Heartland

TBH, I can't figure out why anyone would pay that sort of money for an itunes download anyway.
The quality of those are pretty shocking.
You'd be better off buying the CD or vinyl.
But it still has to be said, that although the profits for this travesty are going to charity, the content is utter crap.
& that's coming from a cureboi.

Pista wrote:TBH, I can't figure out why anyone would pay that sort of money for an itunes download anyway.
The quality of those are pretty shocking.

Quoted for truth.

One reason I could never understand why some people got their panties in a wad over 'stolen' mp3 downloads, it's hardly good quality. You'd do as well to record stuff off the radio.

markfiend wrote:You'd do as well to record stuff off the radio.

Or the telephone.

I think there´s a co evolution of MP3 playing cell phones and music going on:
The speakers of those phones have p*spoor sound quality, thus there´s no point in creating great soundscapes in products of music industries aiming on these players.
Thus the tracks sold are mainly rythm with a bit of blurp, and mainly try to gain their character from some rythmical phrasing rather than from real sound or melody.
Just a feeling I get sometimes, when a teen with one of those things with the tin can sound walks by, considering himself to be King Louis himself for having it.

You may be onto something there.

TBH my phone (when listened to through the headphones, not the speaker) is about as good sound-quality-wise as my iPod, but putting the iPod through my hi-fi ... well, it's not bad

Youngsters today prefer quantity over quality.

They don't give a rat's arse about 24 bit broadcast wav 96 yaddayadda.

Our cd is on iTunes and Rhapsody as well (plug!!), and sells quite good. The Americans ask 9.99 dollar for the album and we ask 10 euro. Not much of a difference.

But downloading our cd takes half an hour, getting rid of it two seconds.

Sending it to the US costs a lot of money and takes weeks.

Living the fast life or something...

IZ.

markfiend wrote:You may be onto something there.

TBH my phone (when listened to through the headphones, not the speaker) is about as good sound-quality-wise as my iPod, but putting the iPod through my hi-fi ... well, it's not bad

I have been told that when cd's first came out the initial releases for some time where mostly expensive classical recordings therefore showing off the high quality available, whereas mp3's for ipods and phones were 'pop chart' music for teens with no discernible quality control necessary. Digital cameras where similar - expensive toys for kids but the resulting output was crap. We live in a throw-away society and should expect that what we pay for sh1t.

I seem to recall that soon after the earliest CD players came out, there were reputed to be more copies of 'Brothers In Arms' in circulation on CD than there were CD players. No idea if that's true, but it's a good story.

IIRC the KLF's guide-book to having a number 1 record says that you need to have your record sound good on a cheap transistor-radio, and bollocks to what it sounds like on audiophile hifi equipment.

markfiend wrote:I seem to recall that soon after the earliest CD players came out, there were reputed to be more copies of 'Brothers In Arms' in circulation on CD than there were CD players. No idea if that's true, but it's a good story.

IIRC the KLF's guide-book to having a number 1 record says that you need to have your record sound good on a cheap transistor-radio, and bollocks to what it sounds like on audiophile hifi equipment.

How weird - my colleague hase just said that about dire Straits and has also said that studios have tiny litlle mono speakers to hear the mix in (as in a transistor radio)- auratones - which became known as Horrortones.

Spooky.

moses wrote:

markfiend wrote:I seem to recall that soon after the earliest CD players came out, there were reputed to be more copies of 'Brothers In Arms' in circulation on CD than there were CD players. No idea if that's true, but it's a good story.

IIRC the KLF's guide-book to having a number 1 record says that you need to have your record sound good on a cheap transistor-radio, and bollocks to what it sounds like on audiophile hifi equipment.

How weird - my colleague hase just said that about dire Straits and has also said that studios have tiny litlle mono speakers to hear the mix in (as in a transistor radio)- auratones - which became known as Horrortones.

Studios usually have several sets of speakers, from nearfield monitors (the best being Yamaha NS10s - now discontinued) to high end reference. Any good mix engineer/producer will burn off several mixes of the song/s onto a cd (or a tape) and play them on as many systems as possible, the best being the ones in his car. If it sounds good on a car audio system or a walkman, you've got the mix right. Then it's handed over to the label's A&R men who then hand it off to the mastering engineer to add the final polish. Which these days usually means the mastering house is told to make it as loud as possible (google "the loudness wars" for more info), which means brick wall limiting and a complete loss of dynamics, which makes the eventual "product" effing awful to listen to.

I could go on for ages about the lack of dynamics and how it adversely affects the listening experience, but I'll spare you the details.

And as Iz has already pointed out, the music buying public don't really give a toss, but don't understand why they don't like listening to their music collection for long periods of time.

Oh, nearly forgot, all speakers are (technically) mono, it's the output kit or recording that is either mono or stereo. Mono just means the recording has one channel and the play back a single signal path.

I remember we've discussed the loudness wars on HL previously.

IIRC not only are they mastering CDs with stupid levels of compression, they're actually amplifying them to the point that there's signal-clipping.

It's as if you were reading a book where the print went right to the edges of the page, and in fact the trimming (to get the book square) actually cut off a portion of the text. And you were expected not to notice.

you need glasses for that fiendy

@fiendy.

I sometimes find it perverse that bootlegs (Take the recent Good Things for example) are actually better sounding than most commercially recorded material.

markfiend wrote:I remember we've discussed the loudness wars on HL previously.

IIRC not only are they mastering CDs with stupid levels of compression, they're actually amplifying them to the point that there's signal-clipping.

It's as if you were reading a book where the print went right to the edges of the page, and in fact the trimming (to get the book square) actually cut off a portion of the text. And you were expected not to notice.

That's pretty much the nuts and bolts of it. Just got to add that as well as the print running to the edges of the page and then being cut, there's no punctuation, no paragraph breaks and it's all in full caps.

Pista wrote:Er back to Fat Bob.

Damn, nearly derailed it.

Syberberg wrote:nearfield monitors (the best being Yamaha NS10s - now discontinued)

I beg to differ on that aspect. Never understood the fuss about the NS 10. They have too much mid in my opinion. Although everyone I know working with them always says that 'when it sounds good on an NS10, it sounds good everywhere' because they have a very flat range (eg, not too much bass and quite a mid punch). Each to its own I guess, and if you know the 'failures' of your own monitors, they can work out quite fine indeed (my Tannoy Reveal Actives are a bit weak in the sub-bass, minus 60Hz or so, but I take that into account and use the spectrum analyser to check stuff).

Any good mix engineer/producer will burn off several mixes of the song/s onto a cd (or a tape) and play them on as many systems as possible, the best being the ones in his car. If it sounds good on a car audio system or a walkman, you've got the mix right. Then it's handed over to the label's A&R men who then hand it off to the mastering engineer to add the final polish. Which these days usually means the mastering house is told to make it as loud as possible (google "the loudness wars" for more info), which means brick wall limiting and a complete loss of dynamics, which makes the eventual "product" effing awful to listen to.

Totally depends on what you ask the mastering engineer, but you are absolutely correct about the A&R men pushing master engineers to the limit, literally. Sadly enough, the loudness wars (linky for those too lazy to google ) just try to make new and inexperienced musicians believe that your album MUST be one louder than the other band. It's not usually the fault of the mastering engineer, more of the producer or the band label...

I could go on for ages about the lack of dynamics and how it adversely affects the listening experience, but I'll spare you the details.

I'll give you the details then, in an animated piccy

Oh, nearly forgot, all speakers are (technically) mono, it's the output kit or recording that is either mono or stereo. Mono just means the recording has one channel and the play back a single signal path.

We need to talk more often, shoptalk and stuff

IZ.

I could do with a subwoofer, otherwise I am most happy with my (modest) sound system, in FACT! make that: fuckin' happy! x 25,000

and you can stick yer mp3/FLAC war up yer erses!

thankee

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:

Syberberg wrote:nearfield monitors (the best being Yamaha NS10s - now discontinued)

I beg to differ on that aspect. Never understood the fuss about the NS 10. They have too much mid in my opinion. Although everyone I know working with them always says that 'when it sounds good on an NS10, it sounds good everywhere' because they have a very flat range (eg, not too much bass and quite a mid punch). Each to its own I guess, and if you know the 'failures' of your own monitors, they can work out quite fine indeed (my Tannoy Reveal Actives are a bit weak in the sub-bass, minus 60Hz or so, but I take that into account and use the spectrum analyser to check stuff).

Very true. I suppose I should've qualified that There's an excellent article in this month's (September) issue of Sound On Sound about the NS10s. Unfortunately only available online for subscribers. Well worth the read though.

My Samson Rubicon R5a's have a similar problem to your Reveals, I'll be getting the Sonalksis SV-517 EQ plug-in once I've upgraded my PC, it has a very good analyser, but it doesn't half chew up memory and processer (well, on this rather old machine it does).

Totally depends on what you ask the mastering engineer, but you are absolutely correct about the A&R men pushing master engineers to the limit, literally. Sadly enough, the loudness wars (linky for those too lazy to google ) just try to make new and inexperienced musicians believe that your album MUST be one louder than the other band. It's not usually the fault of the mastering engineer, more of the producer or the band label...

No argument about that from me, I completely agree.

I'll give you the details then, in an animated piccy

Good find!

We need to talk more often, shoptalk and stuff

IZ.

Indeed we do

Oh, and just one more and then I stop hijacking the thread...

All of the above concerning loudness wars projected on the rockband RUSH and their albums

...a VERY interesting read!

IZ.

Mr Mod, can you split the loudness war stuff? It might make for an interesting thread.

Your wish is my command. I'll just lock it a second...

...unlocked and split.

Quiff Boy wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicbl ... c.too.loud

sorry, can't quite hear that link

Quiff Boy wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicbl ... c.too.loud

Red Hot Chili Peppers' buffed-up Californication has been deemed unlistenable by plenty of commentators.

no shit Sherlock?

James Blast wrote:

Quiff Boy wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicbl ... c.too.loud

Red Hot Chili Peppers' buffed-up Californication has been deemed unlistenable by plenty of commentators.

no shit Sherlock?

this just in from the ministry of the bleedin obvious