LATEST | FREE PLUG-INS | PODCAST | TUTORIALS | REVIEWS | BLOGS | COMPATIBILITY | RESOURCES | WIN | DEALS | ABOUT US
Monday 03.25.24 Has Recording Quality Really Improved in the Last
Posted by Russ Hughes
50 Years?
Share
There’s no denying the advances in recording technology in the last 50 years. What we have to
work with now is, on the whole, better, smaller, cheaper. For those of us trying to get tracks
down in the 70s and 80s, looking at the vast array on o!er today makes us wish we’d had this
equipment then. However, spend some time listening to tracks recorded in the 70s and 80s,
even further back, and they often exhibit a quality that belies the limitations of the equipment.
It leaves one asking; “Has recording quality really improved in the last 50 years?”
The Evolution of Recording Technology
I was in the gym and had found a Classic Rock playlist to push me to 5K. I shu#e them to
ensure I’m not too bored and like the surprise of unexpected songs. The first one to play was
Barracuda by Heart (1977), I had to look to see who it was. It bore little musical resemblance to
the M.O.R 80s sound that Heart are much more known for. This song rocks and even more the
snare sounds fantastic.
When musos often cite great recordings they tend to use examples like Steely Dan, but when
you start to explore the mainstream recordings of the period, there are plenty of examples of
incredible quality, such as the vocal on Hey Jude (1968) or Go Your Own Way (1976). Or the
backing vocals on Take It Easy (1972), or Bohemian Rhapsody (1974). I could cite examples of
drums, keyboards, guitars, or in fact entire orchestras from the period, Kashmir (1975), for
example.
The late 20th century saw the apex of analogue technology, with recording studios boasting
massive mixing consoles and tape machines that were as temperamental as they were
beloved. These were the tools that captured the sounds of a generation, encoding them onto a
physical medium that would age, degrade, and imbue the music with a certain warmth over
time.
The digital revolution, heralded by the arrival of the compact disc in the early 1980s, promised
clarity, permanence, and convenience. As DAWs became the norm in the late '90s and early
2000s, the process of recording, editing, and mixing underwent a seismic shift. Suddenly,
engineers had the ability to manipulate audio with precision previously unimaginable, from
auto tuning pitch imperfections to layering hundreds of tracks without generational loss.
Beyond the Binary of Analogue and Digital
However, the essence of this article is not to rehash the analogue versus digital debate—a
conversation that, while valuable, often oversimplifies the nuanced reality of recording quality.
Instead, let's explore the advancements that have unequivocally improved the recording
process, while considering the nuances that define what we consider "high quality" in the
context of recorded sound.
Noise levels, dynamic range, and frequency response are the three pillars upon which the
technical quality of a recording often rests. Modern equipment, with its low noise floor and vast
"
headroom, allows for recordings that can capture the faintest whisper to the loudest explosion,
all within the same track. Frequency response has similarly benefited from digital precision,
o!ering a wider spectrum of sound that can be captured and reproduced.
Yet, these technical capabilities raise a pertinent question: Does the ability to record with such
clarity and range automatically translate to a better listening experience? Herein lies the crux of
the matter. The quality of a recording is not solely defined by its technical specifications but
also by the intention and skill behind its creation.
The People Behind the Console
The transition to digital has democratised music production (a term I hate to use, but a well
used trope will have to su"ce), enabling anyone to create high-quality recordings in home
studios, theoretically. This shift has led to an explosion of creativity and diversity in the music
industry, with genres and artists emerging that might have remained unheard in the era of big
studios and bigger budgets.
However, this accessibility has also led to a saturation of the market with recordings that, in
some cases are no better, if not worse quality than those made 50 years ago. I want to be clear,
this is not a ‘songs ain’t what they used to be’ or ‘it’s all beats and Autotune’ moment, this is a,
the technical quality of the recording is often no better.
And here comes the rub. Irrespective of the fact that we’ve gone from a car to a rocket ship,
figuratively speaking, with the gear we now have, the artistry of recording—understanding how
to capture the essence of a performance, the atmosphere of a space, or the emotion behind a
note—is not inherent in the equipment used but in the person using it. In the hands of a skilled
engineer, even the most basic setup can produce recordings of remarkable quality. Conversely,
the most advanced technology can fall short if used without intention and understanding. It's
the human touch, the decisions made in the moment, and the understanding of how to bring
out the best in a performance that truly define the quality of a recording.
Yes, it’s that truism, even if a cliche, it’s the ears not the gear. And comparing recordings made
now with those made years ago, shows that to be true.
The Role of Engineers and Producers
The unsung heroes in the pursuit of recording quality are undoubtedly the audio engineers and
producers, people who went before us like George Martin, Al Schmitt, Tom Dowd, et al. These
masters bridged the gap between the technical and the artistic, using their tools to sculpt
soundscapes that brought the artist's vision to life.
!
As technology has evolved, so too have the skills required to excel in this field. Modern
producers must be as comfortable with software as their predecessors were with hardware,
blending traditional audio engineering principles with the endless possibilities o!ered by digital
tools. Yet, regardless of the era, the core of their role remains the same: to serve the music and
realise the artist’s intent.
The evolution of recording technology over the past five decades has undeniably expanded the
horizons of what's possible in music production. From the tangible warmth of analogue to the
crisp precision of digital, plug-ins, or unlimited track count, each advancement has o!ered new
tools to capture the essence of sound. However, the enduring lesson of this journey is not just
about the equipment or technology itself, but about the individuals who wield these tools with
artistry and vision.
The fact that some of the most revered recordings in history were made over half a century
ago, with what would now be considered primitive equipment, is a testament to the critical role
of the audio engineer and producer. Take a moment to listen to ‘In the Wee Small Hours of the
Morning’ by Sinatra (1965), recorded before most of us were born - it could have been recorded
yesterday. These individuals did not merely operate gear; they sculpted sound, working within
the constraints of their era to create audio experiences that continue to resonate with listeners
today, in short, they worked bloody miracles.
I know many debates are taking place about the future of our industry with the advent of AI. I
read comments daily, which whilst at first glance, may seem to be about technology, what they
are really about is the fear of losing one’s job to technology. It’s not a new debate, it’s been
going on for hundreds of years as new technologies threaten to replace farmers, factory
workers, and now, audio engineers.
When I listen to the records made over 50 years ago it gives me an assurance. However good
the technology is, and the promise it makes, the most critical component in the creation of
enduring, impactful music is, and always will be, the individuals who guide the process. Their
skills, insights, and creativity are the indispensable factors that elevate a piece of music from
merely being heard to being truly felt, reminding us that at the heart of every great recording
lies the human touch.
Russ Hughes spent the 80s programming synths, samplers and other MIDI devices for lots of
top names. He went on to work as a song writer for several decades. He founded the Experts
websites in 2008 after seeing many audio professionals did not have free access to high-
quality content, the rest they say is history. In the last few years, he has taken a back seat to
concentrate on other projects.
Read More →
Image: Capricorn Studios in Macon, Georgia - COURTESY OF MERCER UNIVERSITY
categories: Music Production, Recording
How We Create Free Content
We strive for openness and transparency with our readers regarding the content we
present. Upholding ethical standards, we diligently adhere to the guidelines set forth by the
ASA/CAP, aiming to safeguard the interests of both our audience and the brands we
collaborate with. A portion of our content is commissioned by these partners, enabling us to
o!er our readers valuable insights and information free of charge. We are supported by a
network of industry partners whose generosity makes this possible. Additionally, some of
the links on our site are a"liate-based, meaning we may earn a small commission from
purchases made through them. For further clarification on these practices, please refer to
our Editorial & Review Policy.
Newer / Older
Production Expert Comment Policy
We welcome comments, please keep it respectful. We reserve the right to Got it
remove comments. LINKS PREVENT COMMENTS POSTING
What do you think?
19 Responses
This is good This is great! Surprised
2 Ratings
★★★★★ 5.0
9 Comments
1 Login
Rate and comment ★★★★★
G Join the discussion…
LOG IN WITH OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS ?
Name
Share Best Newest Oldest
Steve DeMott − ⚑
19 days ago
It's the carpenter, not the tools. Always has been, always will be.
4 Reply ⥅
B
Brice De Ron − ⚑
20 days ago
Hello Russ,
excellent, as so many times you hit the ton for a the right topic.
As you, I remember the discussion about digitization, no talking about the discussion today, but about
wen CD and digital deck became affordable (such as ADAT, or Tascam etc....) and everybody was saying
Digital is better quality and so on. Like you, my comment is not a bout if Digital OR Analogue better for
this or that, everybody should and decide for himself and that's good so.
But then, mid end 90, I made a comment that surprise a lot of people at our publisher and fellow's
producer who then where saying "what you're still using your Tascam 388" (remember you wrote a piece
about that nostalgic time) when I told them how I was producing, and my answer was quite simple!
"Analogue or digital does not matter that much!!! a bad produce track stays a bad produce track and a
ignorant produce cannot change that either".
will AI change our business? sure as did digital work^ow (fully digital now in my studio), but I repeat my
statement from over 30 year today, as it is still valide " a badly compose and produce track stay's a badly
produce track, not matter what you use as technology!" end of statement.
My personal opinion! And I believe in AI, as I believe in digital technology at that time.
People make the difference and tool help them period.
Thanks for the article, Russ, appreciated
Brice
3 Reply ⥅
Benton − ⚑
20 days ago
Good to see Tom Dowd mentioned.
Without the culture of apprenticeship we had in the before time, we're not going to have the same level
of quality.
2 Reply ⥅
Rob Williams − ⚑
19 days ago
Nicely put Sir. When I was using analog equipment I could never afford anything professional, and so the
move to DAW was an obvious one. Even the early 16 bit stuff was far superior to the cassette 4 tracks I
had been using. For professional studios ( I used to sell Pro Tools) it was more about work^ow, track
count, automation, repeatability, non-destructive editing and later plug ins. Quality really stopped being a
negative with Pro Tools 24, largely because of the improvement in converters.
The great producers I worked with were easily able to keep creating the sounds they were already good
at. I never heard a single one of them say they wanted to go back to tape, although many of them kept
their consoles. It was always about their talent and their ears, and the change to digital more about their
time.
1 Reply ⥅
Matt Sauro − ⚑
17 days ago
Absolutely, human art ultimately comes from humans. Technology is a tool, but if you let it drive the car
it will take the humanity out of it. However, whenever this topic comes up there is usually a lot of talk
about the analog to digital transition, but I feel like the evolution of dynamics in audio, especially in
music, is a larger factor in the evolution of "quality" in audio. The loudness wars of the 90s, the evolution
of media on the go and the transition from home stereos/hie's to headphones. We are only now starting
to get back to a time where lossless digital audio is the norm, as it is becoming widely available on
streaming services now (Tidal for a while, but Apple Music, Amazon and Spotify [soon?... never? ]). A
lot of younger people that are chasing old vinyl records because "it's better" commonly site "analog
warmth" as the reason, but I'm convinced the more dominant factor they are perceiving is the wide, open
dynamic range the mixing and mastering engineers achieved in the late 60's, 70's, and 80's.
Digital/analog is a worthy discussion, but why are dynamics so infrequently discussed? My opinion is
that it has had a MASSIVE impact on the "quality" of our audio art in the last 50 years.
0 Reply ⥅
therealpmotion ★★★★★ − ⚑
19 days ago
Couldn’t agree more. In the age of digital and the availability of the same tools for all, even more so are
the skills of the person operating those tools the deciding factor. Of course it always going to be song,
the song and the song.
0 Reply ⥅
A
andrewsrea ★★★★★ − ⚑
19 days ago
Depends on one's deenition of 'quality' and what aspects of 'recording.'
If we include some of our artifacts from the past, I believe we have better devices to capture, edit, store
and share today. There is also a greater risk today of putting to many instruments into a song, over
applying gear or plugins, not preparing for a track and doing a couple hundred takes to achieve 'the one';
and rushing through a production with the reliance on technology exing it later in the processes. IMHO,
there are drastically less beautifully ambient rooms to capture organic sounds and now the mainstay are
cozy, but acoustically dilcult workspaces and reliance on plugins for ambience. Luckily, we still have
lessons learned from the days of rudimentary technology: ensure the song or speech is perfect, get it
right at the source, mic placement, keep it simple and ask for opinions.
I'll close with I believe there were just as many 'timeless,' 'meh' and 'bad' recordings back in the day. The
difference is, the limited distribution would prevent 'meh' and 'bad' recordings getting to the public and
todays' open distribution (anyone can upload to an online service), there is an increased likelihood of
coming across one.
0 Reply ⥅
K
Klaus − ⚑
19 days ago
Of course, I never want to go back to the hassle with tape machines, but the rest.... However, in a time
today, as all the Digital stuff is so incredible cheap with great quality, possiblities and so on, everybody
can jump on the train. But all in all, possibly the majority think with modern technology it's easy to record
great music even without having a musical ear... what to expect?
0 Reply ⥅
Ken Royster − ⚑
20 days ago
Absolutely yes
The people
The Burl mothership analog to digital converters, transformer on every input
And an analog mix bus.
SSL and Manley Vari Mu for the Tubes
You can feel it
0 Reply ⥅
Subscribe Privacy Do Not Sell My Data
Trusted content from independent music and post
:
