...

Frenetic Zetetic wrote: SteveG wrote: Oh, people know how much I hate to talk about myself.   My first big job before going with Capital was recording these series of concerts for Wally's Mobile with another engineer doing about half the concerts. The tapes sat on the shelves for years before being released by Rhino in 2014. The mix could be better but I had no control over that, naturally, but the mastering is excellent. People often ask me about CSN&Y. Stills was a pain in the arse as he was the group's MD. He didn't think that I had a clue as what I was doing and was partially right. But I threw enough technical BS at him to get him off my back. Young was great and only cared about his mic being on! Nash would meditate in his trailer with Joni Mitchell so I almost never saw him except at sound checks. Crosby was always in his trailer doing god know what and Stills often sound checked for him.   You can look up the album credits on discogs or wiki or whatever. Genuinely impressive, sir; bravo!  I did have a look on Wiki, and I won't dox your last name. You undoubtedly have more industry experience than me, and I unabashedly bow to said experience. I am indeed essentially a monkey playing with knobs in comparison LOL .

Thank you, and as I stated, I have no opinion on your skills as I don't know enough about you. The point of this long back and forth was that a good digital recording, like a good analog recording, is based on the skills of the engineer and the equipment used. A microphone that's good for certain drum sounds will generally not be adequate for vocals and vice versa. There's no guarantee that a recording will be great just because it's digital.

Edited by SteveG - March 10 2020 at 09:12

rogerthat wrote: SteveG wrote: rogerthat wrote: Have you done sound on docus too, Steve? No, the docs were handled by Elliot Mazer, who later became Neil Young's manager. Oh, I meant docs in general, read something about dolphins.

No, I'm afraid not. I thought you were referring to the video content of the CSNY '74 box set. The mixdowns for the underwater stuff was done by an intern.

Edited by SteveG - March 10 2020 at 09:17

SteveG wrote: rogerthat wrote: SteveG wrote: rogerthat wrote: Have you done sound on docus too, Steve? No, the docs were handled by Elliot Mazer, who later became Neil Young's manager. Oh, I meant docs in general, read something about dolphins. No, I'm afraid not. I thought you were referring to the video content of the CSNY '74 box set. The mixdowns for the underwater stuff was done by an intern.