|
Post by cyreg on Jan 4, 2008 21:04:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by fanboi on Jan 4, 2008 22:35:05 GMT
Hi Han, yes, I have read some few different versions of this "phenomenon" elsewhere - it is worth noting that unfortunately, the "loudness war" problem with pop music actually started in the vinyl era. I think there are other reasons for vinyl sounding better, Graham covers some of them in his discussion of wideband principles - eg the retention of frequency information above 20KHz on LPs v the "brick wall" 20KHz filtering usually applied to CD.
|
|
|
Post by serverbaboon on Jan 5, 2008 18:01:26 GMT
I have noticed that some new records and new reissues have sounded shit, has put me off the Mothership album a little and made me a bit nervous of playing the Joshua Tree reissue.
One of the HiFI mags have done an article similar to this and they showed how the dynamic range of some CDs were less than 10db!, this from a media that is capable of >90db.
They also showed how some of the new Hendrix reissues have been getting louder and more compressed.
It depresses me a little how MP3 is ruining how music is produced, there have been some discussions on the forums about CD or Vinyl which is best, but it really is insignificant compared to the damage being done to recorded music.
I have a Led Zep repressing (not remaster) from the early seventies an you can hear a squeaky drum peddle, that would be drowned out by todays record executives. I love the first Artic Monkeys album for it's energy but it sounds so relentless and recording so shit that I rarely listen to it on my main Hifi but mostly in the car where some of it's flaws can be overlooked.
Graham has spent spent hours creating the solo (soon to arrive!) and the voyager giving them good dynamic range and wide bandwidth yet I know that a lot of the new music I will end up buying (I can't stop myself) will use a fraction of their capabilities.
There is some hope for the richer vinyleesters with the audiophile reissue companies that go back to original master tapes and produce good quality but unfortunately expensive reissues. But for the rest of us it's charity shops and friends giving away 60s,70s and 80's vinyl.
They say (and I'm a believer) that vinyl sounds better especially during the golden age of the 70s but maybe some of this is due to the initial learning curves of CD mastering during its introduction and the declining quality of recording and engineering that coincided with the take off of CD.
Don't smugly think that because you listen to vinyl that you are immune from this, I own the Artic Monkeys on vinyl and it's still shit quality, so is my Candy Payne album. The physical limitations of vinyl may spare it some of the worst excesses but at the end of the day it still comes from the same studio and engineering session that produces the CD and MP3.
|
|
toad
Been here a while!
I am the Super Toad, the Original Toad, the Whole Toad and nothing BUT the toad.... don't forget it!
Posts: 1,223
|
Post by toad on Jan 5, 2008 23:43:04 GMT
Lets hope that the availability of cheap storage will mean that more of the buying public will start encoding MP3s at 320 or even using FLAC etc. Maybe once they realise the quality they can have they'll start asking questions about why older stuff sounds better etc.
It's a pity the Record companies can't produce 2 versions of an album.
A Compressed loud "Club" version and a "Dynamic" version for home listening. It would be interesting to see which version sold the most.
One thing I have noticed is the number of people that are starting to use better cans on their ipods etc.
I have personally converted a few people over to Senny PX-100s Not an awesome can but way better than stock buds. I know that several of them have convinced their friends to get some.
At only £17.99 they aren't exactly going to break the bank.
|
|
|
Post by charleyphogg on Jan 8, 2008 9:30:53 GMT
Ohhh Grass Hopper. How can we let Grahams work go down the drain just because those before us do not know nay better?
We must carry the sword! Teach. Instruct. Take anyone under our wing that has no idea what the music is all about. SonofaBitch people..... I never once thought I'd hear LedZepplin in an Elevator, But I can asure you that it will be over my cold cold body before I hear an mp3 played over the loud speaker!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by tarkovsky on Jan 9, 2008 13:40:47 GMT
CDs actually have a better response on the high frequencies because vinyl heads tend to 'skip the dips'. However there is less bass on CDs under 40hz.
Arctic Monkeys? Yuck. You listen to that kind of Rubbish and wonder why it's so compressed? They ARE a multi-band compressor and a couple of power chords. That's the pace. Why listen in that genre to such a bad band, when you have the Libertines? Yes their stuff is far from hi-fi, but thats one of the defining elements of punk.
Here are some bands worth listening to: The Decembrists - 'The Crane Wife' sounds very good on high end gear, and probably the best album I've heard in a good few years Bat for Lashes - Like Regina Specktor but more folky tronica Arcade Fire - 'Funeral' sounds wonderful on my gear and dances between punk and folk The Strokes - 'Is This it' - Well recorded using a lot of nice old analogue gear Bjork - Apart from the first album most of her stuff scales very well
|
|
|
Post by serverbaboon on Jan 9, 2008 15:22:03 GMT
Considering that CD high frequencies are ruthlessly stopped some 6KHz before Vinyl I'm rather dubious of that but I am willing to agree to differ.
I listen to all sorts of Bands, Artic Monkeys was an example of 'popular' music and whats being done to it. If you follow the link and some of the links off that you will see that it's not just the proto punk and Jam wannabee bands that are sounding bad. The link about the latest Rush album is an example. The Compression talked about is happening to allsorts of Bands and now reissues.
I always thought the Libertines were overrated and as for Baby Shambles...
Except for the Decembrists I have all the other records, I did find that the Bats for Lashes a bit of a disappointment though after hearing the Horses track.
I know that a lot of people can't tell the difference between the CD and the 256k version on their tonedeafPod but I do object to them being who the recording engineers/producers/suits pander too.
I actually don't want to end up in a position of buying only Audiophile Bands/recordings as quite frankly a lot of the time the music is boring.
|
|
toad
Been here a while!
I am the Super Toad, the Original Toad, the Whole Toad and nothing BUT the toad.... don't forget it!
Posts: 1,223
|
Post by toad on Jan 9, 2008 19:07:32 GMT
I for one, am glad that most of my CD collection is around the 15-20 year old mark. My oldest CDs are about 1984 so a good deal of my collection pre dates the heavy compression used today.
I am tending to look towards buying older stuff that I've not listened to before rather than newer stuff.
As soon as I have a spare minute I'm gonna raid the charity shops for some second hand CDs.
|
|
Sol
100+
loves motorcycles !
Chief Technical Numpty
Posts: 135
|
Post by Sol on Jan 9, 2008 22:32:01 GMT
As soon as I have a spare minute I'm gonna raid the charity shops for some second hand CDs. Dood ... I beat you to it ;D
|
|