The noise (some call it music but I don't know why) quoted in the opening post.
Expensive housing is a product of (the absence of) land availability. Increasingly land has various "protection" statuses attached to it, which is why (of all places) residential property has become very expensive in parts of Australia. Ditto California.
Whilst overall "overcompression" is regrettable, "dynamic range" alone won't tell you if something sounds "good" or not, i.e. whether the instruments sound good and the overall mix "gels." And, it is in this respect that too much of the current crop of music just isn't of a professional standard.
It ain't music either.I can’t believe I’m saying this, but it’s a bit unfair to judge him for not being a good singer. Hip hop ain’t singing.
There is plenty of land to build on in Australia or the US, protected lands cover a very small area in comparison to the overall landmass. Protecting land with natural ecosystems of flora and fauna is exceedingly important for biodiversity and the overall health of the natural world.
People also need to learn that insisting on everyone having a huge useless wasteland of a lawn is a bad idea.
In the US at least, there is absolutely no shortage of housing, and you cannot solve the problem by simply building more houses. The inflated prices are completely artificial.
Compression is a tool, it is not inherently good or bad. Mixing with absolutely no compression at all will not sound good for a lot of genres of music, and some genres (like EDM) even use heavy compression as a sort of instrument, creating for instance the pumping bass and hyper-dense soundscapes.
I would say that most modern music is produced to a very professional standard, they just have different goals compared to your wishes.
Yes! And it sounds exactly like it should be. Grungy-sludgy-stonery-metal that assaults the senses. Don't see any other way their music could sound like.If any of you listen to Baroness, what are your thoughts on the purple album? The songs are so good and the SQ so very bad...
If I’m generous I could consider it performance poetry. I’m rarely generous.It ain't music either.
I don't know about the UK but in the US it's not the governments job to build housing. In the early days you rolled up your sleeves and built your house. In more modern times, you rolled up your sleeves, got a job, and bought a house. That's what I did, for the first time at 27.BTW, the complete failure to build sufficient housing in sufficient volume in the UK, especially London and environs, has led to seriously unaffordable accommodation.
I don't know about the UK but in the US it's not the governments job to build housing. In the early days you rolled up your sleeves and built your house. In more modern times, you rolled up your sleeves, got a job, and bought a house. That's what I did, for the first time at 27.
Like their Blue or Red album. That's the difference between compression and clipping.Yes! And it sounds exactly like it should be. Grungy-sludgy-stonery-metal that assaults the senses. Don't see any other way their music could sound like.
Digital clipping is not present in any one of them. Here each red line shows were the waveform intersects with the 0 dbfs limit:Like their Blue or Red album. That's the difference between compression and clipping.
Blue - 08. O'er Hell and Hide:
View attachment 50727
Purple - 08. Desperation Burns:
View attachment 50728
The second one is obviously clipped then pulled down a bit. Could be done intentionally, or as a consequence of mastering/mixing issue. Anyway, my experience is that compression artifacts aren't perceived linearly, unlike these waveform pictures that can fool us easily into thinking that these are almost as bad.Digital clipping is not present in any one of them. Here each red line shows were the waveform intersects with the 0 dbfs limit:
View attachment 50740
The spurious red lines are single-sample peaks, and are the normal result of normalizing.
If you are talking about hard compression/limiting, it very much existed in the blue album as well. Here is the waveform for O'er Hell and Hide zoomed in:
View attachment 50741
$ sox \(2015\)\ Purple/08.\ Desperation\ Burns.flac -n stat 2>&1 | grep -E '^(Maximum amplitude|Volume adjustment):'
Maximum amplitude: 0.999969
Volume adjustment: 1.000
$ sox \(2009\)\ Blue\ Record/08.\ O\'er\ Hell\ and\ Hide.flac -n stat 2>&1 | grep -E '^(Maximum amplitude|Volume adjustment):'
Maximum amplitude: 0.991272
Volume adjustment: 1.009
I'm not a DR fetishist and can listen to stuff like Belkètre without any problem, but Purple sounded clipped to me. I've deleted entire discographies of my hard drive because of this annoying thing (I can think of Cult of Fire, Saor or Celtic Frost's Monotheist CD that were even worse than this album).Those flat wave tops are the result of hard compression. No album of this band is going to win any DR awards, so I don't see the point of worrying about it. Sounds to me like the it's last genre of music you should be listening to if you care about things like dynamic range…
Clipped and compressed are not the same thing. Here is the zoom in on the track from purple:The second one is obviously clipped then pulled down a bit. Could be done intentionally, or as a consequence of mastering/mixing issue.
You can like what you like, but I think it's a matter of perspective. If you listen to a high DR album and then to an extremely low DR one, the differences can be staggering. But throw songs from that album into a playlist of other compressed tracks, and you won't feel it as badly.I'm not a DR fetishist and can listen to stuff like Belkètre without any problem, but Purple sounded clipped to me. I've deleted entire discographies of my hard drive because of this annoying thing (I can think of Cult of Fire, Saor or Celtic Frost's Monotheist CD that were even worse than this album).
What happened after the supposed clipping could be smarter than just adjusting volume though. Anyway, the first poster was right when saying that Purple has a bad sound quality, it's at least worse than what came before by a long shot (including Yellow & Green). Though, as you said, bad sound quality is their trademark; but personally, this is bad not in a good way.Clipped and compressed are not the same thing. Here is the zoom in on the track from purple:
View attachment 50746
If it was clipped, the waveform edge would be a perfectly straight line. Look at this track by Daft Punk (Around the World):
View attachment 50747
In the Baroness track, it's not actually clipping, but very aggressive compression. Practically they are not so different, but what is different is the intention – Baroness sound is grungy and based on aggressive compression, so crushed waveforms are intentional in the mixing process. Most of the instruments probably get into the mixer already compressed quite a bit from pedal and effect racks. In daft punk, this clipping is very aggressive and not really part of the sound, but just a side effect of trying to boost up the levels while maintaining a very deep and loud bass beat.
Here is a side by side comparison where you can see the individual samples (upper one is Daft Punk):
View attachment 50748
In Daft Punks track it's clearly clipping and then normalized, and for so many samples that it wipes out any other frequency that would have existed over that bass note. In Baroness track there is still high frequency information when the bass gets compressed. But I guess both of these examples look highly offensive to the DR connoisseurs.
You can like what you like, but I think it's a matter of perspective. If you listen to a high DR album and then to an extremely low DR one, the differences can be staggering. But throw songs from that album into a playlist of other compressed tracks, and you won't feel it as badly.
Well, the entire genre of "metal for people who don't really like metal" love by image obsessed hipsters with more tatoos than a Bat' d'Af' soldier and plastic rings in their earlobes won't make history by its quality or sincerity.And off-topic, I was never really that much into this band, probably heard each album 2-3 times at most. I think they are one of those bands that tried to be Mastodon but didn't quite make it
"Bad sound quality" is a subjective statement. I didn't say bad, I said compressed. I think this is great sound quality, because it serves the artistic intention.Though, as you said, bad sound quality is their trademark
Well, that's what I'd about the other albums."Bad sound quality" is a subjective statement. I didn't say bad, I said compressed. I think this is great sound quality, because it serves the artistic intention.
I disagree- it's one thing to talk about tone and style, and another entirely when the problem is actual microphone clipping. The latest albums sound like they were mixed in a living room by a deaf person. The songwriting and musicianship are excellent, the mastering and mixing are simply awful.Yes! And it sounds exactly like it should be. Grungy-sludgy-stonery-metal that assaults the senses. Don't see any other way their music could sound like.