That's not music, just loud pink noise with a heavy rhythm.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Bad recording/master: it is a crime!!!
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Just found this thread. Sadly it is the histrory repeating itself. When stereo LP records appeared in the late 50's the dynamics on the record were phenomenal. But the equipment to play them , rather poor. Also the demand for more minutes of music together made the industry to reduce dynamics. If memory serves me well, it was on the 1974 new year speech that the big boss of EMI said something like: "nice those multi channel recording techniques, but i prefer the 2 or 3 channel tape recording, as that is music" .
In the late seventies Jean Hiraga (L'audiophile) demonstrated the huge difference in dynamics of record player cartridges, the Shore and Stanton and Ortofon being the biggest offenders. At that time the only pre-amplifiers that could fully deal with the dynamics, using.i a vdHul modified EMT mc cartridge were electronics without any feedback. Be it tube or transistor, provided the transistors or tubes had enough idle current running them also hotter than normal those days.
Then came the CD, but about at the same time portable players emerged, discman and ghetto blasters. As these are not made for playing high dynamics, but the owners were buying CD's en masse. Thus CD's were mixed and mastered to play well on these devices, so no real bass, but instead some boom around 80-100Hz, and limited dynamics. Also distorsion was deliberately added, as that made the sound appear more loud.
And so on. Parallel to this there was also the different concepts of the recording, just 2 or 3 mic's or a mic on every instrument and voice, the european way versus the american way etc.
To summarize, it is not so much the technical dimension, more the commercial dimension, i.o.w. make much money instead of spending money on quality. I recently read somewhere that 75% of the music rights is owned by just 3 companies. They are there for the shareholder value, not for the best possible music reproduction.
In the late seventies Jean Hiraga (L'audiophile) demonstrated the huge difference in dynamics of record player cartridges, the Shore and Stanton and Ortofon being the biggest offenders. At that time the only pre-amplifiers that could fully deal with the dynamics, using.i a vdHul modified EMT mc cartridge were electronics without any feedback. Be it tube or transistor, provided the transistors or tubes had enough idle current running them also hotter than normal those days.
Then came the CD, but about at the same time portable players emerged, discman and ghetto blasters. As these are not made for playing high dynamics, but the owners were buying CD's en masse. Thus CD's were mixed and mastered to play well on these devices, so no real bass, but instead some boom around 80-100Hz, and limited dynamics. Also distorsion was deliberately added, as that made the sound appear more loud.
And so on. Parallel to this there was also the different concepts of the recording, just 2 or 3 mic's or a mic on every instrument and voice, the european way versus the american way etc.
To summarize, it is not so much the technical dimension, more the commercial dimension, i.o.w. make much money instead of spending money on quality. I recently read somewhere that 75% of the music rights is owned by just 3 companies. They are there for the shareholder value, not for the best possible music reproduction.
This thread sums up why most of the debate on audio misses the point. Rubbish in = rubbish out. If you play crap on a state of the art system you still get crap. Conversely a high quality recording will still shine on a very modest system. Peter Aczel summed it up very well years ago.
Years ago, I remember Bob Dylan complaining about the recording quality of an album, Modern Times, I think. So apparently even Bob Dylan doesn't have a say. Personnally I've been disappointed with many recent jazz recordings. Is it a matter of money or skills, or both? On the other hand recording is supposed to have become cheaper than it's ever been. It's a bit hard to understand. Sinatra's Live at the Sands, with the Count Basie Orchestra and Quincy Jones directing, a favorite of mine, blows my mind every time performance-wise, but I also feel the recording is incredibly good, and it's 1965 or something. Granted, Sinatra was a superstar with access to the best and was a sound freak himself, but still.
A lot of the classical recordings I enjoy date back to the 60's and 70's with quite a few from the 50's. Yes there is a bit of hiss in the background but otherwise they remain excellent recordings which shame most modern pop recordings. If the recording engineers of 50 years ago could make recordings that still sound impressive it's a pretty damming indictment of the current state of recordings.
The sound of 00 DR in 24/48 high resolution none the less.
Talk about a quality recording
Do people really listen to this?
KK NULL EXTROPY GROUND ZERO (24-bit/48kHz)
Talk about a quality recording
Do people really listen to this?
KK NULL EXTROPY GROUND ZERO (24-bit/48kHz)
Wow, they come in first place in the minimum dynamic range sorting: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr-min
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2018
- Messages
- 428
- Likes
- 508
One easy way is to use Amazon reviews. If a recording is badly engineered, then saying so on Amazon helps other buyers. Also may get the attention of the artist.
Don’t get too technical in your review, because the majority of readers are not audiophiles. The shorter the better.
Don’t get too technical in your review, because the majority of readers are not audiophiles. The shorter the better.
Yep, that's where I picked the example from. Quite a few other 00 DR albums get listed if you sort by Avg DR.
But then how much difference can there be between 00 and 01 or 02 DR
No accounting for taste I guess.
I love reading Amazon reviews as you get the full range from reviews that shame published reviews in magazines right through to full on swivel eyed bonkers stuff and people blaming Amazon because they ordered the wrong thing. My favourites are the ones that erupt into volcanic fury as they give some artistic master piece a one star review because they identify some trivial error in a 700 page academic tome. And yet, as I say, some Amazon reviews are outstanding.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #92
Wow, what the heck was that!The sound of 00 DR in 24/48 high resolution none the less.
Talk about a quality recording
Do people really listen to this?
KK NULL EXTROPY GROUND ZERO (24-bit/48kHz)
blackmetalboon
Active Member
Welcome to the wonderful world of Noise music!
captain paranoia
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2018
- Messages
- 293
- Likes
- 218
Yeah; judging by the band and album names in that 'worst DR in the world table', most of them look like extreme metal or noise bands.
Maybe I'll do a recording running white noise and other assorted sounds into Audicity at a 0 db level. Attach some satanic name to a fictional band and do a self release on ebay. Bet I can make some money.
captain paranoia
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2018
- Messages
- 293
- Likes
- 218
A colleague subscribes to 'Terrorizer' magazine, which has a free cover disc 'Fear Candy'. Some of the names are laughably try-hard. "Oh, we so want to be Satanic bad boys..." If not going for the Satanic theme, they go for Tolkien...
I'm not averse to a bit of metal, so I've got the cover discs... I just take it with a big pinch of salt.
svart-hvitt
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,375
- Likes
- 1,253
FWIW,
the album «Frank Sinatra at the Sands» is available on Qobuz in 16/44, it’s not available on Tidal.
Just an indication that having more than one streaming provider is of value on those rare occasions.
Last edited:
Similar threads
