Or go see a live concert. That’s the only real way I know… hey come to think of it, I’ve never heard a live show sound like the recording. Damn this conundrum ASR! lol
My beef isn’t with measurements per se, they at least are consistent, albeit if of questionable value as we know. My problem with the review I read is that he ended the review with I can NOT recommend said piece of equipment because my measurements show noise. Not what the equipment actually sounds like. No opinion given on that and IMO it’s a BS way to recommend equipment. Incidentally, the Topping piece of equipment at 1/4 of the price measured better… as he can clearly point to in the measurements.
My idea of enjoying music has always been… well… hi-fi, as in high fidelity, as in, give me all the truth. Don’t add color. Don’t add detail. It’s cheating.
The world I want, a world without shitty microphones, re-amped guitars, and mastering engineers working only to reproduce what happened in the studio to perfection, doesn’t exist… and ASR needs to learn this.
We’re talking about the artists intent here. Take a watch at this whole interview. I love shit like this. Towards the end Steve Jordan start talking about mastering.
Thanks. I added all this to my Youtube “Watch Later” list and will all give you likes in a few hours because… I did not look at the forum for like two weeks and now I’m out of " 's ".
Interestingly there is transition in recording that mirrors the (hifi) output side going from analog to digital “in the box” mixing/mastering if im understanding what goes into music production.
The more I know, the more I realize most studios and masterings just fuck up the sound (I said most, not all!), and hi-fi is about getting the raw, fucked up sound, and audiophilia is about unfucking-it in a subjective and pleasant way.
This is really not poetic, but lol. The raw, “fucked up” sound, can be great (can be positively viewed as audiophilia actually – i.e. food and cuisine is definitely not all sausage), and is, most of the time, impressive to me. And I get everything of the “audiophile” aspect too. Just add the flavor you want.
Agree. There are some bands that really seem to care about good mixing and mastering. Steely Dan, Amber Rubarth, Massive Attack, Radiohead, etc.
Then there are some that could give two f*cks. I LOVE Oasis, but its third album, “Be Here Now,” has some of the worst mixing and mastering of any rock album I’ve heard. The sound is just awful.
No wonder it’s called the band’s “cocaine album.” I’ve read the band, producer and sound staff all were wired to the gills on blow during recording and mixing/mastering. Hell, the tune “My Big Mouth” has around 25 guitar tracks on it alone.
Noel: “Oy! Can I put 12 more guitar tracks on that song? Sniff-sniff.”
Producer: “Yeah, why not? It will sound brilliant! Sniff-sniff.”
think the problem is the genre popular music/rock does not record well in high resolution dynamic range and the other categories suffer from the artist/finance side of production insisting the gains turned way up to play loud through cars bluetooth speakers and cellphones.
So if you want the true uncompressed hi-res dynamic range its going to be classical/jazz none-electric stuff.
No, you’re right. I read a FASCINATING story a couple of years ago about how rock and pop are mixed and mastered at much higher decibel levels than in their earlier eras.
I think it’s the “American Idol” theory – louder must mean better. Nearly every damn singer on “Idol” – especially the female ones – could sing from the soles of their feet but had ZERO phrasing or control. But everyone thought they were amazing.
Sadly, Whitney Houston started this trend. She had the rare gift of incredible volume and power AND control. But then her impersonators, namely Mariah Carey, came along and had nothing but decibels and range, with zero phrasing or control.
In contrast, listen to an R&B singer like Anita Baker or Toni Braxton or a jazz singer like Diana Krall or Jane Monheit. They all have gorgeous control and phrasing. Annie Lennox is the rare pop and rock singer who has both, too. Her voice is angelic.
I think music mixing and mastering have mirrored that in the last few decades.
There’s an entire generation (Idol as you put it perhaps?) that’s grown up conflating power with volume, I’d not thought about the phrasing as how you put it, but thinking about it it’s very clear that… is instinctual, you simply can’t teach it. Celia Cruz for example, Ella Fitzgerald, I’d include Amy Winehouse in there simply because she was a soul possessed when she sang.
Thinking through your line of reasoning, another artist that comes to mind that can “phrase” is Florence Welch.
Getting back to the power though, and the conflating of power with volume and that Mariah Carey and Christina Agilera crap where they’re actually yelling more than singing…
Control is subtle, but genuine power isn’t yelling and when you hear any of the female vocalists on the above list, when they project and it’s loud in volume, it’s more importantly controlled and there’s a subtle but very clear difference. Shit Annie Lennox can whisper powerfully.
If im getting a sense of mixing. The transient peaks in a rock recordings is the an issue so the mixer has to compress electric guitar and if the drummer is thrashing the hi-hats like lars on AJFA . Dont think vocal dynamics is a problem its amped instruments they have to hit hard with EQ. Its interesting listening to sound mixers talk shop.
Yea idol and the voice is all about belting it out, hair metal might be guilty too.
Steve guttenberg promoted a music site that offers a free sampler. Theres a track on there, ravid goldschmidt-silvia perez cruz, “Gitana” 88.2khz 24 PCM.
Christina have-no-hair-ah not going to lie i got “impossible” but i aint buying her CD. Brickwall like the fence in my backyard.
's ".
