The relationship between recording quality and musical taste

[CJSF]

What have DJ's got to do with my likes and dislikes,

Read it again, that isn't even close to what Chebby said.

. . . wasn't it . . . ????????

 

[CJSF]

I really have to disagree with this CJSF. Digital isn't inferior (and I include CD here) and whilst there are lazy artists riding on easy routes up the charts today, such artists have always existed. There is plenty of well written, well performed and well recorded music being produced today if you seek it out.

. . . ? I deliberately used the word 'most' Matthewpiano . . . I agree, that which is worthwhile 'needs seeking out' . . . problem is, its unlikely to be 'commercial' therefor getting very little air time exposure, the modern engine rolls on promoting poor quality modern 'music?'.

We will have to agree to disagree on the quality of digital . . . to my ears its presentation, I am old and prefer the warmer analogue sound. I have tried, I listen to a lot of 'digitally presented music'. Its a personal preference, I live in the digital age, but I dont have to like it . . . :cheers:

CJSF

 

[The_Lhc]

What have DJ's got to do with my likes and dislikes,

Read it again, that isn't even close to what Chebby said.

. . . wasn't it . . . ????????

No. Chebby was blaming DJs for making the 60s and 70s seem like a golden age to live in, there was no mention of influencing anyone's likes or dislikes, music or otherwise.

 

[CJSF]

its simply reality, music was real then, now its 1's and 0's and it ain’t as good...

Everything today is 'fast', no one has time, and digital is part of that culture.

Isn't that just progress though? You could argue that vinyl is "fast" becuase music used to mean "live" as there were no recordings.

Music stopped being "real" when it stopped being a string quartet in the corner of the room. Any attempt at recording music - no matter the quality - is flawed.

All that most of us on this thread are showing is getting older. The method of playback for the current generation is different to our choice. Take someone from 18th Century Vienna and play them a HD Mozart track, to them, it would sound considerably poorer than having Mozart in the palace playing for them.

Lee H, experience and history tells me, progress is not always good. The word 'organic' is trotted out so often these days but thats how it is, analogue has an organic property that us old'uns appreciate, maybe not so old'uns as well?

Modern presentation of most things is far too slick, one feels one is treated like fodder for the promotion bandwagon . . . I am not naive or gullible . . . I'm not going to change anything, but equally I dont have to agree to conform.

CJSF

 

[CJSF]

What have DJ's got to do with my likes and dislikes,

Read it again, that isn't even close to what Chebby said.

. . . wasn't it . . . ????????

No. Chebby was blaming DJs for making the 60s and 70s seem like a golden age to live in, there was no mention of influencing anyone's likes or dislikes, music or otherwise.

If you say so The_Lhc . . . ?

 

[The_Lhc]

What have DJ's got to do with my likes and dislikes,

Read it again, that isn't even close to what Chebby said.

. . . wasn't it . . . ????????

No. Chebby was blaming DJs for making the 60s and 70s seem like a golden age to live in, there was no mention of influencing anyone's likes or dislikes, music or otherwise.

If you say so The_Lhc . . . ?

? No, that's what Chebby said.

 

[Craig M.]

inbetween stating that vinyl/analogue is far superior to digital, CJSF might like to read this. it is a listening test conducted by the boston audio society in 1984 on the audibility of a digital processing loop inserted into a vinyl playback system. they invited Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn to demonstrate that he could detect the digital loop by sound alone, as he claimed he could. he failed. maybe CJSF doesn't like modern music, fair enough, but it seems it has nothing to do with it being digitally produced.

?????????????????????????

 

[Overdose]

Oh well, if you carnt beet um..

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????....etc

 

[rjb70stoke]

CJSF, out of curiosity what are your feelings towards Blu-Ray or DVD and Digital photography or even PVR's?

All are ultimately 1's and 0's, but all have enriched our lives much more so than their analogue counterparts, in quality, useability, and ultimately financially.

For me, digital music sounds just fine, maybe my ears have long since forgotten how my dads turntable used to sound. What I do remember is the crackling, and gradual degradation of the records I bought, and the huge cupboard we kep them in. While I can see the charm of tweaking, cleaning and generally making listening an experience, for somebody of the digital generation, Ill keep my constant quality recordings (however supposedly "inferior"), their portability, and their almost zero storage requirements. I still love listening to my music, I just do it in a different way.

 

[CJSF]

inbetween stating that vinyl/analogue is far superior to digital, CJSF might like to read this. it is a listening test conducted by the boston audio society in 1984 on the audibility of a digital processing loop inserted into a vinyl playback system. they invited Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn to demonstrate that he could detect the digital loop by sound alone, as he claimed he could. he failed. maybe CJSF doesn't like modern music, fair enough, but it seems it has nothing to do with it being digitally produced.

?????????????????????????

1984 . . . ? you may be right Craig, I'd be the first to admit, there are rubbish vinyl recordings? However, when vinyl gets it right, it is magical . . . and that includes digitally mastered vinyl, I have a couple, circa early-mid eights. I am not down on digital, or CD's, its just the slapdash ways it seems to encourage. I even have a few treasured quality CD's, I have listen to some excellent Spotify tracks.

But in general, when the chips are down, I pull the draw bridge up and enjoy my 70's-80's organic sound8) lovingly adjusted and tweaked . . . Perhaps this is it, the 'tweakability of a vinyl system' . . . the sound is part of the owners time and effort? However thats probably for another thread.

CJSF

 

[paradiziac]

Back in the good old days, everyone would gather round the piano and have a sing-song...

...then evil tape came along and turned it into a consumer commodity. What's the world coming to?

I agree with CJSF, there are many things wrong with "modern reality". Standards are indeed slipping. I find the misuse of apostrophes most disturbing. Even my kid's school can't send out a single letter without either a typo or grammatical mistake.

Ah, nice to get that off my chest

 

[CJSF]

Interesting article here (http://audio-fixation.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-does-contemporary-music-suck-story.html). Basically it argues that the over use of dynamic compression on modern recordings are a result of consumers not using quality gear like they used to. The author also believes that mainstream pop music is mostly rubbish nowadays because people do not consider music listening a separate hobby anymore.

The above is a reminder of the original start to the thread . . . I dont have to high light the negative points . . . !!!!!!

However, whichever way you cut this one, the essence is 'dynamic compression on modern recording . . . and mainstream pop music etc., etc'. There is also the hobby issue . . . ?

CJSF

 

[The_Lhc]

Interesting article here (http://audio-fixation.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-does-contemporary-music-suck-story.html). Basically it argues that the over use of dynamic compression on modern recordings are a result of consumers not using quality gear like they used to. The author also believes that mainstream pop music is mostly rubbish nowadays because people do not consider music listening a separate hobby anymore.

The above is a reminder of the original start to the thread . . . I dont have to high light the negative points . . . !!!!!!

However, whichever way you cut this one, the essence is 'dynamic compression on modern recording . . . and mainstream pop music etc., etc'.

Except that process (dynamic compression to make recordings sound "better") started back in the vinyl days, it's not exclusively a digital phenomenon, although it certainly reached its peak (or trough or neither, more appropriately) with CD.

 

[CJSF]

Interesting article here (http://audio-fixation.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-does-contemporary-music-suck-story.html). Basically it argues that the over use of dynamic compression on modern recordings are a result of consumers not using quality gear like they used to. The author also believes that mainstream pop music is mostly rubbish nowadays because people do not consider music listening a separate hobby anymore.

The above is a reminder of the original start to the thread . . . I dont have to high light the negative points . . . !!!!!!

However, whichever way you cut this one, the essence is 'dynamic compression on modern recording . . . and mainstream pop music etc., etc'.

Except that process (dynamic compression to make recordings sound "better") started back in the vinyl days, it's not exclusively a digital phenomenon, although it certainly reached its peak (or trough or neither, more appropriately) with CD.

To much of a good thing these days . . . ????

 

[CJSF]

CJSF, out of curiosity what are your feelings towards Blu-Ray or DVD and Digital photography or even PVR's?

All are ultimately 1's and 0's, but all have enriched our lives much more so than their analogue counterparts, in quality, useability, and ultimately financially.

For me, digital music sounds just fine, maybe my ears have long since forgotten how my dads turntable used to sound. What I do remember is the crackling, and gradual degradation of the records I bought, and the huge cupboard we kep them in. While I can see the charm of tweaking, cleaning and generally making listening an experience, for somebody of the digital generation, Ill keep my constant quality recordings (however supposedly "inferior"), their portability, and their almost zero storage requirements. I still love listening to my music, I just do it in a different way.

Blue-Ray, no idea what it is . . .

DVD, great convenience, buy the film, cheaper than going to the cinema, but one has to accept that it aint like the 'real thing on the big screen'

PVR what are they?

Digital photography is a hobby of mine, I sit on the opposite side of the fence, converting to digital in 2004. Things were similarly split, still are, although its a lot easier between the two camps these days . One would even say it is accepted that there is a need for film, albeit small, they live well together.

I put a lot of effort into my analogue 2 channel hifi system, the sound I get is what I set out to achieve. CD's, and computerised digital has little hands on fettling facility, sometimes you are luck with the result, but it is a lottery. Adjustment and control are essential in my book, for this effort I get rewarded with the finest of musical sounds IMHO.

By the way, I get the same from 'digital Photography' in reverse. . . adjust and control, either in the DSLR camera the old fashioned way or in my computers Photo Shop digital dark room, a most satisfying experience.

CJSF

PS 'crackle and pop' . . . a fact of life with vinyl, I'm just in the process of making a 'wet record bath'. A faff but all part of the organics and loved handling of vinyl. A good well set up system can cope with the crackle and pops, they become divorced from the performance and kept within the confines of the speaker area, the performance illusion goes on all around. I stress, the system has to be very well matched to achieve this.

 

[chebby]

Digital photography is a hobby of mine, I sit on the opposite side of the fence, converting to digital in 2004. Things were similarly split, still are, although its a lot easier between the two camps these days . One would even say it is accepted that there is a need for film, albeit small, they live well together.

Ooh. Anything you can show/share in a seperate thread? (On 'off-topic & miscellaneous'.)

There are a few keen photgraphers here on the forum. (Including me )

(Sorry to the OP for briefly going off-topic.)

 

[rjb70stoke]

CJSF, out of curiosity what are your feelings towards Blu-Ray or DVD and Digital photography or even PVR's?

All are ultimately 1's and 0's, but all have enriched our lives much more so than their analogue counterparts, in quality, useability, and ultimately financially.

For me, digital music sounds just fine, maybe my ears have long since forgotten how my dads turntable used to sound. What I do remember is the crackling, and gradual degradation of the records I bought, and the huge cupboard we kep them in. While I can see the charm of tweaking, cleaning and generally making listening an experience, for somebody of the digital generation, Ill keep my constant quality recordings (however supposedly "inferior"), their portability, and their almost zero storage requirements. I still love listening to my music, I just do it in a different way.

Blue-Ray, no idea what it is . . .

DVD, great convenience, buy the film, cheaper than going to the cinema, but one has to accept that it aint like the 'real thing on the big screen'

PVR what are they?

Digital photography is a hobby of mine, I sit on the opposite side of the fence, converting to digital in 2004. Things were similarly split, still are, although its a lot easier between the two camps these days . One would even say it is accepted that there is a need for film, albeit small, they live well together.

I put a lot of effort into my analogue 2 channel hifi system, the sound I get is what I set out to achieve. CD's, and computerised digital has little hands on fettling facility, sometimes you are luck with the result, but it is a lottery. Adjustment and control are essential in my book, for this effort I get rewarded with the finest of musical sounds IMHO.

By the way, I get the same from 'digital Photography' in reverse. . . adjust and control, either in the DSLR camera the old fashioned way or in my computers Photo Shop digital dark room, a most satisfying experience.

CJSF

PS 'crackle and pop' . . . a fact of life with vinyl, I'm just in the process of making a 'wet record bath'. A faff but all part of the organics and loved handling of vinyl. A good well set up system can cope with the crackle and pops, they become divorced from the performance and kept within the confines of the speaker area, the performance illusion goes on all around. I stress, the system has to be very well matched to achieve this.

I think the comments (in bold) above sum you up (not in a bad way). Your listening experience has little to do with the original post. Yours is to wring every last bit of quality be it recording quality or musical technicality out of your chosen media. Surely most modern recordings are digital and then mastered for vinyl, CD, MP3 etc. but when you receive your vinyl album, I suspect you get every bit as much pleasure from extracting the very best sound you can, as you do from the music itself.

As for Digital photography, I love the odd bit of post-processing myself. However not all in the digital garden is rosy. Working in a camera service centre, since D-SLR's became the norm, everybody is now a professional, the problems Ive had since the demise of film and rise of Photoshopping make me want to sit in a very dark room some evenings :O

 

[CJSF]

CJSF, out of curiosity what are your feelings towards Blu-Ray or DVD and Digital photography or even PVR's?

All are ultimately 1's and 0's, but all have enriched our lives much more so than their analogue counterparts, in quality, useability, and ultimately financially.

For me, digital music sounds just fine, maybe my ears have long since forgotten how my dads turntable used to sound. What I do remember is the crackling, and gradual degradation of the records I bought, and the huge cupboard we kep them in. While I can see the charm of tweaking, cleaning and generally making listening an experience, for somebody of the digital generation, Ill keep my constant quality recordings (however supposedly "inferior"), their portability, and their almost zero storage requirements. I still love listening to my music, I just do it in a different way.

Blue-Ray, no idea what it is . . .

DVD, great convenience, buy the film, cheaper than going to the cinema, but one has to accept that it aint like the 'real thing on the big screen'

PVR what are they?

Digital photography is a hobby of mine, I sit on the opposite side of the fence, converting to digital in 2004. Things were similarly split, still are, although its a lot easier between the two camps these days . One would even say it is accepted that there is a need for film, albeit small, they live well together.

I put a lot of effort into my analogue 2 channel hifi system, the sound I get is what I set out to achieve. CD's, and computerised digital has little hands on fettling facility, sometimes you are luck with the result, but it is a lottery. Adjustment and control are essential in my book, for this effort I get rewarded with the finest of musical sounds IMHO.

By the way, I get the same from 'digital Photography' in reverse. . . adjust and control, either in the DSLR camera the old fashioned way or in my computers Photo Shop digital dark room, a most satisfying experience.

CJSF

PS 'crackle and pop' . . . a fact of life with vinyl, I'm just in the process of making a 'wet record bath'. A faff but all part of the organics and loved handling of vinyl. A good well set up system can cope with the crackle and pops, they become divorced from the performance and kept within the confines of the speaker area, the performance illusion goes on all around. I stress, the system has to be very well matched to achieve this.

I think the comments (in bold) above sum you up (not in a bad way). Your listening experience has little to do with the original post. Yours is to wring every last bit of quality be it recording quality or musical technicality out of your chosen media. Surely most modern recordings are digital and then mastered for vinyl, CD, MP3 etc. but when you receive your vinyl album, I suspect you get every bit as much pleasure from extracting the very best sound you can, as you do from the music itself.

As for Digital photography, I love the odd bit of post-processing myself. However not all in the digital garden is rosy. Working in a camera service centre, since D-SLR's became the norm, everybody is now a professional, the problems Ive had since the demise of film and rise of Photoshopping make me want to sit in a very dark room some evenings :O

Yes you are right rjb, I want every penny I paid for. The problem one sees in the forums, people buy kit, plug it in (plug & play) and believe it to be the dogs swingers, they are sold this idea as hifi or as a download or CD . . . poor deluded souls:?

At least with vinyl, you have half a chance of getting there with a little care, thought and a screwdriver, accompanied by a lot of frustration along the way, but thats all part of the pleasure to me? Finally rewarded with a performance like last night; Paul Simon 'Hearts and Bones' a 1983 album, no obvious compression. He was in the room, singing for me and Hazel, exclusive . . . the soundstage extended into the garden, detail, air, superbly musical base line rolled along with the tunes, spine tingling stuff . . . All at low level, it was 12 o'clock at night, one has to be mindful of the neighbours.

Just throwing money at any sort of hifi does not produce that sort of refined sound. Thats where modern digital has got it wrong IMHO.

A dark room? . . . yes I can understand, the 4/3rds mirror less cameras are rocking the boat, I have Nikon DSLR, but almost exclusively used my Panasonic G1 for the past 9 months, here I go again. The G1 is the 'best for me', despite all the new models Panasonic have hit the market with, their marketing falls on my deaf ears . . .

By the way, most . . . almost all my records are pre 1990 . . . I have bought 3 new records in the past 12 months, two are brilliant, one is a dog! Plus half a dozen used albums since February last year, four excellent, one was OK, one was a waste of money. So I'm enjoying digging into the old LP's, but old means 'snap, crackle and pop', hens the emerging DIY wet clean machine, I do it for the love of it . . . 8)

CJSF

 

[CnoEvil]

Trying to remain fairly neutral in this debate, these are some personal reflections:

My memory of the 60s and 70s was that:

- The Charts and Top of the Pops held much more significance and were watched with greater interest.
- A lot more of the artists had studied music, played the pubs etc before they became famous, needed to be good at live gigs to get their music out there, and didn't have the current recording tech to make them sound better...ie. their success was more based on hard work (over a long period), talent and merit.
- My local hifi shop had a far greater selection of 2 channel gear...this was probably the same elsewhere.
- There was a lot of rubbishy ways to listen to music.
- The people into Hifi separates were certainly a niche market.

I think the change in today's market is as a result of:

- Much less variety vying for our attention/time back in the 60s and 70s eg. No day-time TV, no gaming worth mentioning, no internet, no social media and no interest in AV...this gave music a virtual monopoly (unless you were playing monopoly!).
-Portable music was usually a tiny (tinny) radio, so people often had some kind of Radiogram at home.
- There wasn't the ability to get instant worldwide exposure, or access to the same marketing hype.....this meant becoming famous was usually done the hard way.
- The advent of AV has taken market share from the already small 2 channel market.

I also think it is all too easy to be retrospective, while wearing rose tinted specs. Done well, digital can give stunning results, though saying that, I think a well set up TT like a Rega, can be hard to beat at similar money (for musical enjoyment).

 

[CJSF]

Trying to remain fairly neutral in this debate, these are some personal reflections:

My memory of the 60s and 70s was that: - The Charts and Top of the Pops held much more significance and were watched with greater interest. - A lot more of the artists had studied music, played the pubs etc before they became famous, needed to be good at live gigs to get their music out there, and didn't have the current recording tech to make them sound better...ie. their success was more based on hard work (over a long period), talent and merit. - My local hifi shop had a far greater selection of 2 channel gear...this was probably the same elsewhere. - There was a lot of rubbishy ways to listen to music. - The people into Hifi separates were certainly a niche market. I think the change in today's market is as a result of: - Much less variety vying for our attention/time back in the 60s and 70s eg. No day-time TV, no gaming worth mentioning, no internet, no social media and no interest in AV...this gave music a virtual monopoly (unless you were playing monopoly!). -Portable music was usually a tiny (tinny) radio, so people often had some kind of Radiogram at home. - There wasn't the ability to get instant worldwide exposure, or access to the same marketing hype.....this meant becoming famous was usually done the hard way. - The advent of AV has taken market share from the already small 2 channel market. I also think it is all too easy to be retrospective, while wearing rose tinted specs. Done well, digital can give stunning results, though saying that, I think a well set up TT like a Rega, can be hard to beat at similar money (for musical enjoyment).

Nicely pulled together there CnoEvil . . . was getting a bit legy . . . appologies, I did not help matters?

CJSF

 

[The_Lhc]

Blue-Ray, no idea what it is . . .

Now you're just being stupid, there is no way you've been on this site for as long as you have and not know what blu-ray is. Done with this now.

 

[manicm]

But over the last few years the music seems to be being created by finding people with the right appearance then finding and creating some noise that will have a short term appeal to a certain group of people and marketing it for maximum profit with little thought for sound quality or musical quality and that can't be good for anyone except the people making the money.

How many songs did Elvis write in his lifetime?

Yes but love him or loathe him he did have real singing Talent

That's a matter of opinion, he had a distinctive voice but it's one that many thousands of Elvis impersonators can do just as well. What he had was the right look, in the right place at the right time and a manager that was utterly ruthless in his determination to promote him.

Lhc, gotta say, you're missing the point here somewhat.

No, I'm answering the point Electro was making about today's music being "created". Elvis was "created", in every meaningful sense.

Elvis never promoted himself as a songwriter

He didn't promote himself at all, that's my point, the Colonel promoted him in exactly the same way that Simon Cowell promotes today's artists.

so he didn't write any, so what?

So, these days it's always used as a barometer of "quality", anyone who doesn't write their own music is considered inferior today but this standard is never applied to beacons of quality such as Motown and the like, even though almost none of those artists would not have been writing their own music.

He was a great performer though and unique at the time.

That's the crux and it's an advantage that no subsequent artist can ever really have again.

You talk about ruthlessness? That's naive mate, cos even the most idealistic writers were pretty ruthless in their heyday including Lennon, McCartney, Dylan and even Neil Young - they all did what they could to survive.

Why is it naive? The Beatles had Epstein pulling the strings, in the early days, when it was most needed (subsequently of course they reached a critical mass and it didn't really matter what they did, continued success was assured), that wasn't for survival, it was about maximising success.

On the other hand the boy bands were the biggest tragedy of the 90s - more so in my opinion than Stock, Aitken and Waterman, why? Cos the idiots all claimed to 'write their own songs'. But why? They all sounded the same, and just one aim to hit the teenage charts. Please don't compare them to the Beatles - cos melody-wise the moptops brought something genuinely new and vibrant.

There was plenty more "boy bands" in the 60s than just the Beatles, is it alright to compare them to those? It should be because they're exactly the same. Anyway, the 90s was the golden age of Britpop, apparently, you seem to be forgetting that, just because there were boy bands is no reason to write the whole decade off (although it's not my favourite).

In fact pop-wise I hated the 90s and partly the 00s even more than the 80s - cos of the good music there was more creativity than the later decades.

Sorry, I just don't believe that, it's far harder for today's acts to be seen as original but that's only to be expected, Elvis was the first genuine "pop" star, nobody else gets that opportunity, but that doesn't mean creativity isn't out there now.

When Epstein died, and after the Beatles broke up Lennon and Ono did everything in their power to make sure they got the lion's share - that's not maximising income, that I repeat is ruthlessness.

The advent of Britpop is not lost on me - I loved the Suede's, Blurs and Pulps of the island - but please don't compare them to Take That et al - please!!! Are you telling me you can compare these teenyboppers to the Stones - PLEASE!!!!!!! Let's get some honesty here. The Moody Blues, although quite hated, were undeniably creative. You don't see that kind of spark often. I'm not saying that modern acts are not creative - I'm a big fan of a few. But to my mind pop in the 90s onward became very apologetic and boring as a reaction to 80s excess. It became reactionary.

As for Motown - many of them actually wrote their own.

 

[CJSF]

Blue-Ray, no idea what it is . . .

Now you're just being stupid, there is no way you've been on this site for as long as you have and not know what blu-ray is. Done with this now.

I know of it, true, but its use, I have no idea . . . I think it might be an upgrad of a DVD . . . ??? Why, do I need to know?

CJSF

 

[manicm]

inbetween stating that vinyl/analogue is far superior to digital, CJSF might like to read this. it is a listening test conducted by the boston audio society in 1984 on the audibility of a digital processing loop inserted into a vinyl playback system. they invited Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn to demonstrate that he could detect the digital loop by sound alone, as he claimed he could. he failed. maybe CJSF doesn't like modern music, fair enough, but it seems it has nothing to do with it being digitally produced.

?????????????????????????

I quite agree, I've never bought the lunch that the turntable was inherently superior to the CD player. Just as I don't buy streaming is superior to the CD player hehehehhh heh

 

[manicm]

Blue-Ray, no idea what it is . . .

Now you're just being stupid, there is no way you've been on this site for as long as you have and not know what blu-ray is. Done with this now.

I know of it, true, but its use, I have no idea . . . I think it might be an upgrad of a DVD . . . ??? Why, do I need to know?

CJSF

I would be in a minority here, but if I had a widescreen CRT I wouldn't have bothered with Blu-ray either. They're still making DVDs.