Recording Quality, Record Companies, and Recording Studios

Okay, so in my first post I mentioned how in addition to most people never having heard true audiophile recording quality, that most commercial recordings of popular music are of inferior recording quality to begin with.

So that now begs the question: Why? Why in this age of amazing technology, now seemingly everywhere, and to be had at lower prices than ever before, why should ANY recordings be of anything less than amazing sonic fidelity? The simple answer is, as it is with all commerce - supply and demand.

The public has not created a demand for audiophile quality, and so the record companies make no effort to supply it. Although almost any studio these days is capable of making a high fidelity recording with the equipment on hand, that recording still requires a huge investment of time, and even more importantly, expertise, on the part of the recording engineer and producer in order to achieve it. If great care is not taken at every stage of the recording, mixing, and mastering process, you will end up with a product - if you're lucky -  that is of acceptable sonic quality - but far, far removed from great quality.

But as I said, the record buying public has not demanded quality in recordings. Most people are happy to hear music through inferior mediums such as mp3s, ipods, computer speakers, car stereos, and mediocre home stereo systems. As long as the performance of the artist moves them, the recording quality is not noticed, nor missed, nor is it even accessible through their delivery systems. In short, they don't know what they're missing sound-quality wise.

And honestly, there is something to be said for that. What makes the hair stand up on the back of your neck is the emotion of the performer and the song itself - not how well it was recorded. And so people are happy with the music that they buy just as it is. Nothing wrong with that.

And so if that's the case, why would a record label then bother to spend twice as long in the studio - and twice the money - nursing the audio quality aspects of a recording if it's not going to help to sell any more units?? That's right - they wouldn't - and they don't!! Supply and demand. Dollars and cents. Simple.

However let me assure you, that as inspiring and emotionally moving as your favorite record is, it is even WAY more of those things and much more visceral when experienced with true audiophile quality. (Unfortunately the chances are that your favorite song isn't all that well recorded, and so you'll never experience it that way even if you upgrade your stereo system - sorry!)

Think of it this way. You can be inspired by watching your favorite movie on a VHS tape through an old 25" TV. That's how a lot of us grew up experiencing a lot of movies and it was wonderful. But imagine now how much more of an emotional wallop that the same movie packs when you watch it on Blu-ray, on a 60" flat screen HDTV. Same art, different delivery system. Different experience.

And now because of this state of affairs with the record companies and music production, we now have many people who work in the music industry who have grown up with and gotten used to recording quality that is only of "acceptable" quality, and so help to perpetuate the problem by not seeking from those that they work with anything better. It's an unfortunate cycle.

On the other hand, there are a few artists, and a few labels, as well as a few recording studios (including my own), who make recording quality a priority, and strive to only publish music that puts as much effort into the recordings themselves as into the performances of the artists. If you have a proper stereo system (not something that you can get at Best Buy or put together for less than $1000), you can go through your CD collection one day and find out who they are - it's a real eye-opener!