Does your ear change ?

artiebear

Not sure it's the right section, but here's a story. I fell in love with Suzanne Vegas' music one night in 1985/86 when after meeting a   a young lady post gig in Aberdeen, I was introduced to the debut album. It made me all excited about acoustic music again. 

Roll on, 15 years . I was privileged to support SV, totally in awe of her and her songs.

Have not listened to her music for years until tonight ( still think she is genius) suddenly the acoustic guitar of the first ( still brilliant album ) sounds so thin. Is it the fact that a) tastes have changed or b)has recording acoustic guitar improved ? or )c my ear has become more adept to hearing nuance of acoustic guitar on record ?, especially as when I first heard SV, my music and band were somewhat more electric and a lot louder than the music of SV ?

Either way, that first album is glorious in every way.

stickyfiddle

I would guess all 3. 

I’ve definitely found myself returning to records I used to think wee perfect and struggling with some of the production, but I’m sure that’s been a combination of changes in my own tastes and increase in my own ability to analyse music

Musicwolf

I would agree - combination of all three.

Production styles can date in the same way that say fashion or interior design does.  How a certain song relates to a particular period in your life is an enormous factor.

When my son got me to sign up for Apple Music a while back I was downloading stuff from my youth.  Back in my late teens / early twenty's I was a big Rush fan.  I downloaded the old stuff that I used to have on vinyl together with the later stuff from after I'd stopped following them.  I came to the conclusion that, whilst still technically very competent, the later stuff just didn’t do it for me.  The fact was that there hadn’t been such a step change in what they were doing, it’s just that I’d learned to love the older stuff when I was young and that my tastes and listening habits had changed since.

Nostalgia just isn’t what it used to be.  Have a Wow for supporting SV though.

phil_b

As you get older you do loose the ability to hear higher frequencies

as above a combination

TheBigDipper

I think your response to the recording changes over time. It's not predictable and it's not consistent, but it's there. I can't listen to lots of '80s stuff I bought and liked at the time. Usually over production values that don't do it for me any more. Too pristine for my tastes, usually. 

Earlier stuff from the late '60s and early '70s still sounds good to me - even on CDs that were just transferred from the analogue masters. 

Roland

All three, plus @phil_b’s point about your ears, plus expectations. Modern recordings, with which we unconsciously compare older recordings, have greater fidelity and complexity.

Grangousier

There's also the equipment you used to listen to it on, whether a music centre or Walkman or whatever, which will have made it sound different - very bright sounding music tamed by Dolby on cassette, for example. When I was a student, I had a hand-me-down hi-fi from my father (who'd bought something new, because obviously that was "better" than all this 60s rubbish) - Garrard turntable, Armstrong amplifier and Wharfdale speakers. The amplifier and speakers long gone, I doubt I'll find anything that sounds as good - the components, I think, added a pleasant distortion, much as a good amp would. The fact that I was stoned a lot probably helped too, of course. 

And even different rooms - when I moved to where I am now in 1990, same components, different room, never sounded quite as good. 

80s production was regrettable, though. There are some things that sound simultaneously 80s and beautiful - like Thomas Dolby's production on Prefab Sprout records. But mostly not. 

artiebear

A lot or very good and interesting points being made here. It does seem that, in retrospect, a lot of 80's production went overboard on getting pristine high end frequencies, probably down to the new fangled CD format encouraging engineers and producers to push the envelope. It is also true that on cassette and vinyl what now sounds very harsh in a digital environment sounded fine

As I have thought about this, I also remember the arrival of the first Taylor guitars onto the scene. They were relatively rare beast back then and were desired in recording situations for their crisp bright tone, bearing in mind that if you were using a Martin back then it was certain to be a dreadnought as 000 and OM's  were just not part of the 80's Martin catalogue (unbelievable to think of now ! ) other than special order.
The arrival of these crisper sounding guitars definitely contributed to the sonic landscaped changed the direction of acoustic guitar manufacture.

It's also true that we have seen massive advances in recording with a desire to capture more of the full range of frequencies, rather than cried high end ( usually with some spacial enhancer and lots of compression in those days ). It has also become cool to go for for vintage tones again and allow the mids and lows have some space.

ToneControl

I've had the same experience with a few artists. I think it's that you've heard better versions of those sounds since, and especially as a player, you've been able to fine-tune them when playing to be near-perfect for your ear.

richardhomer

The master tapes for LPs were deliberately eq’d for the format - low bass was usually cut and highs boosted to compensate for the characteristics/physical limitations of vinyl. This is why early CDs tended to sound bright/thin. 

I always loved the sound of John Martyn’s acoustic guitar on his 70s albums - when I first heard it on CD it sounded too ‘present’ with too much attack. Subsequent reissues sorted this out.