[Geoff]

wrote:
On 6 Sep, 23:09, "Geoff" wrote:

What say two songs sound really different in a studio ?

Why would anyone deliberately make a song sound flat, dull and
lifeless?

One man's flat dull and lifeless may be another's 'natural'. Especially if
you are accustomed to all music sounding the same as what your opinion of
'normal' should be. This situation will get worse if you remove this
diversity.

Why does a classic album rereleased and remastered sound better than
the first release from the mid 80s?

Because tecjhnology has moved on and cleaner clearer mastering may be
possible. Still bnot the same as a preset tonal balance. And many
remasters are hidious, pandering to the brighter-is-better brigade.

Why did Q magazine, the last time I looked, give albums ratings for
sound quality?

Um, to rate sound quality. If aound quality was so easy as a preset EQ
repsonse, then they could all be fanatstic with next to no effort.

Do you seriously expect the whole world to believe that absolutely
everyone working in the business knows exactly what they're doing,
that all studios sound totally perfect, it's a totally level playing
field, that every album released in the last 40 years sounds great,
especially despite huge technical advances in that time?

No, but my guess is that many or most have a deeper understanding of musical
production values than those you have displayed.

I suppose I could let a multiband compressor do it's stuff on each
track and look at how much it's doing to each band. That could be
helpful.

If you know better than the original mixer or masterer, or just want to have
fun, then go for it. But don't tell us everything that doesn't comply with
your preconception of perfection is flawed.

That's it, so long, this one's over as far as I'm concerned. Arguing
on newsgroups can be fun, but it's not productive is it?

Evidently not.


geoff