Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why does it have to be SO F'ING LOUD?
I picked up the latest Coldplay CD and I am so disgusted with the audio
quality. There is absolutely no dynamic range and it's painful to listen to at even a moderate volume. I know I am beating a dead horse here but have we become a nation of deaf retards? Why do labels insist on making every release sound like **** now? This idiotic practice of pumping up recordings to such ridiculous levels has to some back down to earth. Lots of great music is greating destroyed. I really don't understand this **** anymore.... Make it stop....please!!!! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ups.com... It could (hopefully) be a passing trend, just like the boost of treble in the 80's. When technology made it possible to add a lot of treble people tended to overuse it. Then came a "stabilization" period. There are a few mastering engineers who refuses the loudness trend, for examle Bill Inglot and Steve Hoffman. Great sounding records IMO. With the 'marketing bits' and sample rates ever on the increase, it would appear that high-end extension will be abused indefinitely. I wish someone had enough valid data to put forward a proposal to AES (who *might* be able to influence results) to set a limit to the RMS values. I just had a record that I was really proud of, squashed into oblivion by mastering... and what appears to be cheezy mastering at that. Apparently nothing was done except massive limiting followed by normalization, but the average RMS is between -6 and -8 dbfs on a blues trio with vocal. (Essentially a quartet I suppose, due to stacked rhythm guitars). Ear fatigue sets in after just a few minutes, and there seems to be a buzzsaw running over everything... massive flat-topped waves.... but I guess that's just the 'trend', eh? -- David Morgan (MAMS) http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com Morgan Audio Media Service Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901 _______________________________________ http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Dana wrote:
I was sorting through all my mp3 stuff and found a few of the "Best 500 So I pop a couple into the audio system in the den for a listen because I was in my 20's in the 1980's and even though I'm a keyboard player, the 80's IMHO is the decade we can leave out of music encyclopedia's. 80's all the same? No more than the 70's or any other decade. There are some extrodinary albums from the 80's. Songs AND production. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 15:02:19 -0400, "Tocaor"
wrote: I picked up the latest Coldplay CD and I am so disgusted with the audio quality. There is absolutely no dynamic range and it's painful to listen to at even a moderate volume. I know I am beating a dead horse here but have we become a nation of deaf retards? Why do labels insist on making every release sound like **** now? This idiotic practice of pumping up recordings to such ridiculous levels has to some back down to earth. Lots of great music is greating destroyed. I really don't understand this **** anymore.... Make it stop....please!!!! Here's a little something from my perspective as an engineer - This week for the umpteenth time I've gotten back a mastering job that is overcompressed, mis-equalized and useless. The artist decided to go with a particular mastering house from the moment they decided to do an album, so the credits would look good, apparently. I spent a lot of time (and unbilled time) getting subtle details right for the artist and we get the master back from "XXXXXX" where "everybody who is successful in this genre goes" and we get a hack job, smashed into mediocrity. Don't these guys have ears? Why don't they hear what they are receiving and work WITH the sound instead of trying to shoehorn the sound into something it's not? I hear the label work that "XXXXXX" does with other artists and the masters sound decent, I suppose - what with not knowing what they were working with in the first place. But I'm not sending that type of a job. The details are different - there is reverb and dynamics and things the artist spent two hours deciding on how to place in the mix. I'm not using their "hit artists" as a mix reference, and I don't think I should have to. I'll ask the artist if they know what mastering is in the first place and to be frank, most don't. All they know is that "everybody who is successful in this genre goes" to "XXXXXX." I'm starting to think that they are Mastering Mills, not Houses. I don't have the budget to fly there and watch, and I give reasonable notes about what may be a studio anomaly on my end (lows, etc) but sweet holy Hell are mastering jobs getting ****ty. And not just from "XXXXX", but "YYYYY" as well. Unfortunately these mid-level places are famous for the mid-level hits that come out of the mid-level artists who use them but unless you are sitting over their shoulders there is a pretty bad standard that they find to be acceptable. It may just be my particular situation but frankly I can do a better master than these places. And that's what I'm doing right now, "mastering" mixes before I send them so they can't really do anything else to them. Unfortunately that means I'm emulating the excellent mastering gear I know they have with my own lesser Protools plugins. It's my only choice - they are misusing the real gear, so I have to narrow their window of choices with plugins. I'd rather have a better job done by them in the first place, but given the smashed roadkill I get back as a first attempt on their part, it would seem to be pointless.. (Oops - it turns out that they were only using Protools for the mastering job! Silly me! I guess we don't rate an analog stage. . .) Kurt Riemann |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Joe Sensor
wrote: Dana wrote: I was sorting through all my mp3 stuff and found a few of the "Best 500 So I pop a couple into the audio system in the den for a listen because I was in my 20's in the 1980's and even though I'm a keyboard player, the 80's IMHO is the decade we can leave out of music encyclopedia's. 80's all the same? No more than the 70's or any other decade. There are some extrodinary albums from the 80's. Songs AND production. Generalization is always bad. I do agree that there were some great recordings done in the '80s. -Jay -- x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry for some of the typos in the original post. No matter how much I read
what I just typed I still read it for what I meant in my mind and not what's on the screen. Silly.... Anyway, I wish labels would release two versions from their top artist so we can have a choice between a CD with reasonable dynamic range/clarity and the distorted garbage we are be plagued with now. I bet once people start realizing how ****y the current trends sound they will want things to back the other way. I guy can dream can't he? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Lines: 23
Message-ID: X-Complaints-To: X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling X-Trace: bhmkggakljkaanefdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcbokj jkhefjkoogaanedekajmggfglicjiihlocmcpfoklgccdelddf bpfbhpfdfkkgmmobmnhejeihnjjgogkkdhgcopmpdglcdglkke fihlmgaipk NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:11:11 EDT Organization: BellSouth Internet Group Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:11:11 GMT Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.audio.pro:1178967 On 2005-06-10 (ScottDorsey) said: If artists want their pop releases to be compressed, that's one thing. But what I am offended by is when re-releases of older material are also squashed to hell and beyond. THis is because we have bean counters running the industry and not music lovers. Nobody gives a tinker's damn because they can't hear the difference. IF they think it drives sales that's what they're after. SHort term profit above all else. IT's the new corporate ethos. Richard Webb, Electric SPider Productions, New Orleans, La. REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email -- "Applying computer technology is as simple as finding the right wrench to pound in the correct screw." |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Dana writes:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:43:45 -0500, Joe Sensor wrote: Dana wrote: I was sorting through all my mp3 stuff and found a few of the "Best 500 So I pop a couple into the audio system in the den for a listen because I was in my 20's in the 1980's and even though I'm a keyboard player, the 80's IMHO is the decade we can leave out of music encyclopedia's. 80's all the same? No more than the 70's or any other decade. There are some extrodinary albums from the 80's. Songs AND production. Yea I know, but OVERALL.... and top 40 pop radio play. The Linda Ronstadt /Nelson Riddle albums were technically wonderful sounding. If you look at the 70;s overall, you will still find the tunes being played, being used as music in commercials, being lifted for samples etc. I don't hear much of that happening with 80;s tunes. They seem to be mostly forgotten. Maybe we have to wait another 10 years and the cycle will repeat? I agree with you in general, but there were a few good ones. Journey (most of their stuff was in the 80s) and Night Ranger come to mind. It seems that era was a bit more "poppie". -- % Randy Yates % "I met someone who looks alot like you, %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % she does the things you do, %%% 919-577-9882 % but she is an IBM." %%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I was sitting down with a few friends of mine (we are all 19) to listen
to some music on my DIY system, and also to make some ringtones out of some of the music (yeah, I know, kids these days...haha), so I was loading them into Adobe Audition often, and it was amazing how like Green Day, etc, were like 100% compressed, limited, and normalized and never changed the entire time. There was one song that I can't remember that had one dynamic change in it, like it went silent for just a second that my friend was entranced with, thought it was the coolest thing in the world. Then I pulled out some Chesky Records, and Ella Fitzgerald, etc, to show them what a real song looks like, and it was a huge difference. Adobe showed large peaks and valleys, and nothing went over the -3 line that I remember and most was much softer, as to give actual dynamic range. To say the least, they were amazed I don't even listen to popular music with my speakers at all, they are too revealing, and I can't stand how this compressed **** sounds on them. So loud and so much treble, bleck. Now in my car audio setup, it sounds great on, because I think the drivers are built for it. Not very revealing, tweeters with low extension...etc. Not saying that car audio has to be bad, just saying most of it is lack luster. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Tocaor" wrote in message
... I picked up the latest Coldplay CD and I am so disgusted with the audio quality. There is absolutely no dynamic range and it's painful to listen to at even a moderate volume. I know I am beating a dead horse here but have we become a nation of deaf retards? Why do labels insist on making every release sound like **** now? I don't know about deaf, but clearly we've been a nation of retards for quite awhile. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On 6/9/05 3:46 PM, in article , "Dana"
wrote: On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:02:19 -0400, Tocaor wrote: I picked up the latest Coldplay CD and I am so disgusted with the audio quality. There is absolutely no dynamic range and it's painful to listen to at even a moderate volume. I know I am beating a dead horse here but have we become a nation of deaf retards? Why do labels insist on making every release sound like **** now? This idiotic practice of pumping up recordings to such ridiculous levels has to some back down to earth. Lots of great music is greating destroyed. I really don't understand this **** anymore.... Make it stop....please!!!! Did you take tehr record back and demand your money refunded and state Loudly and Clearly thst it SOUNDED BROKEN? Money attched to clear and concise messages from ****ed-off consumers is all that will talk here |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On 6/9/05 4:34 PM, in article 0J1qe.21834$ld3.5217@trnddc04, "David Morgan
(MAMS)" wrote: I wish someone had enough valid data to put forward a proposal to AES (who *might* be able to influence results) to set a limit to the RMS values. It exists, it's the film mixing standards. Couple that with (somebody help me on this next part) a mastering protocol form ?? Sony ?? HDCD ?? Some standard that, the more you pushed the hypercompression, the more it restricted the overall level to an equal-loudness compensation by way of ballancing against the remaining crest-factor ...? Then there's Bob Katz' Holy Grail of the K-meter system I just had a record that I was really proud of, squashed into oblivion by mastering... and what appears to be cheezy mastering at that. Apparently nothing was done except massive limiting followed by normalization, but the average RMS is between -6 and -8 dbfs on a blues trio with vocal. (Essentially a quartet I suppose, due to stacked rhythm guitars). Ear fatigue sets in after just a few minutes, and there seems to be a buzzsaw running over everything... massive flat-topped waves.... but I guess that's just the 'trend', eh? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Kadis" wrote in message news:jay- Generalization is always bad. Especially RMS generalisation to -12dB . geoff |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:24:12 -0400, "Tocaor"
wrote: Sorry for some of the typos in the original post. No matter how much I read what I just typed I still read it for what I meant in my mind and not what's on the screen. Silly.... Anyway, I wish labels would release two versions from their top artist so we can have a choice between a CD with reasonable dynamic range/clarity and the distorted garbage we are be plagued with now. I bet once people start realizing how ****y the current trends sound they will want things to back the other way. What band was it (U2?) that got its panties in a wad maybe a year ago when their songs showed up on P2P BEFORE they released the album? (the rumor was they did it themselves so the could generate some press and be "oh so offended" about the whole thing) Were these "unauthorized" releases pre-mastered mixes? How did they sound compared to the final product on CD? I guy can dream can't he? ----- http://mindspring.com/~benbradley |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 03:58:45 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote: On 6/9/05 3:46 PM, in article , "Dana" wrote: On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:02:19 -0400, Tocaor wrote: I picked up the latest Coldplay CD and I am so disgusted with the audio quality. There is absolutely no dynamic range and it's painful to listen to at even a moderate volume. I know I am beating a dead horse here but have we become a nation of deaf retards? Why do labels insist on making every release sound like **** now? This idiotic practice of pumping up recordings to such ridiculous levels has to some back down to earth. Lots of great music is greating destroyed. I really don't understand this **** anymore.... Make it stop....please!!!! Did you take tehr record back and demand your money refunded and state Loudly and Clearly thst it SOUNDED BROKEN? I recall in high school a lot of guys would turn up their car stereos way past the point of clipping. I couldn't imagine doing that myself (I just wanted an amp and speakers that would go to that volume and still sound CLEAN), but I imagine people actually liked it that way. So now they make CD's that sound that way without having to turn the volume all the way up, and I suspect some people like it. Money attched to clear and concise messages from ****ed-off consumers is all that will talk here You may be right, but I'm cynical enough about most consumers that I don't see a significant amount of this happening. ----- http://mindspring.com/~benbradley |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
When kids listen to a lot of the so called music, that the labels are
putting out these days, they think, that it sounds great, because they don't know any better. If the people funding the garbage can pay some mastering guy to make it sound like what is selling, and they think, that it could mean more money in CD sales, that is what they're going to do. Like or not, IT'S CALLED CAPITALISM! It isn't about art. It's about making money. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
SSJVCmag wrote: Good grief... Somebody PLEASE second me here with TOTO...??! White Sister ! rd |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
But where's the outrage? ..... I don't hear many artists complaining
about their music being ruined. Do they really care or can they even tell that it sounds like crap. I know the listening public is OTL these days. Another reason I've gone vinyl. CDs sound cruddy already and when you master them like mowed lawn it's adding insult to injury. VB BTW.... Was U2s last album a flatliner? You'd think with their rep. that they'd care. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"vinyl believer" wrote in message oups.com... But where's the outrage? ..... I don't hear many artists complaining about their music being ruined. Do they really care or can they even tell that it sounds like crap. I know the listening public is OTL these days. Another reason I've gone vinyl. CDs sound cruddy already and when you master them like mowed lawn it's adding insult to injury. And LPs just skip if you master them the same way. But the problem is the mastering, not the medium. geoff |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Geoff Wood Wrote
"But the problem is the mastering, not the medium. " Well it's both actually. 16/44 digital isn't a great medium, but flatline mastering is obviously a serious problem for any medium. But are artists and engineers really doing anything about this stupidity that is ruining their work? When are we going to see an article in USA Today asking "IS MUSIC TOO LOUD?", instead of that 'record your record in your condo' crap. VB |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
vinyl believer wrote:
Geoff Wood Wrote "But the problem is the mastering, not the medium. " Well it's both actually. Actually, you're demonstrably wrong. No matter how often we correct you vinyl believer, you insist in reciting this old wife's tale. It's like your badge of ignornace, you wear it proudly! 16/44 digital isn't a great medium, It's all we need in a distribution media. but flatline mastering is obviously a serious problem for any medium. The point has been made that due to its readily-audible technical deficiencies, flatline mastering is even more of a problem for vinyl than the far cleaner and forgiving CD medium. But are artists and engineers really doing anything about this stupidity that is ruining their work? It's the current style. It's what they think they need to do to be heard. When are we going to see an article in USA Today asking "IS MUSIC TOO LOUD?", instead of that 'record your record in your condo' crap. Probably about the same time you quit running on and on and on about your imagined audible failings of 16/44 digital, vinyl believer. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Tocaor wrote:
I picked up the latest Coldplay CD and I am so disgusted with the audio quality. There is absolutely no dynamic range and it's painful to listen to at even a moderate volume. I know I am beating a dead horse here but have we become a nation of deaf retards? Why do labels insist on making every release sound like **** now? This idiotic practice of pumping up recordings to such ridiculous levels has to some back down to earth. Lots of great music is greating destroyed. I really don't understand this **** anymore.... Isn't the lack of dynamic range something to do with the way transmitters work? I believe that an equal energy signal is better from a transmission point of view. This is how TV and radio broadcast their sound - equal energy no matter whether its "loud" or "quiet". As for being too loud, well that's supposed to be cool. "Cool" seems to have nothing to do with intelligent thought or careful consideration, and everything to do with consensus and appearance. £0.025 Chris W -- The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long, But the words of the wise are quiet and few. --- |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris Whealy" wrote in message
... Isn't the lack of dynamic range something to do with the way transmitters work? I believe that an equal energy signal is better from a transmission point of view. This is how TV and radio broadcast their sound - equal energy no matter whether its "loud" or "quiet". Another strange phenomena is when something is commercially successful, even if it's crap, the public relate that sound to "commercial/professional". So even though it sounds much better without it, people don't think it's professional unless it matches the crap sound of other commercial products. The same thing happened with Autotune. People relate the screwy phased sound it gives to professional recordings to the point that people request it on tracks irrespective of whether there's pitch problems that need correcting or not. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Isn't the lack of dynamic range something to do with the way
transmitters work? My understanding is that it's a deliberate attempt to deal with the fact that, these days, radio is often being listened to in noisy environments in which a full dynamic range would lose the quieter portions or blast the louder ones. The fact that an artist _wants_ to have that under their conrol is being lost in the shuffle. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
But where's the outrage? ..... I don't hear many artists complaining
about their music being ruined. If you've been playing loud rock for a while, can you still tell the difference? (I'm at least half serious.) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Brian wrote:
Like or not, IT'S CALLED CAPITALISM! It isn't about art. It's about making money. "These kids today! How can they possibly listen to that awful noise?" I think all we can do is hope that the next generation will rebel by going back to lyrics with meaning and music with complexity... |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Kesselman wrote:
Brian wrote: Like or not, IT'S CALLED CAPITALISM! It isn't about art. It's about making money. "These kids today! How can they possibly listen to that awful noise?" I think all we can do is hope that the next generation will rebel by going back to lyrics with meaning and music with complexity... If artists want their pop releases to be compressed, that's one thing. But what I am offended by is when re-releases of older material are also squashed to hell and beyond. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Recently purchased new Dave Matthew's CD.
I am unable to listen to it due to the mastering. (Distortion, Fatiguing) I send my complaints to the artist. Tocaor wrote: I picked up the latest Coldplay CD and I am so disgusted with the audio quality. There is absolutely no dynamic range and it's painful to listen to at even a moderate volume. I know I am beating a dead horse here but have we become a nation of deaf retards? Why do labels insist on making every release sound like **** now? This idiotic practice of pumping up recordings to such ridiculous levels has to some back down to earth. Lots of great music is greating destroyed. I really don't understand this **** anymore.... Make it stop....please!!!! |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
"vinyl believer" wrote: [snip] Another reason I've gone vinyl. CDs sound cruddy already and when you master them like mowed lawn it's adding insult to injury. If so much as ONE CD sounds good, you're proven wrong about the 44.1/16 medium. I have at least one CD that sounds good. -Jay -- x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Think all "sound guys" are going deaf. Almost all pop CDs and live
shows are mixed with way too much bass. I think we know what music genre to thank for this sorry state of affairs... On 6/10/2005 9:22 AM, Joe Boerst wrote: Recently purchased new Dave Matthew's CD. I am unable to listen to it due to the mastering. (Distortion, Fatiguing) I send my complaints to the artist. Tocaor wrote: I picked up the latest Coldplay CD and I am so disgusted with the audio quality. There is absolutely no dynamic range and it's painful to listen to at even a moderate volume. I know I am beating a dead horse here but have we become a nation of deaf retards? Why do labels insist on making every release sound like **** now? This idiotic practice of pumping up recordings to such ridiculous levels has to some back down to earth. Lots of great music is greating destroyed. I really don't understand this **** anymore.... Make it stop....please!!!! |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Whealy wrote:
Isn't the lack of dynamic range something to do with the way transmitters work? I believe that an equal energy signal is better from a transmission point of view. This is how TV and radio broadcast their sound - equal energy no matter whether its "loud" or "quiet". Yes, radio stations want to be louder than their neighbors. They don't want you to tune past them. In one of the appendices of Bob Katz's book _Mastering Audio_ he shows how hypercompressed CDs actually trump the intent of broadcast processors, causing distortion without any perceivable loudness increase (in comparison to other CDs through the same chain). He concludes that even if a CD is intended for radio, it should be mastered with good dynamics; let the broadcasters process it the way they want. Since the book was published, has any of this changed? Are newer boradcast processors better able to deal with the F'ING loud CDs? What happens if you have a program with a mix of hypercompressed and non-hypercompressed CDs? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:46:42 +0000, Ricky Hunt wrote:
Another strange phenomena is when something is commercially successful, even if it's crap, the public relate that sound to "commercial/professional". So even though it sounds much better without it, people don't think it's professional unless it matches the crap sound of other commercial products. The same thing happened with Autotune. People relate the screwy phased sound it gives to professional recordings to the point that people request it on tracks irrespective of whether there's pitch problems that need correcting or not. So, d'yathink that's why us old guys still dig the sound of vinyl even though we KNOW digital is more accurate? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Agent 86 wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:46:42 +0000, Ricky Hunt wrote: Another strange phenomena is when something is commercially successful, even if it's crap, the public relate that sound to "commercial/professional". So even though it sounds much better without it, people don't think it's professional unless it matches the crap sound of other commercial products. The same thing happened with Autotune. People relate the screwy phased sound it gives to professional recordings to the point that people request it on tracks irrespective of whether there's pitch problems that need correcting or not. So, d'yathink that's why us old guys still dig the sound of vinyl even though we KNOW digital is more accurate? No. I dig the sound of good music regardless of the delivery medium. Personally, though, I couldn't wait for a format that didn't degrade as I listened to it. -Jay (qualified as an old guy at least to AARP) -- x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Agent 86 wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:46:42 +0000, Ricky Hunt wrote: Another strange phenomena is when something is commercially successful, even if it's crap, the public relate that sound to "commercial/professional". So even though it sounds much better without it, people don't think it's professional unless it matches the crap sound of other commercial products. The same thing happened with Autotune. People relate the screwy phased sound it gives to professional recordings to the point that people request it on tracks irrespective of whether there's pitch problems that need correcting or not. So, d'yathink that's why us old guys still dig the sound of vinyl even though we KNOW digital is more accurate? I think that mastering today is so screwy that anybody who says they like anything or don't like anything without having the unmastered signal to compare is foolish. And THAT is scary. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
So, d'yathink that's why us old guys still dig the sound of vinyl
even though we KNOW digital is more accurate? No. I dig the sound of good music regardless of the delivery medium. Personally, though, I couldn't wait for a format that didn't degrade as I listened to it. -Jay (qualified as an old guy at least to AARP) So we switched to a format (16/44 CDs) that was degraged from the start........ Time to upgrade to at least 24bit. In the meanwhile I prefer vinyl. Just arguing for better quality Jay. That's what this thread is about. But just like the fact that no one is doing anything about this flatline mastering nightmare, we certainly aren't making any attempt for higher quality audio. And if we ever did the Arnie's of the world would be vehemently against it. VB |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"vinyl believer" wrote in message oups.com... Geoff Wood Wrote "But the problem is the mastering, not the medium. " Well it's both actually. 16/44 digital isn't a great medium, but flatline mastering is obviously a serious problem for any medium. Flat line mastering is not a problem for the CD medium. The medium and digital part of a CD player could not care less what the data or level is. Some inferior CD players may have problems with audio levels resulting from data levels approaching full scale. Just like some cartridges/arms/turntables have more problems tracking high levels or bass (but waaaaay moreso !) But are artists and engineers really doing anything about this stupidity that is ruining their work? Some are trying, but the battle is with the artists who 'need' to be as loud/undynamic as everybody else. geoff |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
loud headphone amp | Pro Audio | |||
loud headphone amp | Pro Audio | |||
Can ears literally bleed from loud noise? | Pro Audio | |||
How loud is loud? | Pro Audio | |||
hearing loss info | Car Audio |