Why do jazz albums from late 50s-60s generally sound better than

Rudy Van Gelder was just that good.

Do you mean like audio quality, or music quality? I don't think either is true and you're just placeboing, but clarification would be nice.

>>69512109
Audio quality.

>>69512073
Looking over a list of albums he engineered almost makes me almost believe this. Although there were albums recorded elsewhere that sound about as good.

Because digital audio made it easier for dipshits who can't mix/master for shit to destroy good recordings.

Plus, the "loudness war" played its huge part on it. Plus, the normies don't care about fidelity.

>>69512042
It's definitely placebo. Or you're not listening to well-mixed modern albums.

RVG stuff is good but the way the rhythm section is recorded and mixed can't hold a candle to good modern recordings. ECM stuff can be hit or miss as far as production goes but look for anything recorded at Systems Two in Brooklyn if you want to hear really good recordings of modern jazz.

>>69512782

Oh, you were talking about jazz releases...

>>69512782
This, basically. 80's had some jazz records that still sounded good a la Bobby Watson and Horizon, but by the 90's sample replacement, nuance-less synthesizers, and muddling production techniques saturated everything.

I'll never deny the skill and progressive nature of Weather Report but goddamn do their sounds piss me off sometimes.

Recent jazz records have cleaned up a bit but still somehow lack the atmosphere that artists in the 50s and 60s managed.

>>69512782
>>69512790
>>69512852
I mostly meant contemporary to the 50s-60s. I guess I wasn't very clear. Modern recordings are a mixed bag, and I don't really buy too much into the analog vs. digital debate.

My observation, true or not, is that a few decades ago, when everyone was producing analog, jazz albums still sounded really good compared to everything else that was being produced at the time.

I actually wonder if the explosion in popularity of all the Spector "wall of sound" pop records created a big divergence in recording/mastering techniques between different genres of music. Or maybe record company execs just didn't want to throw a lot of money into high quality recordings when songs were topping charts regardless.

>>69513033
I'm not debating analog vs. digital, digital is technically the superior platform. The thing is that digital let's you manipulate recordings immensely, so you can easily ruin them. You couldn't squash a vinyl mastering because the needle would pop.

When it comes to jazz, let's say something like The Epic from Kamasi, it doesn't sound better than Miles' recordings, and it's definitely because of modern mastering, the magic has been lost.

(I'm 69512782)

>>69513238
That's a bad example though. The Epic is one of the worst mixed post-2000 jazz albums I've ever heard. It's basically mixed like a hip hop album (you can guess what the target audience was).

>>69512073
It's a shame his death seemed to be largely ignored.

>>69513631
Yeah, but can you mention a more popular jazz record in the last 5 years? Exactly. My point is that jazz tradition is almost dead, and so is its techniques for excellent mastering when it comes to popular releases.

>>69513752
so are* typo

>>69513752
But who cares about what's popular? You can easily listen to almost any jazz release, no matter how obscure (usually for free) so why does it matter. Good jazz has been a niche genre since the 70's. Don't expect the most popular release to be the best.

>>69513806
>Good jazz has been a niche genre since the 70's

well "good jazz" has never been a genre at any point in time so you might not have a point there

>>69513839
I think my point holds true even if I could have stated it a little better. The point being that ever since the 70's jazz has dropped off dramatically in commercial popularity. The very few jazz artists who have found some degree of commercial success since then have mostly had pretty questionable artistic merit, at least to those who consider themselves connesseurs of the genre.

>>69512042
OP I don't think anyone ITT really understood your question. If you are asking why jazz albums from the 50s have clearer sounding recordings than other music from the 50s, the answer might just be that jazz instrumentation tends to fall within the volume and pitch range that recording devices are most sensitive to, while drum+guitar+vocal recordings are more all over the place in terms of pitch and volume.

>>69513806
You are confusing my point. I was making a comparison between two popular jazz records from different eras and looking at their fidelity.

>>69512042
What would be a good track that would be an example?

Jazz recordings from the 50s-60s sound good because they were designed for stereo LPs and not mono 45 sound like pop music.

>>69512042
It's because it isn't hypercompressed.

When you run an audio signal through a compressor, it squashes down the loudest sound and pulls up the quietest sound based on the parameters you set.

This is great for controlling dynamics in a mix, but in today's age mixing and mastering engineers use it to basically destroy dynamics and make the track as consistently loud as possible. Example: when you hypercompress a snare drum, the initial crack of the snare is just as loud as the ring of the snare. Now imagine doing that to a track's master bus.

50s-60s jazz recordings were never put through any sort of compressor, especially not Blue Note records. This is why jazz records sound so dynamic.

Another reason, is because back then things were recorded onto tape. Digital recordings have an objectively higher sound quality than any analog recording. I say this because it is the most accurate form of recording audio; so accurate that it can sound "cold".
Digital recordings capture higher frequencies more accurately, as their isn't a roll-off in the high end of the frequency spectrum.

The tape that the audio was recorded onto colors the sound, which is why people say old records sound "warm". Most tape has a steady roll off from 9k and up, and isn't able to capture the the high-end of the frequency spectrum like digital recordings can. This is why new records sound so much "brighter" while pre-80s records sound so much "darker".

I also know for a fact that Rudy Van Gelder almost exclusively used ribbon tube mics to capture not only the band but the sound of the room as well, so that definitely was a big part of his records' sound.