I was listening to The Pixies' Surfer Rosa this morning and decided to read up on Steve Albini, producer of this apparently very influential punk album (I say "apparently" because I'd only heard one song from it before I bought it, and partially bought it because it was offered in the SACD format). The album has a fairly dry, homemade feel to it, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, considering the fact that much of what comes out these days is overproduced and spliced together with computer programs like Pro Tools.
I found this interesting article about Steve Albini, the equipment he uses, and his recording/record-making philosophy. If I was in a band and was going to cut a record, Steve Albini is the kind of person I would want to record/produce the record. He favors analog equipment and recording methods, gives the band as much creative control as possible, and refuses to charge exorbitant fees just because he's well known and has worked with many famous artists, including Nirvana (In Utero). It seems like the guy really cares about music and artistic integrity, and would rather record a band the way it really sounds lives than play games with sounds and use computer tricks in order to manufacture music.
Other than Surfer Rosa and In Utero, I don't know if I own any other albums produced by Steve Albini. I can say, however, that both albums have a very natural, if underproduced, feeling to them. There was a time in my life when that was a bad thing (In Utero's sound was certainly a departure from Nevermind), but over the last few years I've learned a lot about sound quality and sound reproduction as I've researched these subjects and invested in higher-end equipment and new audio formats that are more capable of faithfully reproducing original recordings than CDs, and as I've learned and listened, I've learned to tell the difference, and the difference is not a bad thing--it just takes some getting used to. Attending more concerts, especially classical concerts in acoustically superior venues, has also helped me to learn what instruments really do sound like versus what I usually hear on CDs. Understanding this difference can be frustrating, as it has left me hungry for more expensive equipment and better recordings, but I'd rather be informed than in the dark.
Interestingly enough, many audiophiles claim that the best sound quality is to be found with records and turntables, not CD, SACD or DVD-Audio. While this has certainly piqued my curiosity, the idea of dealing with turntables, needles and something I can't control with a remote isn't all that appealing to me, so I've avoided going the vinyl route.Better movie sound quality is also being made possible with the advent of HD DVD and Blu-ray, the competing next-generation movie formats. Huge increases in disc storage capacity (currently 30GB for HD DVD and 50GB for Blu-ray) versus what DVD is capable of (8.5GB on a double-layer disc) not only allow for higher quality video, but higher quality audio as well. I'm eagerly awaiting the development of receivers capable of decoding the new lossless compression codecs, Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD Master Audio, that are being used on many of the next-gen movie releases.
Actually, I should clarify my comment: I'm eagerly awaiting the development of such a receiver by a manufacturer that will be sold in one of my employer's stores. Onkyo has released two such receivers, but since my employer doesn't do business with Onkyo, I can't take advantage of my employee discount. In any case, even without such a receiver, I've been impressed by the sound quality I've experienced from HD DVD and Blu-ray, despite the fact that I haven't experienced the full potential of either.
No comments:
Post a Comment