| Holly2003 02.01.2008 16:01 |
Why Todays' CDs sound like crap link Interesting stuff: includes comments about WWTLF and WWRY. |
| Legy 02.01.2008 16:23 |
Too true. Vinyl will always sound better than digital. Digital lacks warmth, analog will always beat digital. The good bands record on 2" tape, just like they used to in the good ole days |
| Treasure Moment 02.01.2008 16:53 |
artemismoon wrote: Too true. Vinyl will always sound better than digital. Digital lacks warmth, analog will always beat digital. The good bands record on 2" tape, just like they used to in the good ole daysi agree analog is much better |
| Deacon Fan 02.01.2008 19:43 |
I don't even have to click the link. The answer is loudness. Pushing it too far and killing dynamics. |
| Raf 02.01.2008 21:58 |
Wow. |
| john bodega 03.01.2008 00:27 |
I took a CD back to the shop the other day, complained that it sounded like crap. The salesguy told me that it was in stunning digital clarity, and I waved him off and told him that it was the band that was the problem. Todays CDs do indeed sound terrible, he agreed, and we hi-fived over a brandy and cigars. For an encore I made out with the cute red-headed saleslady standing next to me. I hate todays CDs, but there's always an upshot to this kind of thing. |
| goinback 03.01.2008 02:26 |
Something I've noticed is if I record vinyl onto CD, the CD actually DOES retain a lot of the "warm" vinyl sound. So I don't think CDs are necessarily the culprit, it's the mastering of them (as the article shows). Also there was some study on people's brains recently that showed they don't get the same emotional response from an MP3 as an uncompressed file, because the supposedly inaudible highs and lows that are stripped out apparently do make a difference. Plus people's brains have to work harder to fill in the missing pieces. |
| The prophet's song 03.01.2008 02:59 |
We had three whole lectures about analog VS digital in Maths I do prefer records, but the only problem is they are so hard to come by here unless you live in the main centres, not to mention a record player will set you back nearly $400 |
| The Fairy King 03.01.2008 03:17 |
Don't worry, the cd like we know it won't be here anymore in a few years. The industrie is brainstorming for alternatives, but what Radiohead did with In Rainbows is pretty much where we're heading. |
| Mr Mercury 03.01.2008 03:37 |
<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: but what Radiohead did with In Rainbows is pretty much where we're heading.I for one hope not. I much prefer to have stuff in physical form, i.e CD, Vinyl etc. And especially vinyl, where not only is the audio far superior, the artwork is as well. |
| radio_what's_new 03.01.2008 09:27 |
The artwork of vinyl is much better than the artwork of a cd, but a cd is more practical in use. Modern new releases on vinyl are sounding the same as on a cd. That's because the music is recorded digital in the studio. When a digital sound is put onto vinyl it doesn't make any difference to a new cd. It used to be a difference, but everyone who claims to hear a difference between a 2007 vinyl release which has been recorded digitally and the same music on a 2007 cd-release is talking nonsense. Vinyl only sounds better for the old anolog recordings. (for example the EMI anniversary re-release of A day at the races LP, the sound on vinyl is superb, but that's because of the pimped anolog recording) |
| PieterMC 03.01.2008 09:48 |
<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: Don't worry, the cd like we know it won't be here anymore in a few years. The industrie is brainstorming for alternatives, but what Radiohead did with In Rainbows is pretty much where we're heading.Well that will be a world where I won't buy music. I refuse to pay to download an album. I want the physical product, not some digital file. |
| Dan C. 03.01.2008 10:31 |
PieterMC wrote:Only stupid people want to OWN what they pay for, Pieter. Only stupid people.<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: Don't worry, the cd like we know it won't be here anymore in a few years. The industrie is brainstorming for alternatives, but what Radiohead did with In Rainbows is pretty much where we're heading.Well that will be a world where I won't buy music. I refuse to pay to download an album. I want the physical product, not some digital file. |
| FriedChicken 03.01.2008 11:40 |
I wonder if all those 'Digital sucks' people can pick out the one song from Made in Heaven which was recorded and mixed analog. |
| Wiley 03.01.2008 11:50 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: I wonder if all those 'Digital sucks' people can pick out the one song from Made in Heaven which was recorded and mixed analog.Wasn't it only the version from the USA single for that song? I remember Brian saying something about that many years ago. Or is there one song (and only one) in the MIH CD that was recorded and mixed analog? I can guess by looking at the times the songs were actually recorded but I don't know how were they mixed. Tell the difference by listening to them? I don't think I could, but let's see someone else give it a try. Wiley |
| sexmachine 03.01.2008 12:17 |
The prophet's song wrote: I do prefer records, but the only problem is they are so hard to come by here unless you live in the main centres, not to mention a record player will set you back nearly $400i don´t think you must pay 400$ for a record player. buying a working used one from ebay or a second hand shop should not cost more than 50$, just make sure the needle is allright or better buy a new one (internet) for another 20-30$.nearly all regular queen lps were pressed in masses and should be easily found on flehmarkets even in nz for less than 5$,or buy a collection on ebay. |
| Just You and Me 03.01.2008 13:02 |
Do you think they sell record players for cars these days? |
| pittrek 03.01.2008 13:25 |
Treasure Moment wrote:I never thought I'm gonna write this, but I agree with youartemismoon wrote: Too true. Vinyl will always sound better than digital. Digital lacks warmth, analog will always beat digital. The good bands record on 2" tape, just like they used to in the good ole daysi agree analog is much better |
| Legy 03.01.2008 13:53 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: I wonder if all those 'Digital sucks' people can pick out the one song from Made in Heaven which was recorded and mixed analog.Too Much Love If it weren't for digital technology, Made in Heaven wouldn't have been made. Digital has its good and bad, but lately it's been all bad. Some bands record in analog and then mix in digital, you keep some warmth that way. But man, there are some crappy bands producing some crappy sounding CD's. |
| goinback 03.01.2008 18:29 |
radio_what's_new wrote: The artwork of vinyl is much better than the artwork of a cd, but a cd is more practical in use. Modern new releases on vinyl are sounding the same as on a cd. That's because the music is recorded digital in the studio. When a digital sound is put onto vinyl it doesn't make any difference to a new cd. It used to be a difference, but everyone who claims to hear a difference between a 2007 vinyl release which has been recorded digitally and the same music on a 2007 cd-release is talking nonsense. Vinyl only sounds better for the old anolog recordings. (for example the EMI anniversary re-release of A day at the races LP, the sound on vinyl is superb, but that's because of the pimped anolog recording)Actually I've wondered about this. I'm wondering if the recording COULD gain some of the analog warmth even though analog is entering in last. The reason is the physical vinyl grooves wouldn't be able to reproduce much of the "jaggy" digital waveforms accurately, and would have to smooth them out into analog curves. Plus if there's an extra step in the recording going to analog tape before it goes to analog vinyl the sound waves may be "smoothed" out there as well. It would be interesting to see if the final waveform looks close to a smooth curved line or still has that jagged "step" look like digital has.... |
| Raf 04.01.2008 14:45 |
I don't get what's the problem with recording things with digital technology. If I record some stuff in a digital form and mix it all decently, like in the old days, shouldn't it sound at least as good as the analog records? |
| Legy 04.01.2008 17:33 |
My band just finished recording in an all digital set up, I have the master CD and it sounds pretty good, but it could have been a lot better. It wasn't Protools, I can't remember what the name of the program our engineer was using but it was Mackie/Windows based. There are ways for one to tweak things here and there to make it sound better, but it's still not the same as analog. It's still missing that extra something. I recorded in an all analog setting about seven years ago with a pretty well known (to people in the Tejano Music Industry), Grammy Award Winning producer in Texas. That recording session was awesome. He would use a splicer to cut and paste, it was awesome seeing him do all these wonderful things. The sound was incredible. I later worked with him in an all Protools environment, we called him the Master of the NTR; No Talent Required. Instead of going back in fixing little things here and there, he would use auto tune and various other tricks. That just didn't feel right, to me anyways. He even said it himself, Protools is cheaper, faster but you loose some quality. 2" tape sounds better, but it's much more expensive. You can get a good sound with digital, but it's still not the same. |
| FriedChicken 05.01.2008 15:36 |
artemismoon wrote:Nope, it's Beautiful DayFriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: I wonder if all those 'Digital sucks' people can pick out the one song from Made in Heaven which was recorded and mixed analog.Too Much Love If it weren't for digital technology, Made in Heaven wouldn't have been made. Digital has its good and bad, but lately it's been all bad. Some bands record in analog and then mix in digital, you keep some warmth that way. But man, there are some crappy bands producing some crappy sounding CD's. |
| Legy 05.01.2008 18:08 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: Nope, it's Beautiful DayNo sir, you're wrong. Excerpt from a David Richards interview from Rolling Stone 1995. link Q: Was modern technology elementary to finish the album? or would it have been possible to complete the album also 10 years ago? DR: Absolutely! Technology offers us the possibility to arrange songs new, but in this case we didn't arrange the songs new, so the recordings could have been done just as well ten years back with an analog recording machine. In fact "Too Much Love" was recorded on an analog recording machine. Brian wrote the song at a time when we were still using those machines, Freddie recorded it, cause he liked the song very much, but the track was never used, so " Too Much Love.." ended up on Brian's solo album. It's interesting to compare that one analog song to all the other digital MIH songs. The clearness in the analog recording is remarkable. It always takes us some time till we see where new technology takes us. We follow every technological revolution without knowing where it's heading. Q. What does the band think about analog/digital recording? DR: Roger called me yesterday, because I did an edit of "Too Much Love..." for a release in the USA. He asked: "what did you do with that remix? it sounds AMAZING!" I told him it was maybe because it was an analog recorded song that gave that amazing impression. |
| brENsKi 06.01.2008 12:40 |
Why Todays' CDs sound like crap ------------------------------- you need to warm them up in the oven first...makes them sound much better ;-) |
| Legy 09.01.2008 17:15 |
Baking analog tape and film is a small price to pay compared to maintaining a digital file.
According to a 74 page study released by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAD) to a limited audience in early November, preserving a full-length digital movie can cost $208,569 (dramatic pause) per year. The reasons are exactly the same as for digitized documents, and the currently available means of preservation are the same as well.The cost are less when it comes to audio files, but it still cost record companies millions of dollars to perserve audio files. link |
| brENsKi 09.01.2008 17:58 |
i think you took my comment seriously... did you not see the " ;-) " ? |
| Legy 09.01.2008 18:00 |
Not really. I did see the wink, I'm just a little bored. LOL! |
| brENsKi 09.01.2008 18:13 |
okay mate, so was i when i suggested it |
| Legy 09.01.2008 18:16 |
So, how's the weather in Worcestershire? |
| brENsKi 09.01.2008 18:25 |
crap..blowing a gale...but i don't care...if we are getting the weather that the US eastern seaboard is getting and it holds on til after Saturday night...long enough for the Patriots to beat the Jags i will be happy bet it's steaming in Texas? |
| Legy 09.01.2008 20:01 |
Actually, it's not that bad. It's 15 degrees Celsius. Not too bad. Go New England! |
| brENsKi 10.01.2008 15:21 |
i am seriously owrried the Jags might beat them....woulda rather San Diego...but hey-ho can't moan about 16-0 |
| Legy 10.01.2008 18:44 |
Man, the Jags almost blew it with the Steelers. I hate Pittsburgh, but that was one hell of a game. I was actually pulling for them. But, NE is too strong for the Jags. It still will be a good game, can't wait for Sat! |
| Legy 10.01.2008 19:20 |
If you like them loud, then yes. If you like dynamics, then no. |
| goinback 13.01.2008 19:37 |
<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: I don't get what's the problem with recording things with digital technology. If I record some stuff in a digital form and mix it all decently, like in the old days, shouldn't it sound at least as good as the analog records?Digital sound is similar to how watching a film or video works. A film/video has samples of motion which, when played really fast, gives the brain the illusion of motion. Digital sound is sort of the same: it has SAMPLES of sound giving an ILLUSION of hearing music. But there are holes of missing info between all those samples (and the brain has to work harder to fill in those gaps). Analog sound, on the other hand, is a continuous wave which is how our ears/brain naturally hear and thus generally is probably more pleasing. |
| inu-liger 14.01.2008 11:13 |
Treasure Moment wrote:I second that agreement.artemismoon wrote: Too true. Vinyl will always sound better than digital. Digital lacks warmth, analog will always beat digital. The good bands record on 2" tape, just like they used to in the good ole daysi agree analog is much better I really hate compressed digital music, MP3's and such...it's really hard to the ears, especially to the point when I can tell a 320kbps MP3 apart from a lossless (WAV/FLAC) copy. Hence, I have been buying more CD's as of late along with vinyl records, especially for a lot of my anime titles from Japan, so I can have clean lossless sources to rip from. Actually, if anything I've been on a vinyl kick lately....I've been going through my vinyl collection and playing a lot of it over and over, to the point where I'm buying *more* records now because I'm getting bored with some of my records, lol! I'm actually also even waiting for a custom cut record I ordered to come in the mail, that has a couple remixes of mine cut on the vinyl :) |
| Raf 14.01.2008 17:41 |
goinback wrote:Thank you! :) But then, wouldn't a high sampling rate make up for it and make it even better than analog (as there's no hiss)?<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: I don't get what's the problem with recording things with digital technology. If I record some stuff in a digital form and mix it all decently, like in the old days, shouldn't it sound at least as good as the analog records?Digital sound is similar to how watching a film or video works. A film/video has samples of motion which, when played really fast, gives the brain the illusion of motion. Digital sound is sort of the same: it has SAMPLES of sound giving an ILLUSION of hearing music. But there are holes of missing info between all those samples (and the brain has to work harder to fill in those gaps). Analog sound, on the other hand, is a continuous wave which is how our ears/brain naturally hear and thus generally is probably more pleasing. |
| Legy 14.01.2008 22:51 |
You should hear Brian's set up. Lots of hiss there. Lots of hiss. |
| goinback 17.01.2008 22:51 |
<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote:Yes the higher the sample rate (as is the case with SACDs, etc.) the better it gets, though it's impossible to have a sample rate as high as a continuous wave.goinback wrote:Thank you! :) But then, wouldn't a high sampling rate make up for it and make it even better than analog (as there's no hiss)?<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: I don't get what's the problem with recording things with digital technology. If I record some stuff in a digital form and mix it all decently, like in the old days, shouldn't it sound at least as good as the analog records?Digital sound is similar to how watching a film or video works. A film/video has samples of motion which, when played really fast, gives the brain the illusion of motion. Digital sound is sort of the same: it has SAMPLES of sound giving an ILLUSION of hearing music. But there are holes of missing info between all those samples (and the brain has to work harder to fill in those gaps). Analog sound, on the other hand, is a continuous wave which is how our ears/brain naturally hear and thus generally is probably more pleasing. |