IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

11 Pages V  « < 6 7 8 9 10 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
"Music Sounds Better on Vinyl", I am so tired of this argument being brought up by the layperson
Gretschguy
post Feb 20 2012, 20:31
Post #176





Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 14-February 12
Member No.: 97144



QUOTE (greynol @ Feb 19 2012, 21:59) *
As was pointed out earlier a score of 65% does not adequately demonstrate that you can determine a difference.

Please read this topic which also happens to be linked in the description of TOS8:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=16295

The rule is also specific about the use of subjective language to communicate differences. Terms like 3D, openness, air and weight are not welcome. I'm reading about how this is becoming a theoretical discussion, yet there is no theoretical basis for differences in low frequency content, nor differences at 1kHz. It reads like more pseudoscientific nonsense.

Regarding dither as an additional step, has anyone adequately demonstrated that the lower 9 bits of a normalized 24 bit digitization of vinyl are comprised of something other than noise? IOW I don't see much of a case demonstrating that dithering is even necessary when preparing vinyl for a 16-bit delivery format.


Greynol, I agree -- 65% does not adequately demonstrate, I may try the full song for my own purposes to see if I get a better score, but I'm getting tired of that tune now! smile.gif Hopefully I've been honest and transparent, my aim is just to share my experience.

Hey my point on the 1k thing was anecdotal, I thought I was clear about that, its not technical at all -- simply take a 70s or 80s LP rip in any format and do a comparison of the EQ curve to something modern. It's not a technical claim at all, its trying to help explain why foks, such as I, perhaps may have a preference for vinyl. Nothing more.

In fact, my 1k thing there helps argue your case that you can take a modern CD and make it sound more like vinyl. That would be a really fun thread actually.

Here's what I did, I took "Dreaming of You" by War Tapes and lowered the level, then applied a curve from David Bowie's '76 vinyl "Golden Years", I then applied dynamic expansion using the "add punch" setting in Logic Pro. The result was pretty darn good, it only took a few minutes and the result was that I had a song that I found hard to listen to suddenly become enjoyable (for me).

Let me clarify that this experience is anecdotal (I did a couple songs and will do more) and not meant to suggest any technical superiority of either format. That exercise is not for me -- sorry again, that I stepped into it. I will look for a thread or other forum that has interest in the work that I'm doing to recapture vinyl like qualities on modern CDs.

I actually see the CD format as not very relevant for me since my car does 24/48 from a hard drive and my home equipment does up to 24/192 there seems only the advantage of less data storage to choosing 16/44.1, 44.1 seems kind of arbitrary for me given that I don't want to cut a bunch of Red Book CDs, there would be no point in the physical media for me.

With regard to CDs specifically, I find it more interesting, practically speaking, in how I can take modern CDs and give them a more vinyl like sound through some modern mastering techniques -- perhaps, in my opinion, doing something that, for me, would be a more constructive use of modern mastering tools than a destructive use (multi-band squashing).

Sorry if I annoyed people, you guys seem like a good bunch, I'll stop focusing the thread now on my preferences / desires / opinions / etc.. and I'll move along with my ripping and anti-remastering now.


All the best,
Have fun, Stay safe



Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xpander
post Feb 21 2012, 02:09
Post #177





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 21-February 12
Member No.: 97286



what perhaps has not been mentioned is the fact that vinyl was made in a different time

everything was different

ok if you copy vinyl onto cd / digital it will sound near as dammit the same

but

most commercial cds have been mastered for CD and have been made louder and brighter in the process

so i dont really care whether vinyl is better than cd or not

at least if i listen to an old vinyl i know i will be hearing the way it sounded when it was released

I cant stand the sound of remastered old music

only now is there a school of thought that says a good remastering for CD is a perfect transfer

sound always changes

now its loud bright and wider than is mono compatible

i still buy old vinyls and would prefer to listen to them when listening to older (better) music



Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Feb 21 2012, 02:23
Post #178





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10247
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (xpander @ Feb 20 2012, 17:09) *
near as dammit the same

What a stange and unnecessary idiom.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xpander
post Feb 21 2012, 03:08
Post #179





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 21-February 12
Member No.: 97286



QUOTE (greynol @ Feb 21 2012, 03:23) *
QUOTE (xpander @ Feb 20 2012, 17:09) *
near as dammit the same

What a stange and unnecessary idiom.

why?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gretschguy
post Feb 21 2012, 03:13
Post #180





Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 14-February 12
Member No.: 97144



QUOTE (greynol @ Feb 21 2012, 03:23) *
QUOTE (xpander @ Feb 20 2012, 17:09) *
near as dammit the same

What a stange and unnecessary idiom.


Huh? Why?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kraut
post Feb 21 2012, 06:56
Post #181





Group: Members
Posts: 227
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85965



QUOTE (xpander @ Feb 20 2012, 18:09) *
what perhaps has not been mentioned is the fact that vinyl was made in a different time
everything was different
ok if you copy vinyl onto cd / digital it will sound near as dammit the same
but
most commercial cds have been mastered for CD and have been made louder and brighter in the process
so i dont really care whether vinyl is better than cd or not
at least if i listen to an old vinyl i know i will be hearing the way it sounded when it was released
I cant stand the sound of remastered old music
only now is there a school of thought that says a good remastering for CD is a perfect transfer
sound always changes
now its loud bright and wider than is mono compatible
i still buy old vinyls and would prefer to listen to them when listening to older (better) music


Yes, vinyl was made at a different time using equipment that was not necessarily the most noise less or the most flat. That might account for the many Rock and Blues albums I have that are simply atrocious in sound quality. There are exceptions however. My special beef is with classical records that seem to be imbued with more surface noise than any other records, even fresh out of the package and cleaned and run wet.

I listen to a lot of new blues, rock, jazz and classical. I cannot concur that the majority of those CD's is in any way more or less compressed than the best vinyl productions.

I have as a prime example "Kind of Blue" in remastered CD, original cd (that went to Sally Ann) format and as LP - the CD beats the vinyl and the 1st edition cd. I also have some remastered Zappa CD's, that beat any of the original issue cds and the vinyl as well.
By that I mean cleanly audible and measurable extension to about 20kHz, with low noise and excellent balance between the instruments and a satisfying spatial presentation. I also have listened to Robin Trower's CD transfers that are more pleasurable to listen to then the original LP I have as well. The frequency range is extended, the instruments do not sound clumped together.
So much for violating some TOS, but the differences are very clearly discernible in a simple A/B comparison. And as I own samples of both formats, I really have no problem to say which one sounds better - better as defined.

I also have found no compatibility issues with mono, having tried on a few for test purposes (i.e testing ambio effects)

I really like to know which music you find categorically better because of "old".

In the categories I listen to, which includes a lot of "world" music, (many cd's from african musicians), Blues, Rock, electronic music and some chamber music of new material, I only can say that "old" has its value, but that in no way diminishes the the new music out there, which through "cross-breeding" is very exciting.
Just think of the stuff that Joe Bonamassa, Jeff Beck, Sonny Landreth, the Kronos Quartet, Tan Dun, Ali Farka Tore and hundreds of other musicians world wide produce.
Older is better? I guess you have a problem.

This post has been edited by kraut: Feb 21 2012, 07:03
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
botface
post Feb 21 2012, 09:38
Post #182





Group: Members
Posts: 359
Joined: 14-January 08
Member No.: 50483



I'm sure Jeff Beck would be thrilled to be sen as "new" - and Sonny Landreth to a lesser extent.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Feb 21 2012, 10:42
Post #183


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5258
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (xpander @ Feb 21 2012, 01:09) *
at least if i listen to an old vinyl i know i will be hearing the way it sounded when it was released
This is pretty fascinating (for me!)...

http://www.beatledrops.com/

Short clips from each released version of each Beatles album. To my ears, the originals are the best if you can hear past any clicks, noise and distortion.


However, if you want to be that critical, there's always something wrong. e.g. take Gretschguy's excellent upload of "Father and Son". At 24 seconds in, on the word "away" there's distortion that you could think was Cat's voice cracking. Except if you have the CD, you can hear no such distortion, because it's not part of the original recording. It's vinyl distortion. Even 128kbps mp3 never changed an artist's intention so much - yet vinyl does it all the time. I think different people learn or choose to ignore different shortcomings.


The original vinyl isn't always better. Some original vinyl is poor. Plenty of 1950s and 1960s records have stunning (almost compression-free) remixes from the 3/4-tracks or remasters from the 2-tracks available on CD which utterly trounce the original vinyl releases. I bought the original UK vinyl of "Come Dance with Me" by Frank Sinatra, but it's a pale shadow of the CD. The CD itself is a fairly straight 1980s transfer of the original tapes - nothing special, but nothing bad.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Feb 21 2012, 14:16
Post #184





Group: Members
Posts: 4244
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (kraut @ Feb 16 2012, 20:54) *
Audio System Test Record, produced by the editors of SOUND Canada, in conjunction with McGill University Records with the assistance of the National Research Council of Canada.
Recording Engineer was Flloyd E. Toole and Wieslaw Woszczyk, pressing by CBS Canada, Producers both of them and Alan Lofft.
The most interesting track on the record is the Anti Skating adjustment, which is not done by an empty track, but what I call dynamically by adjusting the bias so a signal mix of 1kHz and 1.5kHz produces an equal buzzing sound in both channelsm at increasing sound levels. Works great.

The system used to play back is a technics SL 10 with tangential arm and a 310MC system by technics, using a add on phono section from Naim preamp with a separate powersupply by Marchand Electronics.

I have used the other tonearms (MG! and SME 3 with both Denon DL 103) on Thorens TD 125 in the past with similar if not identical results.

I run the phono preamp signal (RIAA equalized!) to the analogue input of the m-audio 1010lt soundcard.


I find the spectral analysis shown in the post to be pretty much what I expected. If they were from an amplifier or a CD player they would be highly distressing to most. They are closer to being like the results of similar tests performed on loudspeakers, but probably still not as good.

However, by themselves they don't portray actual audibility of vinyl artifacts when listening to music. This is because the tests involved single pure tones. The harmonics are thus at higher less audible frequencies which may lull some into a false sense of comfort.

Were the tests performed with musically relevant multiple tones, even just two tones, there would be artifacts down at frequencies where the ear is highly sensitive, even more sensitive that it is to some of the test tones.

Also, the spectral plots don't have enough resolution to show the FM distortion, which is endemic in vinyl, and in fact in most analog recordings.

There is a reason why most everybody got out of analog as soon as they could, and the reason has a lot to do with the quest for higher fidelity to the original sound.

This post has been edited by Arnold B. Krueger: Feb 21 2012, 14:17
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kraut
post Feb 21 2012, 16:00
Post #185





Group: Members
Posts: 227
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85965



QUOTE
I'm sure Jeff Beck would be thrilled to be sen as "new" - and Sonny Landreth to a lesser extent.

I have listende to Jeff Beck since yardbird days, and to Sonny Landreth for about ten years now.
Making new music does not mean you have to be young or a "new" musician. New music can be well made - and mostly is -by experienced musicians.
Zappa made "new" music all the time, although being on stage for centuries.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
botface
post Feb 21 2012, 16:39
Post #186





Group: Members
Posts: 359
Joined: 14-January 08
Member No.: 50483



Sorry for trying to introduce a note of levity there.

Actually your post is a very good one for highlighting how differently we can perceive things. I have lots of old blues and rock on vinyl that sounds great to me. I have lots of blues and rock on CD that sounds great too. And while I've often been disappointed by remasters I have some good ones as well. I've also never found classical recordings on vinyl to be problematic unless the record was faulty. Indeed record companies used to go to a lot more trouble over their classical/jazz pressings than their pop/rock ones - virgin vinyl, less pressings per stamper etc. Perhaps it just shows that the music interests me more than the carrier or the replay equipment

This post has been edited by botface: Feb 21 2012, 16:40
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Feb 21 2012, 17:23
Post #187


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5258
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (botface @ Feb 21 2012, 15:39) *
Indeed record companies used to go to a lot more trouble over their classical/jazz pressings than their pop/rock ones - virgin vinyl, less pressings per stamper etc.
I think that must be a US thing. In the UK, even budget "pop" re-releases from the late 1960s (on EMI labels at least) seemed to have the quality that people die for these days. Though by the 1980s the vinyl was becoming paper thin in comparison. I've never noticed a difference in pressing quality between serious classical and ephemeral pop in either decade (from the same family of labels at least).

The very few 1960s US pop LPs I have are atrocious in comparison, but it's hardly a usefully large sample.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Feb 21 2012, 17:34
Post #188





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10247
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (xpander @ Feb 20 2012, 18:08) *
QUOTE (greynol @ Feb 21 2012, 03:23) *
QUOTE (xpander @ Feb 20 2012, 17:09) *
near as dammit the same

What a stange and unnecessary idiom.

why?

Do you have any objective and verifiable evidence demonstrating that CDDA, as a delivery format, cannot 100% faithfully capture the sound of vinyl?

Unless you do and until you present it, you really have no business telling anyone that they sound different, whether only "near as dammit" or otherwise.

PS: Don't bother presenting arguments appealing to dogs and bats.

EDIT: @xpander, don't bother answering if it will read any thing like your recent binned reply. @Gretschguy, please, not another round of this. You failed quite miserably in your last attempt.

This post has been edited by greynol: Feb 22 2012, 03:01


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
botface
post Feb 21 2012, 20:04
Post #189





Group: Members
Posts: 359
Joined: 14-January 08
Member No.: 50483



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Feb 21 2012, 16:23) *
QUOTE (botface @ Feb 21 2012, 15:39) *
Indeed record companies used to go to a lot more trouble over their classical/jazz pressings than their pop/rock ones - virgin vinyl, less pressings per stamper etc.
I think that must be a US thing. In the UK, even budget "pop" re-releases from the late 1960s (on EMI labels at least) seemed to have the quality that people die for these days. Though by the 1980s the vinyl was becoming paper thin in comparison. I've never noticed a difference in pressing quality between serious classical and ephemeral pop in either decade (from the same family of labels at least).

The very few 1960s US pop LPs I have are atrocious in comparison, but it's hardly a usefully large sample.

Cheers,
David.

David,
No, I'm talking about the UK from the mid-70's to late-80's. 60's pressings do seem to be thicker/heavier and there's the "it's an original" factor that probably makes them more collectible. Conventional wisdom says it was the oil crisis (1974??) that caused a vinyl shortage and hence lighter records. Not sure if that's true or whether it was record company accountants that were responsible.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gretschguy
post Feb 22 2012, 05:50
Post #190





Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 14-February 12
Member No.: 97144



QUOTE (greynol @ Feb 21 2012, 18:34) *
QUOTE (xpander @ Feb 20 2012, 18:08) *
QUOTE (greynol @ Feb 21 2012, 03:23) *
QUOTE (xpander @ Feb 20 2012, 17:09) *
near as dammit the same

What a stange and unnecessary idiom.

why?

Do you have any objective and verifiable evidence demonstrating that CDDA, as a delivery format, cannot 100% faithfully capture the sound of vinyl?

Unless you do and until you present it, you really have no business telling anyone that they sound different, whether only "near as dammit" or otherwise.

PS: Don't bother presenting arguments appealing to dogs and bats.

EDIT: @xpander, don't bother answering if it will read any thing like your recent binned reply. @Gretschguy, please, not another round of this. You failed quite miserably in your last attempt.


I just thought your comment was rude that's all -- you seem like a nice guy Greynol, I think it's uncool to be rude to this guy or to me or anyone else m'kay?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gretschguy
post Feb 22 2012, 05:53
Post #191





Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 14-February 12
Member No.: 97144



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Feb 21 2012, 11:42) *
QUOTE (xpander @ Feb 21 2012, 01:09) *
at least if i listen to an old vinyl i know i will be hearing the way it sounded when it was released
This is pretty fascinating (for me!)...

http://www.beatledrops.com/

Short clips from each released version of each Beatles album. To my ears, the originals are the best if you can hear past any clicks, noise and distortion.


However, if you want to be that critical, there's always something wrong. e.g. take Gretschguy's excellent upload of "Father and Son". At 24 seconds in, on the word "away" there's distortion that you could think was Cat's voice cracking. Except if you have the CD, you can hear no such distortion, because it's not part of the original recording. It's vinyl distortion. Even 128kbps mp3 never changed an artist's intention so much - yet vinyl does it all the time. I think different people learn or choose to ignore different shortcomings.


The original vinyl isn't always better. Some original vinyl is poor. Plenty of 1950s and 1960s records have stunning (almost compression-free) remixes from the 3/4-tracks or remasters from the 2-tracks available on CD which utterly trounce the original vinyl releases. I bought the original UK vinyl of "Come Dance with Me" by Frank Sinatra, but it's a pale shadow of the CD. The CD itself is a fairly straight 1980s transfer of the original tapes - nothing special, but nothing bad.

Cheers,
David.


Agreed -- there's a definite trade off -- I was listening to the original "Who's Next" Decca release and it sounds really noisy but also really raw and powerful, sounded really dynamic to me. It's a trade off, but I prefer that sound.


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gretschguy
post Feb 22 2012, 06:03
Post #192





Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 14-February 12
Member No.: 97144



[quote name='Gretschguy' date='Feb 22 2012, 06:53' post='787024']

Here's an interesting thing I was reading today about "Mastered For iTunes":

http://images.apple.com/itunes/mastered-fo..._for_itunes.pdf

Here's an interesting comment from the Apple folks on mastering:

"When creating a master, mastering engineers take into account the limitations and
characteristics of the medium or destination format, as well as the listening environment
of their audience. For example, a master created for vinyl is unlikely to be listened to in
an airplane or car, and therefore is often mastered for a listening environment where a
listener can hear and appreciate a wider dynamic range. Similarly, a master created for a
club environment might take into account the noisiness of the intended listening
environment."

Essentially Apple is suggesting, it sounds to me, that vinyl mastering is done with more dynamic range because it is meant to be listened to in an environment where people can appreciate it -- whereas the digital stuff that winds up converted to iTunes should consider the portable reality of that audience -- they seem to condone use of compression (without excess) due to the fact that the target audience of their devices is using the device in a portable way often in noisy environments.

This would really explain why the vinyl music and digital music are being given different treatments in practical terms these days. If the reality is that you digital release is aimed at portable use then you compress the dynamic range more than a vinyl release that is aimed at a different environment.

Of'course Apple probably doesn't speak for all engineers, but given how much of an impact iTunes has right now on digital music sales it seems that this may help explain partially why music sounds better on vinyl these days to those of us who prefer more dynamic range.

It's worth taking a read through the whole article, it's interesting and shines a light on this subject IMHO.



Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Feb 22 2012, 06:37
Post #193





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10247
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (Gretschguy @ Feb 21 2012, 20:50) *
you seem like a nice guy Greynol

Impressions can be deceiving. In the meantime, let's refrain from derailing this topic into yet another side-show.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gretschguy
post Feb 22 2012, 06:55
Post #194





Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 14-February 12
Member No.: 97144



QUOTE (greynol @ Feb 22 2012, 07:37) *
QUOTE (Gretschguy @ Feb 21 2012, 20:50) *
you seem like a nice guy Greynol

Impressions can be deceiving. In the meantime, let's refrain from derailing this topic into yet another side-show.


Indeed --
but I think the explanation of why vinyl sounds better to many of us is right there in that Apple article -- that speaks volumes to me about what's going on. Essentially they suggest to master vinyl for sound quality (as best as the format can) and master digital for portable use -- to sell to folks with earbuds and ipads / ipods. That seems to explain what I'm anecdotally seeing with new digital music and others are suggesting as well.

We should collectively look at now how EQ and compression are mastered differently when the end game is a portable device in a noisy environment. That seems to be what we are getting now from digital mastering while mastering for "hi fi" is being left for the vinyl folks.

I think if we really want CDs to sound good again we have to figure out a way that iTunes can get "portable" versions of the songs that are EQ'd and compressed for portable devices in noisy environments, while generating CDs that are meant for playback on full range systems. Hey everyone with a turntable still has a CD player, why not?



Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kohlrabi
post Feb 22 2012, 09:17
Post #195





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1108
Joined: 12-March 05
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 20561



QUOTE (Gretschguy @ Feb 22 2012, 06:55) *
We should [...] we have to figure out [...]

We, as the people of HA and music listeners, cannot do anything about audio mastering quality. Our only possible action is to not buy horribly produced music, so that hopefully ultimately either this kind of production approach will die, or the responsible producers and engineers get replaced by apt people. Most Music gets produced for sale after all, and no sales will hopefully send the right message. Though, previously, "bad" sales have been attributed to piracy instead of diminished production values. The producers need to put the power over the volume knob and dynamic compression back to the listener.

In my opinion people buying vinyl are supporting the broken system, since the major labels get additional money from the vinyl-crowd. Just resist, there is so much other worthwhile music out there which isn't produced in a "hot" fashion, and worthwhile to listen to.


More specificically:
QUOTE (Gretschguy @ Feb 22 2012, 06:55) *
Essentially they suggest to master vinyl for sound quality (as best as the format can) and master digital for portable use -- to sell to folks with earbuds and ipads / ipods. That seems to explain what I'm anecdotally seeing with new digital music and others are suggesting as well.

This isn't necessary and just a sales pitch to sell extra "audiophile" versions. Why not master digital releases properly, too? Why should digital releases get mastered in a different way? Apple could just use EQ and DRC on their devices to make all music sound "hot", if they so want, but please don't force that onto all customers.


--------------------
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cliveb
post Feb 22 2012, 18:04
Post #196


WaveRepair developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 851
Joined: 28-July 04
Member No.: 15845



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Feb 21 2012, 16:23) *
I think that must be a US thing. In the UK, even budget "pop" re-releases from the late 1960s (on EMI labels at least) seemed to have the quality that people die for these days. Though by the 1980s the vinyl was becoming paper thin in comparison. I've never noticed a difference in pressing quality between serious classical and ephemeral pop in either decade (from the same family of labels at least).

When I was a student in the early-mid 1970s, I worked in the record department of WH Smith during my holidays. It's a long time ago now, but I have fairly firm memories that the quality of pressings for pop/rock albums took a serious nose-dive after the 1973 oil crisis. Specifically, not only did pop/rock pressings become much thinner, they also seemed to get a lot noisier. Meanwhile, the quality of classical pressings from the likes of DG, Decca, HMV and Philips remained good throughout my time at Smiths.

Returns are recycled to be ground down and the vinyl reused. There was a rumour at the time that prior to the huge oil price rise the centre (with label) was cut out first, whereas after the oil crisis, the whole LP (including paper label) was ground down for re-use. Thus albums pressed with that recycled material could have tiny fragments of paper (too small to see by eye, but plenty big enough to affect the stylus) embedded in the vinyl. (But only for pop: classical remained pressed from virgin vinyl). Whether this rumour had any basis in fact I don't know, but it seemed a widely held belief amongst record retailers at the time.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DonP
post Feb 22 2012, 18:25
Post #197





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1473
Joined: 11-February 03
From: Vermont
Member No.: 4955



QUOTE (Gretschguy @ Feb 22 2012, 01:55) *
I think if we really want CDs to sound good again we have to figure out a way that iTunes can get "portable" versions of the songs that are EQ'd and compressed for portable devices in noisy environments, while generating CDs that are meant for playback on full range systems. Hey everyone with a turntable still has a CD player, why not?


It's a big leap to assume the environment. You could be listening to a download on a train, car (luxury car, or an open top Jeep?), or on a regular stereo in a dedicated listening room. If you need compression for a noisy environment, the place to do it is in the player as an option.


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
knutinh
post Feb 22 2012, 23:09
Post #198





Group: Members
Posts: 570
Joined: 1-November 06
Member No.: 37047



QUOTE (DonP @ Feb 22 2012, 19:25) *
It's a big leap to assume the environment. You could be listening to a download on a train, car (luxury car, or an open top Jeep?), or on a regular stereo in a dedicated listening room. If you need compression for a noisy environment, the place to do it is in the player as an option.

Even though I agree, I will offer a counter-argument.

So you are a professional musician. You work hard to make an album, and you want it to sell well and to sound good. You know that radio-stations will squeeze the hell out of it. Perhaps hand-held devices will do dynamics processing to make it louder. And you have this small niche of audiophiles and hydrogenaudio readers that will complain that it sounds overly processed.

Who do you prioritize? If your album is going to be squeezed, would you rather it happened in the mastering studio under your (partial) control, or in some iPhone proprietary algorithm?

-k
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Redark
post Feb 23 2012, 01:01
Post #199





Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 10-December 10
Member No.: 86414



QUOTE (knutinh @ Feb 22 2012, 23:09) *
Who do you prioritize? If your album is going to be squeezed, would you rather it happened in the mastering studio under your (partial) control, or in some iPhone proprietary algorithm?


What annoys me about the complaints against compression is the presumption that compressed music will always sounds worse. How could we know? In the case of modern releases we've only got the compressed version, sometimes accompanied by a less, but still significantly, compressed alternate release. The problem is that all stages of the process are likely done with a compressed final product in mind, you can't just say that album X would have sounded better if recorded in the 70's, because it just wouldn't be an even remotely similar record.

But if we try to compare remasters against original releases, the converse problem pops up: compositions, performances and recordings that were done with little or no compression in mind can't just be passed through a compressor and released as if they had been created with a modern mindset.

In pop music, at least, the recording and production are part of the aesthetic experience. As such, they ought not to be dismissed on the grounds of simple psychologizings of the kind "most people are too stupid to realize they could just turn up the volume on their own in a recording with proper dynamic range".

This kind of argument annoys me, but I donít have the technical knowledge to refute it. In the following video, however, the loudness skirmish is dismissed by professionals as an irrelevant issue. The question begins around the 45:00 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=playe...p;v=gGwaHBH4_Oo
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cliveb
post Feb 23 2012, 09:34
Post #200


WaveRepair developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 851
Joined: 28-July 04
Member No.: 15845



QUOTE (Redark @ Feb 23 2012, 00:01) *
In the following video, however, the loudness skirmish is dismissed by professionals as an irrelevant issue. The question begins around the 45:00 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=playe...p;v=gGwaHBH4_Oo

This is just shocking. One of them (starting around 47:00) basically said that the we don't need to worry about the loudness war any more because people have got used to hearing "distressed" sound. So that's OK then.

Using the same argument, I guess we don't need to worry about starvation in Africa any more because the people who live there are used to it? In other words, Mr Mastering Engineer, just because something is now commonplace and most people are used to it doesn't mean it's acceptable. Diptheria and Polio were commonplace a century ago.

(I will just point out that I do not believe that the problems in audio mastering are remotely as important as starvation and healthcare - they were chosen as analogies to emphasise what a stupid point of view he holds).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

11 Pages V  « < 6 7 8 9 10 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd November 2014 - 15:19