I was also disappointed with the sound quality of Springsteen’s latest. Some of the tracks sound as if they were mastered from a low res MP3. To add insult to injury, the LP is very beauitfully packaged and Bruce’s studio is lavish and probably state of the art. I ended up feeling cheated. I suspect that when Bruce listened back in the studio it sounded terrific. Something went wrong.
A good contrast is JJ Cale’s first LP Naturally from the early 1970s. Recorded on a tight budget but what was captured in the studio comes through loud and clear.
Another contrast is Sam Cooke’s Nightbeat from 1963. You are there in the studio with the musicians. Or Ellington’s Masterpieces, from 1950.
I suspect the difference is just that, irrespective of genre, the well recorded albums have a chain of care and expertise throughout the production process.
I do remember early 90s with the emergence of indie rock, many albums had to sound like they had been recorded in a garage. I suppose it gave an edgy sound like on Definitely Maybe. More latterly, Arctic Monkeys and The Libertines appear to have shaken off the requirement to sound shoddy and found more control. The Strokes, whilst still sounding like The Strokes, I think have polished up too.
Agreed. A great album, but the sound engineer and/or mixing engineer should be fired. Sonically a jumbled incoherent mess. And to think that if you pay a bit extra it’s available in “high resolution”…
I’ve been looking for a copy of Quadrophenia and Who’s Next that sounds how I remember it sounding on my parent’s system back in the 70’s and have settled on the Track 1st presses that don’t sound bad but they too suffer the same ‘Rock’ issues and IMO it’s just bad mastering because if it where down to the fact that there is too much going on then lot’s of Classical would have the same issues.
I bought a remastered version of Who’s Next a number of years back. It sounded like it had been mixed for iPod, with way too much booming bass. I took it back the next week.
The same issue, but to a lesser extent with Quadrophenia. At least they duplicated all the original artwork. The best version I have of that is the second release on CD, which is better than the copy I bought in the ‘70s and retains that high energy feel, with great dynamic range.
For an absolutely lousy sounding rock album I’d vote for U2’s Joshua Tree, which sounds like it was recorded in an aircraft hangar.
Everyone’s forgetting that rock hasnt really ever needed to sound good - in a sense of showing off expensive hifi abilities with holographic natural timbered imaging. Only that it goes loud and kicks ass.
That’s really Dad/Grandad rock.
Smoking his pipe, tapping his toes within some comfy slippers and stroking his beardy chin.
I saw Oasis back when Definitely Maybe came out in the small hall inside the Brighton Centre and again when they where mega famous at the Rose Bowl in Southampton both times they deafeningly loud and incredibly exciting to watch but I never listen to them at home.
I saw Muse at The Isle of Wight festival when Super Massive Black Hole was out and they where probably the loudest band I’ve ever seen and again incredibly exciting to watch but I never listen to them at home I suppose some music isn’t for the living room.
Before the thought of HiFi I heard many moons ago Rolling Stones ‘Painted Black’ it was fantastic, and not once did the sound of a system ever enter my head; it was the song and composition itself that influenced me. Then came Pink Floyd (Dark Side of the Moon) and Dire Straits (in general) and it focused me on the recorded ‘sound’. Dire Straits is great to play if you want to flog a stereo system, because their recordings will sound great on a modest to the most expensive HiFi systems, and Dark side of the Moon will want you to play with the balance knob until you get bored with the novelty…
I think there might be a correlation between the age of the recording and the age of the equipment it’s played on, the original mastering taking into account the common playback systems at the time. Also the listeners memory of how it should sound especially with older classic rock albums I.e.
Recording heard 20 years ago compared to now, not forgetting the impact of ageing ears etc
I was in the mood for heavy yesterday. PlayedAC/DC’s Back In Black (vinyl) and Metallica’s Black Album (CD). Both sounded really good with blistering drum attack, separate bass & lead guitars and clear, distinct vocals. Foofighters’ Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace was sublime on CD. Let It Die is a very emotional track, for me. Probably my favourite by the Foos.
Older albums like Black Sabbath’s Volume 4(CD) did not hit me as well as I remembered it. Similarly, The Who’s Who’s Next seemed a bit muddled and lacking clarity.
I am starting to think Terry is right about the age of the recording and the improvements in technology in recording studios since the old records were made. It would be great to see if remastering could bring anything to improve our old classics.
I can’t agree about Road to Hell and Blackstar, they sound amazing to me. But… Without Willy waving, I think active systems and their benefits of lower noise floor and the active xover allowing superior seperation let’s you find so much in the recording possibly breaking down the wall of sound.
Oh no! I was looking forward to this being one of the first things I play when I get my new system setup after nearly 6 months without any music. The only thing I heard it on was a Mk 2 Qb which sounded pretty okay but hardly a revealing playback system. I might give it a miss now despite initially thinking I liked the album. Bad mastering just make things unlistenable on a decent setup.
But atrocious range compression isn’t just combined to rock. My wife has some crooners that are absolutely mixed for playback on an iPod on a noisy train commute. She was generally angry at me because the Naim system ruined Chris Hart for her forever after just 1 track.
Listening to iradio on the NDS, I find that Classical sounds very good on most stations, but iradio Rock rarely comes across well. The iradio is MP3 quality, but MP3s sound much better from a memory stick plugged into the front of the NDS.
Rock that I play from Tidal flac, or flac files from my NAS, sound very good if it’s a decent recording/production in the first place.
My speakers are a pair of 1990, Kef R107’s. They’ve been fully rebuilt with better caps than they had in those days, and the Kef Kube was rebuilt with better Op amps. I don’t care about maintaining the original sound. They sound so much better now. Even with well-recorded Rock.
So for me, Rock usually sounds quite good. I don’t know if it’s the speakers or the Naim gear. Maybe a combination of both.
If you want to hear some great sounding rock then try either Talk Is Cheap or Main Offender, both by Keith Richards. They have a really live sound to them and are on regular rotation for me.
To come back to the original question; for a great sounding rock system i think the speakers are by far the most important. A subwoofer can help (i use one), but a pair of good PA-design main speakers with a great horn driver will do wonders. Something like the Klipsch Cornwalls will rock your socks off. Ideally paired with a nice tube amp or at least a proper power amp with plenty of headroom. If i had an extra room for a “rock-setup” that is what i would definitely get.
Is this an argument for 3-way speakers over 2-way? I have often wondered about how a 2 way design can deliver when bass and more delicates mids are all required at the same time. Or is that too simple, like me?
I was looking forward to this being one of the first things I play when I get my new system setup after nearly 6 months without any music. The only thing I heard it on was a Mk 2 Qb which sounded pretty okay but hardly a revealing playback system. I might give it a miss now despite initially thinking I liked the album. Bad mastering just make things unlistenable on a decent setup.