Does recording quality affect listenability?

[Malcolm Boyce]

So as the thread has evolved about the "Revenge" compilation, my comments about the lack of fidelity of some of the tracks, ruining what sounds like cool songs, has been a main focus point. I believe that if you were to ask people in a blind test, a lot of listeners would be quick to skip ahead when faced with a "lo-fi" recording. I also make the point that there is a difference between good "lo-fi" recordings, and just bad quality recordings. The factor that separates them is usually intent. I used the two Adam Mowery recordings that I have to demonstrate what I perceive as a good example of both charming "lo-fi", and distorted recording... Which he seemed to take great offense to.

I would love it if some of my experienced colleagues would weigh in here on the topic, especially if you've managed to get a copy of this little project that we've been talking about.

What I'm wondering is, do you agree that recording quality, not talking about style or arrangement, can affect the accessibility of songs, and the likelihood that someone will give a recording a chance? I contend that sound is directly linked to style, and people know when something sounds out of it's element. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule but they are called exceptions for a reason.

I always hate when I hear good songs hurt by bad recordings. How 'bout you?

[Scott DeVarenne]

At the risk of immediately shutting down this discussion, I would just like to mention: 128kbps MP3.

[thebunk]

Pure and simple, yes. I have tried to get into Guided by Voices quite a few times and I just cannot get into them. The same can be said for our overblown Maritime superstars, the Port City Allstars.

[oddioguy]

Without having listened to the project in question....
There is a definite line between intentional lo-fi and just plain poor recording. Does that affect my willingness to listen?

Absolutely.

I can easily listen to lo-fi. I started recording before home studios were in vogue or even affordable to the average person. Ping-ponging between 2 cassette decks was the order of the day. Careful track planning was essential, but no matter how careful you were, you accepted that the results were going to be compromised if you bounced more than a couple of times. Lo-fi indeed!

Poor recording can be defined by a lack of experience, knowledge, or caring. Any of which can result in an unlistenable end product. If you can't hear that you've overloaded the inputs of your soundcard / mixer / preamp, don't get all pissy when somebody else draws your attention to it. Practice...Listen....and for fuck sake don't get all, "Well, I did that on purpose." It still sounds like shit.
Learn.

[Malcolm Boyce]

At the risk of immediately shutting down this discussion, I would just like to mention: 128kbps MP3.

Not at all what I'm talking about. This far eclipses "standard" MP3 sound.

[Scott DeVarenne]

I was listening to Propeller by Guided By Voices on the weekend. The songs are so good, but painful to
listen to for more than a short period of time. I am even thinking about applying some EQ to make it
tolerable because it's so good. It's like trying to look at the most beautiful woman in the world
when she is pointing a 200watt flood light at you.

[Mathieu Benoit]

Of course it does!

My personal tastes aside, I want to make sure no one confuses sonic style and quality. Like oddioguy said...there's a line there.

My taste comes from listening to polished music for years and years too though. Good and bad are relative terms, so everyone has a different take on what that is. I like to listen to polished music that is well produced and where every note, word, and frequency have a precise intent. If that is the case, and the intent was "lo-fi" (whatever that means) I'm sure I would enjoy it. Because when you really do everything with educated purpose, you can make it whatever sonic style you want and it should still be of good quality too.

I like to be able to make out everything that was tracked by focusing on it. I enjoy that clarity. Unfortunately, getting things to sound like that requires years of experience, training, and plain good taste. It's not an easy thing to be able to make a record sound good. Any monkey can make it sound bad. I've been that monkey... But I'm getting better at every pass.

The average Joe Blow out there is used to radio singles... and if you have them listen to a 4-track basement recording where you can't hear vocals through screetching guitars and hi-hats. They'll tell you all about it. Doesn't make them snobs either. Just people used to polished music, recorded properly.

[Redeye Mojo]

Does recording quality affect listenability?

Having studied pre-war Roots and Blues music extensively over the years may afford me an interesting perspective here.
From the vintage 78rpm perspective, I have come to learn that most all of these decidedly lo-fi recordings can present a real sonic challenge to the listener. However, that being said, the artistic substance of vintage recordings can really blur that sonic line. Perhaps, with the strongest material of this genre, the artistic element comes shining through the sonic abyss.

The mind is a wonderful thing. I'd like to think that, in instances such as this, we are able to selectively filter a particularly strong artistic piece of music subconsciously. Of course, the recording artists of this period were not utilizing lo-fi as an artistic tool. They were utilizing the technology they possessed at this period of time. Which brings us to what I feel is the whole point here. The advent of utilizing lo-fi, or shall we say, "anti-tech", as an artistic tool.

Farbeit for me to question an artist's approach in realizing their artistic vision. It's art, for fuck sakes. There are no rules. There are no boundaries. If the artist in question is satisfied they have achieved what they set out to achieve in the first place, who am I to question their methods?

The bulk of the debate here would appear to be based around the utilization of decidedly lo-fi techniques in a decidedly hi-tech world.

One could argue that, from a technical perspective, there were so many other approaches the artist could have taken. It would be foolhardy to assume that an artist who produces a lo-fi recording is somehow sadly unaware of the many technological advancements in audio over the years. It's the information age! I'm sure that even the lowest of the lo-fier's have heard of the internet.

So then, if the utilization of home brewed lo-fi techniques was intentionally placed on the recording artist's pallet to assist them in achieving their artistic vision, that's their art. It doesn't mean we have to understand, appreciate, or even like it. Those are decisions the "end user" will have to make for themselves.

Of course, there are gazillions of fucking absolutely putrid recordings which lack both artistic and sonic merit, but that's an entire issue unto itself.

Not everyone is an artist.

Not everyone possesses the gift of artistic vision.

Millions of people play guitar, but there aren't millions of guitarists.

[Mathieu Benoit]

Redeye,

Once again you have worded yourself quite well and make great points. You are first and foremost an wonderful artist, and a roots blues one at that. So your opinion counts for a lot I think. I'm sure over the years you've listening (and enjoyed) a wide variety of recordings that varied in quality and style.

Myself, I'm not here to condemn anyone's art. They are each entitled to expression of their craft however they chose to express it. But like oddioguy was saying, a little care goes a long way. I mentioned intent before. I'm speaking of informed intent, the kind that involves a deep amount of caring.

I'm trying to create the segragation between intent and not caring. If MacRae (for example) made a "lo-fi" recording, I bet I'd like it, because there'd be a lot of careful though that went into making sure that all the levels were just right and all the frequencies sat just so. It would still sound "lo-fi" but it would be most pleasing to the ear I'm sure, and I'd be able to hear everything clearly as well.

I just think that it's sometimes far too convinient to use "artistic merit" as an excuse to be lazy, and to not develop the skills for your craft. By that, I'd be able to pick up a Chapman Stick tomorrow and record an album on it next week, and call it my art. I doubt many would enjoy it. In the end, posers get weeded out over time and the true artists are usual recognized for their brilliance. So long as you can make it out through the filter of a terrible recording.

I am going to go buy Chuck's comp this weekend, so that I can have a listen to what all the uproar is all about. Then I'll post my opinion of the whole thing after I listen to it carefully. Which was the point of the initial thread concerning that. I may not agree with all of Malcolm comments, on the other hand I certainly might. I'm just another guy with different tastes.

Final note. For as long as art has existed, there have been critics of said art. It's just the reality.

[Redeye Mojo]

Thank you for your kind words Mathieu. That means a lot coming from you.

Yes, you would be correct regarding my musical tastes. Started with KISS so many years ago, then on to Sabbath, and Maiden, etc. I've been cranking up Maiden's "piece of Mind", as of late. Man, I always dug the production values on that album. Very warm. I'm just mentioning this to back up what Matt has alluded to, and to also make it clear that I'm not constantly firin' up a Victrola 'ova heah!

Gotta run, you caught me right in the middle of my Yngwie Malmsteen with the Japan Philharmonic Orchestra DVD... This thing is INSANE!

*I'll fire up the Victrola tomorrow... lol

[roachie]

Does an "in tune" guitar affect listenability?

[Malcolm Boyce]

Does an "in tune" guitar affect listenability?

That would depend on what it was in tune with.

[roachie]

Alright... does an "out of tune" guitar affect listenability?

[Malcolm Boyce]

Alright... does an "out of tune" guitar affect listenability?

I think that's straying a bit from what I'm getting at but it's all related. It goes without saying that tuning and performance will affect listenability. My point is, thinking that's all you should worry about and discount the importance of what I'll call "appropriate" sound quality, is making a mistake, and will affect the number of people who will enjoy your music in the end.

[sammyp]

personally, i had no issues with sound quality until i got into DAW and mixing. I remember a few years back having a discussion with a bass player and he was telling me sound quality was EVERYTHING when it came to a disc - i really thought he was nuts, i mean if you like jazz you're gonna listen to some pretty sketchy stuff quality wise - old charlie parker stuff etc.....anyhow, for better or worse i like quality now almost as much as i like cool melodic/harmonic/groove stuff.

[Malcolm Boyce]

personally, i had no issues with sound quality until i got into DAW and mixing. I remember a few years back having a discussion with a bass player and he was telling me sound quality was EVERYTHING when it came to a disc - i really thought he was nuts, i mean if you like jazz you're gonna listen to some pretty sketchy stuff quality wise - old charlie parker stuff etc.....anyhow, for better or worse i like quality now almost as much as i like cool melodic/harmonic/groove stuff.

I think you start to appreciate different music for different reasons once you experience fidelity in the process. I know I like some albums only for the sounds. Others just for the performance, and some, for great writing. When you get a record that pushes all three buttons for you at once, it's a super experience listening.

[macrae11]

I've been meaning to post on this thread for a while now, but have been to busy to really post for the last little bit.

As a disclaimer I haven't heard any of the tracks in question from the compliation or the other artists that have been brought up.

I think Matt has brought up many good points in this thread. One in paticular that I think is an important point is that there is a very important line between being lo-fi and just plain lazy. Throwing up a mic in a room at your rehersal space and releasing it is not lo-fi, it's lazy. Lots of great recordings were made with one mic in a room. Take a listen to some old dixie land or early Count Basie etc and it sounds awesome. Lo-fi but awesome. This is because of how much planning went into the sessions. I think it's a common misconception that people think engineering for that one mic in a room or lo-fi sound is an easier way to go- but it's not! If anything it's much more difficult to engineer (and play) for these lo-fi type of recordings(assumming you want it to sound half decent). Everything has to be extremely planned out, the players have to position themselves carefully in the room, everyones tones have to be tweaked to fit together, arrangements have to be very solid. In short it's a lot of work.


Second there is the argument of artistic merit. That the process of limiting yourself to a very "simple" way of working and eliminating choices helps the creative output of an artist. This is certainly a valid point and is held up my many studies. This is just one article on the problem of too much choice. http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/toomany.html
However this method is not completely eliminating choice it's just moving it to a different point in the timeline; before you start.

Third people complain that they can't afford proper recording, but I say that's bollocks. If you can record at all you can afford to do it well. If you don't have money to go into a pro studio and do a traditional multi-track style recording, well you'll just have to work a whole lot harder. And with the advent of cheap computer recording these days any one can have all the quality they need on a standard home PC. And with a little practice it might even sound alright. Might not be Andy Wallace, but it'll probably do.

As I said above, this process of recording "lo-fi" requires great talent in songwriting, performing, arranging, producing, engineering, and mixing. There are very few people who are talented in all of these areas. I know I'm not. On a good day I'm happy if I can pull off 2 or 3 half decent. And what compounds this even more is that you're doing at least 4 of these things simulateously! So I think anyone who wants to have a half decent product even if it is"lo-fi" needs some help. either from a technical type person, or an arranger, or just another artist to bounce idea's off of and take some of the load off.

Of course there are exceptions to this and some great records have been made by one person doing it all, like Nebraska by Bruce Springsteen, but these are the exceptions not the rule.

I think a lot of engineers or "techy" types have issues with lo-fi just for the sake of lo-fi because we spend so much time working to get the perfect sounds that project our emotions or the emotions of our clients to give a great listening experience. So of course we know that sound quality affects listenability. Good artists doing lo-fi intentionally will use this to there advantage to project an emotion that suits there music. Lazy will just end up sounding, well, lazy.

[Malcolm Boyce]

I remember attending a lecture with Bill Porter who recorded many great old "lo-fi" recordings, by today's standards. The care involved in those sessions was second to none. These guys set the standard for keeping the technology out of the way for the performers to do their thing. I think that is a point that is lost by artists trying to do everything themselves.

Not everyone is Todd Rundgren, and even Prince would use an engineer to prep things for him.... before kicking him out when tracking the tunes.