Why do Michael Jackson albums sound better than anything released in recent years?

[Chrispy]

What particular recent music are you comparing the production to, tho?

 

[bogart]

your name gives it away... mind you, much as I like(d) PearlJam back in the day... they defiantly came of age during the loudness era..

To be fair, they're actually an example of NOT competing in the loudness business for the most part up until No Code in 1996. Since then, their vinyl releases are the only ones with avg dynamic range in the 10+ range. Especially sad since they're pretty well recorded outside of that.

 

[Martin]

To be fair, they're actually an example of NOT competing in the loudness business for the most part up until No Code in 1996. Since then, their vinyl releases are the only ones with avg dynamic range in the 10+ range. Especially sad since they're pretty well recorded outside of that.

View attachment 107175

One reason I love vinyl.

Martin

 

[MRC01]

https://www.soundonsound.com/people/bruce-swedien-recording-michael-jackson

I'm not a MJ fan, but really enjoyed that article.

 

[bogart]

One reason I love vinyl.

Martin

the dynamic range vs. SINAD tradeoff

 

[Feelas]

Simply put, they don't.

 

[RobS]

Who do Michae Jackson albums recorded years if not decades ago sound better than anything released in recent years? Especially since the tech advanced so much in recent years.
His albums sound so good if not the best.

All the equipment was analog, which contributes much to how natural it sounds. I have yet to hear a digital recording that comes close to imbuing the inner warmth and natural timbre as found in old analog recordings. It's just a distinct characteristic that digital can't touch.

That doesn't mean I don't like digital recordings, that's the bulk of my listening these days.

But if you want a really well engineered album that was made recently, go hear Army Of Anyone's 2006 debut and only album. Produced by Bob Ezrin (of Floyd's The Wall fame) and mixed by Ken Andrews. I don't know who engineered the album (don't have the liner notes handy), but for a modern recording I was impressed by how much of the nuances and spacious atmosphere that gives it this dense sound, while none of the band overpowers one another and it sounds loud without being brickwalled to shit. For post-iPod era slammed pop music, just makes it all the more impressive.

Dua Lipa's Future Nostalgia is another one that is pretty decent too. It's no Thriller in its engineering, but it doesn't sound like overcompressed whiny punk rock of the early 00s. The real attention grabber is the genius songcraft and hooks for days.

 

[Feelas]

All the equipment was analog, which contributes much to how natural it sounds. I have yet to hear a digital recording that comes close to imbuing the inner warmth and natural timbre as found in old analog recordings. It's just a distinct characteristic that digital can't touch.

And what would cause digital to be broken, even if the analog waveform can be reproduced 1:1 after being captured in files?

I respect your opinion here, but it's unfounded to say that digital has some innate characteristics of sound.

 

[Oukkidoukki]

Mj sounds like dog balls (joke) compared to todays best stuff....you just have to find them....try skazi - power of god, genesis - shakti or hoff ensemble - polarity for example........then put Mj back...

 

[Pearljam5000]

Mj sounds like dog balls (joke) compared to todays best stuff....you just have to find them....try skazi - power of god, genesis - shakti or hoff ensemble - polarity for example........then put Mj back...

Im from Israel so Skazi is local but never heard his stuff

 

[RobS]

And what would cause digital to be broken, even if the analog waveform can be reproduced 1:1 after being captured in files?

I respect your opinion here, but it's unfounded to say that digital has some innate characteristics of sound.

The audio signal from digital is a complete mess. Put a scope on the DAC output before the reconstruction filters and it looks like absolute shit. You need a superb amount of filtering to make it sound normal, but the more parts you add, the more shit it sounds. A turntable has 2k less parts than some of the DACs out there.

I mean look, digital can sound really awesome and cool but it ain't the same as analog. With analog there's a very short signal path and the less you have between you and the music, the less shit can go wrong aka degrade the signal. High performing analog gear has zero demodulation and more. But this site is rather hostile to analog formats, so I'll end it here.

 

[watchnerd]

Who do Michae Jackson albums recorded years if not decades ago sound better than anything released in recent years? Especially since the tech advanced so much in recent years.
His albums sound so good if not the best.

Better than *anything* released in the recent years?

They don't.

 

[Feelas]

The audio signal from digital is a complete mess. Put a scope on the DAC output before the reconstruction filters and it looks like absolute shit. You need a superb amount of filtering to make it sound normal, but the more parts you add, the more shit it sounds. A turntable has 2k less parts than some of the DACs out there.

I mean look, digital can sound really awesome and cool but it ain't the same as analog. With analog there's a very short signal path and the less you have between you and the music, the less shit can go wrong aka degrade the signal. High performing analog gear has zero demodulation and more. But this site is rather hostile to analog formats, so I'll end it here.

Look, you are absolutely in the dark and it's strange that you can't see that. You are dead wrong about the DAC process and I'm really the wrong person to straighten out the knowledge gap in here. Since the wave is the same, the signal will be the same and actually it's up to you to prove that reconstructed analogue signal sounds different, especially subjected to null tests.

This is not about being hostile to analogue formats, these simply don't don't even reach 80dB of actual SNR most of the time...

And actually the analogue path is shorter in digital, since you end up in ADC converter the one way, process in digital domain and just DAC into analogue afterwards. Anything done properly in digital domain can be proven to be less lossy than doing the same in analogue. These are just simple facts...

 

[BDWoody]

You need a superb amount of filtering to make it sound normal, but the more parts you add, the more shit it sounds. A turntable has 2k less parts than some of the DACs out there.

You just need the filter to do it's job properly, and you get your waveform back. Nothing heroic needed.

So, you're saying it's the number of parts involved that makes things sound good?
I'm thinking I've got a couple of turntables that likely have more parts than some of these DAC's, but then I'm not claiming they sound better. They are inherently limited by noise and distortion more than an order of magnitude higher than a decent DAC would have.

Hmmm... Maybe it'll match up with the TotalDac. (Blast from the past).

 

[Sombreuil]

It reminds me of the debate between silver photography vs digital photography. A reporter broke his camera and used his Iphone instead with a black & white filter. When he sold the pictures to his agency they asked him for more because you know, silver pictures are superior and the digital format has its limit. Little did they know...

 

[Lorenzo74]

Probably the best sounding album ever.View attachment 98588

true, 16bit/44Hz

 

[infinitesymphony]

But if you want a really well engineered album that was made recently, go hear Army Of Anyone's 2006 debut and only album. Produced by Bob Ezrin (of Floyd's The Wall fame) and mixed by Ken Andrews. I don't know who engineered the album (don't have the liner notes handy), but for a modern recording I was impressed by how much of the nuances and spacious atmosphere that gives it this dense sound, while none of the band overpowers one another and it sounds loud without being brickwalled to shit. For post-iPod era slammed pop music, just makes it all the more impressive.

Ken Andrews has some of the biggest-sounding rock mixes around. Very musical.

He has been mixing everything in the box with plugins for quite some time using many of the same techniques he used in analog recording studios in the past--SSL channel strip emulations, tape emulations, plate reverb emulations, compressor emulations. It's all digital now.

https://www.soundonsound.com/people/inside-track-paramore

"My style is that once it's in the box, it stays there, all the way to mastering. I do occasionally run things out to pedals, but I always print the result on a new track. I try to avoid having any analogue gear live in a mix. In general, I keep my setup as simple and lean as possible. I find that having it this way keeps the focus on the emotion of the song, as opposed to the gear."

The analog vs. digital argument is old news, and the takeaway is that we all won because either method can produce excellent results.

 

[earlevel]

To be fair, they're actually an example of NOT competing in the loudness business for the most part up until No Code in 1996. Since then, their vinyl releases are the only ones with avg dynamic range in the 10+ range. Especially sad since they're pretty well recorded outside of that.

Just a note of warning, my friend Ian says you can't compare the DR readings (TT meter anyway) of vinyl to CD...

Why you can’t measure vinyl with the TT Meter

 

[Prep74]

All the equipment was analog, which contributes much to how natural it sounds. I have yet to hear a digital recording that comes close to imbuing the inner warmth and natural timbre as found in old analog recordings. It's just a distinct characteristic that digital can't touch.

That doesn't mean I don't like digital recordings, that's the bulk of my listening these days.

But if you want a really well engineered album that was made recently, go hear Army Of Anyone's 2006 debut and only album. Produced by Bob Ezrin (of Floyd's The Wall fame) and mixed by Ken Andrews. I don't know who engineered the album (don't have the liner notes handy), but for a modern recording I was impressed by how much of the nuances and spacious atmosphere that gives it this dense sound, while none of the band overpowers one another and it sounds loud without being brickwalled to shit. For post-iPod era slammed pop music, just makes it all the more impressive.

Dua Lipa's Future Nostalgia is another one that is pretty decent too. It's no Thriller in its engineering, but it doesn't sound like overcompressed whiny punk rock of the early 00s. The real attention grabber is the genius songcraft and hooks for days.

I think you are confusing formats with production processes. I have some 1950s recordings which sound much more natural than most stuff produced today, analog or digital. It is a matter of subjective preference ultimately but I think the main reason for the difference is that the recordings were more natural with very little, if any, processing. So in a sense, you are confusing digital with later trends in production. To prove that point, take any analog recording, digitise it and play it back on a CD (ie 16/44) and providing it is done properly I doubt you would hear any difference (blind, level matched etc) when played back on the same source equipment. I know, I've done it many times.

 

[Wombat]

Just a note of warning, my friend Ian says you can't compare the DR readings (TT meter anyway) of vinyl to CD...

Why you can’t measure vinyl with the TT Meter

That needs to be a Stickie. Posted often on ASR but seemingly ignored or missed.