A glaring omission from the article is the Roland 303 bassline machine which was meant to be used as a tool to practice with, but then when in the hands of Chicago disco freaks, the knobs were tweaked to the max and acid house was born. And now we have The Crystal Method.

music has improved over the years?

That was a pretty interesting piece. Good find, Subby.

/nothing sounds quite like an 808

That's some pretty cool stuff.

Although they left out the accident that lopped part of Tony Iommi's fingers, forcing him to down-tune and use thicker strings. And thus the sludgier heavier tone of metal was born.

joshiz: A glaring omission from the article is the Roland 303 bassline machine which was meant to be used as a tool to practice with, but then when in the hands of Chicago disco freaks, the knobs were tweaked to the max and acid house was born. And now we have The Crystal Method.

Of all the great things done with a 303, you drag The Crystal Method into this?

Winktologist: Of all the great things done with a 303, you drag The Crystal Method into this?


I was being faceitous...I didn't think anyone wanted a whole history starting with The Music Box in Chicago, to Phuture, to Detroit, then Shoom, then 808 State, and thousands of others in between.

/don't like The Crystal Method at all

SilentStrider: That's some pretty cool stuff.

Although they left out the accident that lopped part of Tony Iommi's fingers, forcing him to down-tune and use thicker strings. And thus the sludgier heavier tone of metal was born.

You son of a biatch, you stole my post.

santadog: img528.imageshack.us

you know what I think of them ;)

joshiz: acid house was born.

hell house music itself was founded here

/miss my high school days getting to hear tons of great house

Infamous Dr. X: /nothing sounds quite like an 808

"The 808 kick drum makes the girlies get dumb..."

Every time I listen to "Posse On Broadway" I can picture the route in my head.

I remember reading somewhere that some famous early reggae tracks are based on preset lines built into a cheap casio keyboard, but could be mistaken.

Exhibit A. (pops)

Also, after reading that article, a thought struck me: almost all recording techniques that are a novel use of technology are later driven into the ground somewhat by complete hacks. The real problem is that most consumers of music don't have the first clue about what kind of talented effort it takes to make good music vs. bad, and they're too damn lazy to look for anything that might be of higher quality. In turn, the major labels know they can cater to this lowest common denominator of consumer and make plenty of money with a quick production turnaround.

Most major labels are the Quadrant Homes (more shiatbox, less money) of the music industry.

The best thing one can really hope to do is educate your less fortunate friends about REAL music. Don't just tell them that their taste in music sucks, explain to them why it sucks.

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Exhibit A. (pops)

Excellent example. Brilliant use of Casio hardware. Whereas I do feel that TFA was more of a treatise on the evolution of instruments and experimental recording setups, those guys do take showmanship to a previously unforseen level.

Kudos to you for such an astute observation!

I thought Phil Spector was in prison.

Dafodude: Excellent example. Brilliant use of Casio hardware. Whereas I do feel that TFA was more of a treatise on the evolution of instruments and experimental recording setups, those guys do take showmanship to a previously unforseen level.

It's truly an instance of making do with what you have, succeeding in spite of - or perhaps, BECAUSE of - one's limitations.


Kudos to you for such an astute observation!

Thank you kindly!

Not an impressive article.

Leo Fender invented the solid body guitar.
Producers found the 'loud drum sound' and applied it to Phil Collins, not Phil Collins finding it.

Then the article reverses on itself when it talks about autotune. The article's theme was that technological innovation improved music, but it goes the opposite way at the end. Maybe the writer was tired.

MadSkillz: Not an impressive article.

Leo Fender invented the solid body guitar.
Producers found the 'loud drum sound' and applied it to Phil Collins, not Phil Collins finding it.

Then the article reverses on itself when it talks about autotune. The article's theme was that technological innovation improved music, but it goes the opposite way at the end. Maybe the writer was tired.

The blog says 'changed,' it's the the Fark headline that says 'improved.'

And your other facts might not be so true...

Dafodude: Also, after reading that article, a thought struck me: almost all recording techniques that are a novel use of technology are later driven into the ground somewhat by complete hacks. The real problem is that most consumers of music don't have the first clue about what kind of talented effort it takes to make good music vs. bad, and they're too damn lazy to look for anything that might be of higher quality. In turn, the major labels know they can cater to this lowest common denominator of consumer and make plenty of money with a quick production turnaround.

Most major labels are the Quadrant Homes (more shiatbox, less money) of the music industry.

The best thing one can really hope to do is educate your less fortunate friends about REAL music. Don't just tell them that their taste in music sucks, explain to them why it sucks.

I bet you're a terrific amount of fun to hang out with.

how come there is no mention of tom dowd and how he started making stereo recordings at a time when the record companies didnt see it as being profitable enough of a venture since most of the record players in homes only had 1 speaker? if yr gonna give credit to fender for electrifying the guitar you gotta give dowd credit for stereo recordings. and linear faders. definitely linear faders. i couldn't imagine mixing with rotary ones.

also eddie van halen hooking up his amp to a variac to get that tone of his should apply as well. not the finger-tapping though since jazz guys were doing it as early as the 50's.

auto-tune though shouldnt be on that list. pitch changing effects on vocals existed long before auto-tune. i like to think that gibby haynes perfected it.

MadSkillz: Producers found the 'loud drum sound' and applied it to Phil Collins, not Phil Collins finding it.

The big sound, just gated reverb really, is the work of producer Hugh Padgham. He was working with Collins, who is known for beating the ever loving life out of his drums, and wanted to get them to sound even bigger.

The Auto Tune is the worst thing that happened to music, however it helps me seperate the wheat from the shaft.

Real entertainment found here:
Link (new window)

When I first read the article, I didn't realize the author was identified on the right margin, so the picture at the top and the "(not to mention myself...)" part made me think the article was written by Kanye West

Almost thought all that talk about him being a misunderstood genius might actually have some basis in reality for a moment

WhyteRaven74: santadog: img528.imageshack.us

/miss my high school days getting to hear tons of great house

You should hear my house. When I leave for work tommorow, I will try to remember to set out my recorder. Dogs, birds, eveything.
Trash and Recycling came yesterday so you won't hear that.

That is some farking great house. :)

From the beginning of recorded sound, there has been a steady and continuous decline in actual sound quality.

The earliest recording devices were analogue, and used a foil covered cylinder as a recording medium. Eventually wax cylinders were used, as they were more easily produced. Copies were made one-to-one, and the degradation of sound was minimal.

The earliest commercial phonographs were entirely non-electrical, and the sound quality was at it's peak. There were no electrical microphones to interpret sound, all sound was captured by a sound horn that reproduced EXACTLY what was fed into it. There was no real volume control, if you talked or sang or played loudly, the reproduction played loudly.

The first commercial machines used a steel needle on a paraffin and beeswax cylinder. Later carnauba was was used, as it was harder, and lasted longer. This was the first step down in quality because there was a loss in fidelity.

In 1892, discs became an option for recording sound. This was a step down, because the quality of sound steadily worsened as the groove wound it's way inward. Bandwidth decreased constantly as the disc's needle's track slowed from it's fastest on the outer edge of a record to it's center. This was another degradation in sound quality.

Most early recordings were sold on acetate. Acetate had the advantages of being easy to duplicate, and of not being easily damaged by the steel needles of the day. All recordings were necessarily mono.

The 78 RPM speed that was first used, had an amazing amount of bandwidth. The needle traveled a great distance per second of sound recorded. Also, the lack of electrical motors to run a victrola, or similar device eliminated much wow and flutter. The lack of electrical microphones also added depth and tone to early recordings. The quality of the recording medium (very pure acetate) also greatly added to the "you are there" feel of early recordings.

The next step downward in sound quality began with electric microphones. They amplified sounds, which while allowing for easier recording, are not acoustically transparent. They reproduce certain frequencies better than others, and don't have the same range as the human ear. So you lose the "what you sang is what you got" that you obtained when recording through an acoustic device (ie a reversed horn, in which you sang and/or played into a horn connected to a recording needle.

Another step downward was the slowing of the record revolutions. The faster you can spin a disk, the larger distance a needle travels per second. The first commercially successful 78 speed records were about 10 inches in diameter, and were good for about one song, from 3 to 8 minutes of sound, before the tracks spilled onto one another.

The 45 was a step down, done for convenience in storage. It played at a slower speed, losing bandwidth. It was a smaller form factor, allowing for jukeboxes to be commercially viable. The sound quality was still very good. Also at this time, vinyl became a preferred medium because it was cheaper, and more easily reproduced.
A concurrent loss in sound quality began with the advent of electrified instruments. These instruments allow many innovations, but only approximate the pure tone of a true acoustic instrument.

Then came the 33 1/3 long playing record. This was an innovation, because it allowed an artist to compose up to 60 minutes of music before sound quality suffered from track overrun. However once again, sound quality suffered, due to less bandwidth.

Another quality loss began, as recording companies began chopping up unsold albums, and melting them down to remold as new records. Recycled vinyl invariably had impurities that virgin vinyl was free of.

Soon began the tape revolution. Many people bought reel-to-reel tape recorders. These were originally very high fidelity. Reel-to- reels use varying widths of tape, and varying speeds to record. Although reel-to-reels were actually a step up in quality (the only one we've seen so far) they weren't mainstream popular, as they require some technical skill, and recording weren't readily available for them, like they were for the commercially approved 33 1/3 vinyl record format. They also introduced their own unique problems in sound quality. Tape hiss, which is caused by the passing of the tape over the pickup heads, introduces signal to noise problems even worse than vinyl.

Oh yes, and vinyl took another quality hit about this time, with stereophonic recording. Because only one needle was used to pick up sound, and stereo used each side of the needle's groove to record each track, each track's various vibrations affected the other track. Another degradation.

Soon came 4-track quadrophonic decks. These were the forerunners of 8-tracks. Actually VERY high sound quality compared to 8-tracks. They used a driven gear that inserted into the tape casette, to control the tape's speed past the pickup head. They had the same bandwidth as an 8-track, but broke it up into four separate tracks per song, front left and right, and rear left and right. However the machines were not popular, and were too expensive to produce so the 8-track became the standard.

8-tracks degraded sound quality by eliminating the gear driven mechanism of passing the tape over the head, instead using a capstan wheel to drag the tape out of the casing over the pickup head. This introduced wow and flutter into the mix.

Cassette tapes improved upon this design, by driving the tape by spinning gears once again, but lost sound quality by using a much narrower tape, thereby losing bandwidth.

Dolby attempted to eliminate tape hiss by filtering out the frequencies affected. This however, caused a muddy sound, further degrading sound quality.

Then came CD's. They were supposed to be a panacea, solving ALL the problems of vinyl, and tape. However, until this time, all recording was analogue. This means that if a noise was made it was, however imperfectly, reproduced. But digital recording is by definition, a sampling. Not every sound is reproduced, but is instead, interpreted, into 1's and 0's. There were great gains in recapturing tiny sounds amongst great voluminous sounds, but they are only digital reproductions of the analogue sounds emitted.

This brings us to now. Much music is now produced in WMA, or other sampling formats. These are samples of samples, that only reproduce the most important sounds. Very clean, but is it what the artist intended?

I realize that I may have made a few mistakes, and there are many generalizations here. I welcome all corrections. However, I do believe that sound quality has diminished steadily since sound recording has begun.

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER:

Listening to old recordings makes me doubt your notion of our steady downhill climb from the (Near-) Perfect Sound of the 1890's. I've heard old Victrola records (since I have grandparents who still have it parked in the living room), and the sound is not nearly as good-- especially on the pre-mike ones. The singers' S- and T- sounds didn't get picked up, and the sound was very tinny. Although I will admit the damn things are nice and loud. And it's not just because the records are old and worn. They Might Be Giants recorded a song on original Edison cylinder-recording equipment, and it had the same problems despite not being worn from 70+ years of playing.

It may be that there's been better recording equipment in the past (I don't know very much about the technical history of recording) then there is now, but the stuff from the '30's on back was not as good as today's.

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER:

I take it you're not on Twitter?

joshiz: Winktologist: Of all the great things done with a 303, you drag The Crystal Method into this?


I was being faceitous...I didn't think anyone wanted a whole history starting with The Music Box in Chicago, to Phuture, to Detroit, then Shoom, then 808 State, and thousands of others in between.

/don't like The Crystal Method at all

Came for the Roland TB303 comment, stayed for the Crystal Method hate.

danduran: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER:

I take it you're not on Twitter?

RIMSHOT!

psychosis_inducing: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER:

Listening to old recordings makes me doubt your notion of our steady downhill climb from the (Near-) Perfect Sound of the 1890's. I've heard old Victrola records (since I have grandparents who still have it parked in the living room), and the sound is not nearly as good-- especially on the pre-mike ones. The singers' S- and T- sounds didn't get picked up, and the sound was very tinny. Although I will admit the damn things are nice and loud. And it's not just because the records are old and worn. They Might Be Giants recorded a song on original Edison cylinder-recording equipment, and it had the same problems despite not being worn from 70+ years of playing.

It may be that there's been better recording equipment in the past (I don't know very much about the technical history of recording) then there is now, but the stuff from the '30's on back was not as good as today's.

You make a good point about imperfections in early recording. Even a completely analogue system using a horn as a recording device will lose some fidelity through impurities in the recording medium, and through the imperfect shape of the microphone (a brass horn). Also the highs are favored over the midrange, and the bass is almost lost because of the dynamic range of the recording instrument. However, with completely analogue recording, you come as close to true "wysiwyg" recording. Any further filtering only degrades the purity of the original author's intent.

danduran: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER:

I take it you're not on Twitter?

I have a theory about Twitter. Wanna hear it?

HappyHarryHardOn: music has improved over the years?

THIS!

apistat: Dafodude: Also, after reading that article, a thought struck me: almost all recording techniques that are a novel use of technology are later driven into the ground somewhat by complete hacks. The real problem is that most consumers of music don't have the first clue about what kind of talented effort it takes to make good music vs. bad, and they're too damn lazy to look for anything that might be of higher quality. In turn, the major labels know they can cater to this lowest common denominator of consumer and make plenty of money with a quick production turnaround.

Most major labels are the Quadrant Homes (more shiatbox, less money) of the music industry.

The best thing one can really hope to do is educate your less fortunate friends about REAL music. Don't just tell them that their taste in music sucks, explain to them why it sucks.

I bet you're a terrific amount of fun to hang out with.

I get it dude ... you are correct. Americans in general are riding the short bus when it comes to education of the arts. Music in general has suffered a decline in quality over the past 7 years or so.

MadSkillz: Not an impressive article.

Leo FenderLes Paul invented the solid body guitar.
Producers found the 'loud drum sound' and applied it to Phil CollinsChick Webb, not Phil Collins Chick Webb finding it.

Then the article reverses on itself when it talks about autotune something I really don't know about, so I'll make some shiat up. The article's theme was that technological innovation improved music, but it goes the opposite way at the end. Maybe the writer was tired I was high when I posted this, but I'll take a window seat, please.

FTFY

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: From the beginning of recorded sound, there has been a steady and continuous decline in actual sound quality.

The earliest recording devices were analogue, and used a foil covered cylinder as a recording medium. Eventually wax cylinders were used, as they were more easily produced. Copies were made one-to-one, and the degradation of sound was minimal.

The earliest commercial phonographs were entirely non-electrical, and the sound quality was at it's peak. There were no electrical microphones to interpret sound, all sound was captured by a sound horn that reproduced EXACTLY what was fed into it. There was no real volume control, if you talked or sang or played loudly, the reproduction played loudly.

The first commercial machines used a steel needle on a paraffin and beeswax cylinder. Later carnauba was was used, as it was harder, and lasted longer. This was the first step down in quality because there was a loss in fidelity.

In 1892, discs became an option for recording sound. This was a step down, because the quality of sound steadily worsened as the groove wound it's way inward. Bandwidth decreased constantly as the disc's needle's track slowed from it's fastest on the outer edge of a record to it's center. This was another degradation in sound quality.

Most early recordings were sold on acetate. Acetate had the advantages of being easy to duplicate, and of not being easily damaged by the steel needles of the day. All recordings were necessarily mono.

The 78 RPM speed that was first used, had an amazing amount of bandwidth. The needle traveled a great distance per second of sound recorded. Also, the lack of electrical motors to run a victrola, or similar device eliminated much wow and flutter. The lack of electrical microphones also added depth and tone to early recordings. The quality of the recording medium (very pure acetate) also greatly added to the "you are there" feel of early recordings.

The next step downward in sound quality began with electric microphones. They amplified sounds, which while allowing for easier recording, are not acoustically transparent. They reproduce certain frequencies better than others, and don't have the same range as the human ear. So you lose the "what you sang is what you got" that you obtained when recording through an acoustic device (ie a reversed horn, in which you sang and/or played into a horn connected to a recording needle.

Another step downward was the slowing of the record revolutions. The faster you can spin a disk, the larger distance a needle travels per second. The first commercially successful 78 speed records were about 10 inches in diameter, and were good for about one song, from 3 to 8 minutes of sound, before the tracks spilled onto one another.

The 45 was a step down, done for convenience in storage. It played at a slower speed, losing bandwidth. It was a smaller form factor, allowing for jukeboxes to be commercially viable. The sound quality was still very good. Also at this time, vinyl became a preferred medium because it was cheaper, and more easily reproduced.
A concurrent loss in sound quality began with the advent of electrified instruments. These instruments allow many innovations, but only approximate the pure tone of a true acoustic instrument.

Then came the 33 1/3 long playing record. This was an innovation, because it allowed an artist to compose up to 60 minutes of music before sound quality suffered from track overrun. However once again, sound quality suffered, due to less bandwidth.

Another quality loss began, as recording companies began chopping up unsold albums, and melting them down to remold as new records. Recycled vinyl invariably had impurities that virgin vinyl was free of.

Soon began the tape revolution. Many people bought reel-to-reel tape recorders. These were originally very high fidelity. Reel-to- reels use varying widths of tape, and varying speeds to record. Although reel-to-reels were actually a step up in quality (the only one we've seen so far) they weren't mainstream popular, as they req ...

Sweet Jeebus, this thing just keeps goin, don't it?

qsblues: I get it dude ... you are correct. Americans in general are riding the short bus when it comes to education of the arts. Music in general has suffered a decline in quality over the past 7 years or so.

Maybe I'm just getting old, but (IMHO) the bands that'll make it out of this decade which weren't already established in the 90s can be counted on both hands.

qsblues: Sweet Jeebus, this thing just keeps goin, don't it?

Yeah, I was quite proud of this post. Whaddaya think? Does it make any sense? I hope so.

MadSkillz: Producers found the 'loud drum sound' and applied it to Phil Collins, not Phil Collins finding it.

The name you're looking for is Hugh Padgham (click for exhaustive studio-geeky goodness).

"Two wrongs don't make it right - except in jazz."

Prof. Brett Watson, AJ Fletcher School of Music, 1973.

/coolest teacher I ever had
//and those words have been proven TRVTH many, many times

As a race, when we lose the desire to create, what will become of us?

Occam's Chainsaw: qsblues: I get it dude ... you are correct. Americans in general are riding the short bus when it comes to education of the arts. Music in general has suffered a decline in quality over the past 7 years or so.

Maybe I'm just getting old, but (IMHO) the bands that'll make it out of this decade which weren't already established in the 90s can be counted on both hands.

I KNOW I'm getting old ... but that doesn't hide the sad fact that there just ain't no more BANDS anymore. It's been a growing trend to slap together various people together in a lame attempt at a "supergroup". That term gets thrown around like Ike threw Tina ... yeah I know I'm catching some flak for that one ... but it seems like there are only names and "personalities" now more than bands.

Chickenfoot? They're already toast before they even start ... Maroon 5, Matchbox 20 and all the rest are flashes in the pan. Everyone else is trying to do a "comeback". Seriously, who else is there that hasn't always been there for the past 20 odd years?

I may be old, but my memory ain't THAT bad!

/the lawn
//git off'n it
///bring me my paper

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: qsblues: Sweet Jeebus, this thing just keeps goin, don't it?

Yeah, I was quite proud of this post. Whaddaya think? Does it make any sense? I hope so.

It was quite thorough and educational for people who don't understand the recording process. Good post!

jhva3: I remember reading somewhere that some famous early reggae tracks are based on preset lines built into a cheap casio keyboard, but could be mistaken.

I am pretty sure at least That One Song can easily be replicated with any Casio keyboard you can buy in KMart:

joshiz: Winktologist: Of all the great things done with a 303, you drag The Crystal Method into this?


I was being faceitous...I didn't think anyone wanted a whole history starting with The Music Box in Chicago, to Phuture, to Detroit, then Shoom, then 808 State, and thousands of others in between.

/don't like The Crystal Method at all

This is still my favorite.

jhva3: I remember reading somewhere that some famous early reggae tracks are based on preset lines built into a cheap casio keyboard, but could be mistaken.

Sleng Teng is the name given to the first fully computerised riddim in Jamaican music. The riddim created by the collaboration between King Jammy and Wayne Smith's was entitled "Under Me Sleng Teng". However, in this case Wayne Smith was the one who had found the computerized sound in Noel Davey's keyboard. Together they were the ones who arranged the riddim, slowed it down, matched it to his key, and rehearsed on it before taking it to Jammys studio. The riddim itself is apparently an attempt to recreate Eddie Cochran's "Somethin' Else". It is a pattern found in the Casio MT-40 home keyboard.

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: From the beginning of recorded sound, there has been a steady and continuous decline in actual sound quality.

The earliest recording devices were analogue, and used a foil covered cylinder as a recording medium. Eventually wax cylinders were used, as they were more easily produced. Copies were made one-to-one, and the degradation of sound was minimal.

The earliest commercial phonographs were entirely non-electrical, and the sound quality was at it's peak. There were no electrical microphones to interpret sound, all sound was captured by a sound horn that reproduced EXACTLY what was fed into it. There was no real volume control, if you talked or sang or played loudly, the reproduction played loudly.

The first commercial machines used a steel needle on a paraffin and beeswax cylinder. Later carnauba was was used, as it was harder, and lasted longer. This was the first step down in quality because there was a loss in fidelity.

In 1892, discs became an option for recording sound. This was a step down, because the quality of sound steadily worsened as the groove wound it's way inward. Bandwidth decreased constantly as the disc's needle's track slowed from it's fastest on the outer edge of a record to it's center. This was another degradation in sound quality.

Most early recordings were sold on acetate. Acetate had the advantages of being easy to duplicate, and of not being easily damaged by the steel needles of the day. All recordings were necessarily mono.

The 78 RPM speed that was first used, had an amazing amount of bandwidth. The needle traveled a great distance per second of sound recorded. Also, the lack of electrical motors to run a victrola, or similar device eliminated much wow and flutter. The lack of electrical microphones also added depth and tone to early recordings. The quality of the recording medium (very pure acetate) also greatly added to the "you are there" feel of early recordings.

The next step downward in sound quality began with electric microphones. They amplified sounds, which while allowing for easier recording, are not acoustically transparent. They reproduce certain frequencies better than others, and don't have the same range as the human ear. So you lose the "what you sang is what you got" that you obtained when recording through an acoustic device (ie a reversed horn, in which you sang and/or played into a horn connected to a recording needle.

Another step downward was the slowing of the record revolutions. The faster you can spin a disk, the larger distance a needle travels per second. The first commercially successful 78 speed records were about 10 inches in diameter, and were good for about one song, from 3 to 8 minutes of sound, before the tracks spilled onto one another.

The 45 was a step down, done for convenience in storage. It played at a slower speed, losing bandwidth. It was a smaller form factor, allowing for jukeboxes to be commercially viable. The sound quality was still very good. Also at this time, vinyl became a preferred medium because it was cheaper, and more easily reproduced.
A concurrent loss in sound quality began with the advent of electrified instruments. These instruments allow many innovations, but only approximate the pure tone of a true acoustic instrument.

Then came the 33 1/3 long playing record. This was an innovation, because it allowed an artist to compose up to 60 minutes of music before sound quality suffered from track overrun. However once again, sound quality suffered, due to less bandwidth.

Another quality loss began, as recording companies began chopping up unsold albums, and melting them down to remold as new records. Recycled vinyl invariably had impurities that virgin vinyl was free of.

Soon began the tape revolution. Many people bought reel-to-reel tape recorders. These were originally very high fidelity. Reel-to- reels use varying widths of tape, and varying speeds to record. Although reel-to-reels were actually a step up in quality (the only one we've seen so far) they weren't mainstream popular, as they require some technical skill, and recording weren't readily available for them, like they were for the commercially approved 33 1/3 vinyl record format. They also introduced their own unique problems in sound quality. Tape hiss, which is caused by the passing of the tape over the pickup heads, introduces signal to noise problems even worse than vinyl.

Oh yes, and vinyl took another quality hit about this time, with stereophonic recording. Because only one needle was used to pick up sound, and stereo used each side of the needle's groove to record each track, each track's various vibrations affected the other track. Another degradation.

Soon came 4-track quadrophonic decks. These were the forerunners of 8-tracks. Actually VERY high sound quality compared to 8-tracks. They used a driven gear that inserted into the tape casette, to control the tape's speed past the pickup head. They had the same bandwidth as an 8-track, but broke it up into four separate tracks per song, front left and right, and rear left and right. However the machines were not popular, and were too expensive to produce so the 8-track became the standard.

8-tracks degraded sound quality by eliminating the gear driven mechanism of passing the tape over the head, instead using a capstan wheel to drag the tape out of the casing over the pickup head. This introduced wow and flutter into the mix.

Cassette tapes improved upon this design, by driving the tape by spinning gears once again, but lost sound quality by using a much narrower tape, thereby losing bandwidth.

Dolby attempted to eliminate tape hiss by filtering out the frequencies affected. This however, caused a muddy sound, further degrading sound quality.

Then came CD's. They were supposed to be a panacea, solving ALL the problems of vinyl, and tape. However, until this time, all recording was analogue. This means that if a noise was made it was, however imperfectly, reproduced. But digital recording is by definition, a sampling. Not every sound is reproduced, but is instead, interpreted, into 1's and 0's. There were great gains in recapturing tiny sounds amongst great voluminous sounds, but they are only digital reproductions of the analogue sounds emitted.

This brings us to now. Much music is now produced in WMA, or other sampling formats. These are samples of samples, that only reproduce the most important sounds. Very clean, but is it what the artist intended?

I realize that I may have made a few mistakes, and there are many generalizations here. I welcome all corrections. However, I do believe that sound quality has diminished steadily since sound recording has begun.

Aside from your skipping of other aspects of recording its accurate, this being Fark however...Cool story, bro.

Gulper Eel
The name you're looking for is Hugh Padgham (click for exhaustive studio-geeky goodness).


Thanks Gulper, you saved me from digging through old vinyl for Padgham's name.

As a someone who records his own music I appreciate the skills it takes to create a good recording and am even more impressed with those individuals who created and first took these giant steps. I am a much better guitar player then I am a recording tech, but the fun is in getting better at both.

FLAKENGA: The Auto Tune is the worst thing that happened to music, however it helps me seperate the wheat from the shaft.

Hell, I didn't even know they were using autotune in porn soundtracks.

/bow-chicka-wow

Axl X: Aside from your skipping of other aspects of recording its accurate, this being Fark however...Cool story, bro.

You know, the quote button works on highlighted text, too... you don't have to re-post all that tl;dr just to say "yeah, this."

qsblues: Chickenfoot? They're already toast before they even start

Bite me. I like that entire CD a lot. It helps if you don't try to decipher the words, of course, and just consider Sammy's voice as another instrument. Will it change the world? No. Is it a good listen? Yes.

MadSkillz: Not an impressive article.

Leo Fender invented the solid body guitar.


I thought Les Paul gets credit for that, whereas Fender built the first succesful, commercialy-available soldibody. Kinda like Karl Benz and Henry Ford...

I think UNAUTHORIZED FINGER may be Steve Albini.

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I realize that I may have made a few mistakes, and there are many generalizations here. I welcome all corrections. However, I do believe that sound quality has diminished steadily since sound recording has begun.

YOu missed: Front Of House engineer who has the board set up for the hair metal reunion band that played yesterday and didn't even change the mic setups for the folk band playing today.

Bad sound is universal; great music can transcend bad sound.

/You should subscribe to TapeOp. It's free and you'd dig it.

creepy jackalope eye: I think UNAUTHORIZED FINGER may be Steve Albini.

*secret handshake*

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER Quote 2009-07-02 05:41:10 AM

This post wins the internet for the month. Good job.