Audio quality
What do we talk about when we talk about audio quality?
We usually hear a lot about audio quality, vinyl, tapes, digital formats with loss and loss, high resolution formats, hi-fi players, analog and digital recording and mixing systems, microphones and preamps worth thousands of dollars, eighty channel mixing tables, diverse production techniques, mastering abroad, etc., etc. But is it clear what we consider as audio quality? We all have the same concept about what it should be? Beyond how we record, in what format and what device do we listen to, what do we look for?
Audio quality equals clarity?
It can be partially. This concept would affirm without doing it that the diffusion is bad when in reality in many cases, styles, songs, orchestrations, the diffusion is friendly. Moreover, it is necessary for a good development of the sound concept sought. The diffusion, reverberation, acoustic environment of a room can favor and in cases be indispensable for a good sound record.
Audio quality is equal to dynamic?
Perhaps, if we value the space and the feeling of almost being able to stand between the guitarist and drummer when listening to a record, understand the subtle arrangements of an acoustic guitar and then receive the power expression of the whole band together, in that case we would be defending the natural dynamics of music and its interpretation. The truth is that decades ago we are going in the opposite direction, not only in studio but also in live sound. The advent of digital tables and their dynamic processors, channel by channel, led the trend to compress everything. As the engineer Mario Brauer would say all musicians are increasingly on the edge of the sound stage looking for a space to be seen. Depth has been lost and we all accept to a lesser or greater extent that that’s fine. Although we complain loudly we usually go in that direction.
Audio quality equals expensive equipment and instruments?
Undoubtedly expensive equipment and instruments offer us quality in registration and mixing. But the history of music is full of great albums recorded with lower level equipment and instruments. It is clear then that the right instrument for a song is not determined by its value in the store.
Audio quality equals perfect acoustics?
Registering in a suitable acoustic environment favors us, it is welcome. In some styles or works it may be very necessary. But we could not say that it is decisive.
Audio quality is mastering in a prestigious studio?
Many artists make recordings and domestic mixes considering that by mastering in a large studio they will achieve a magical transformation in the sound result. Clearly this is a wrong concept. What is broken is difficult almost impossible to fix. It can be improved, enhance the good done in previous stages and correct some errors, homogenize and guarantee a good reproduction in most of the possible means, but we cannot claim a magical transformation. Most of the time this does not happen.
Audio quality is hi-fi format?
If we achieve a great record with careful production in all its stages, the ideal would be to reach the listeners in the best possible way. This includes digital or analog support, as well as the player. This is not always the case and mass dissemination through media such as YouTube, Spotify, or others will depress sound quality in order to reach more people. Also the reproduction with mobile devices and headphones of low cost.
I could continue to name factors and elements that influence our determination on the concept of audio quality but I think the idea is raised, I consider that audio quality in our time has more to do with balances, balance between these factors, elements and tools of production, achieve the best performance of our equipment, acoustic space and time, artistically determine which is the right instrument, preserve the timbral, tone and dynamics of the sounds captured in the most natural way we can, without ignoring stylistic variables.
