That might make it sound better in those environments, but does it actually mean more sales? Do poeple not listen to music in their cars, or on the train because it has a greater DR? It might mean less volume fiddling, but is that seriously going to change your tastes??
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
- Jun 27, 2008
- 567
- 1
- 18,890
BigH said:
Not really. As long as people buy, I doubt they're really worried about it. That doesn't explain though why they're remastering albums for vinyl, which is a tiny portion of their income.
Most would probably choose the loud CD because they're completely oblivious to what that actually means. If people were educated about that sort of thing, more would choose the quiet version.
MeanandGreen
Well-known member
- Dec 26, 2012
- 149
- 69
- 18,670
That the production of records today is largely poor. But you know who's to blame? The consumer!
The vast majority by a country mile listen to music in the background on laptop speakers, portable Bluetooth speakers etc... People even listen to music on the speaker of their phone. A very, very small percentage of the music consumer has the equipment available to even highlight how shoddy some recordings actually are. Lots don't even listen in stereo anymore!
Everything in the mix is at the same volume and it's loud, job done for 99% of the people buying/streaming music. The fact that it's a pile of junk on a HiFi is totally irelavent to the record industry. Hi-fi is becoming more and more niche all of the time. The resurrection of vinyl is still a very small fraction of music buyers and even then it's got nothing to do with sound quality.
Movie soundtracks are mastered quite well on the whole, purely because the focus is on being made for the cinema experience. Music on the other hand today is largely made for the iTunes and portable speakers experience.
I bought a new vinyl this week, It is totally unlistenable, it's the most poorly mastered recording in my whole music collection. The digital version is just as bad. I'm actually considering complaining to the record company for churning out such dros and charging for the privilege of it just becuse it's on heavyweight vinyl. What a complete waste!
I fell like I should say something to them because it's really abysmal. Can't list the title because the spam filter is a ****
The vast majority by a country mile listen to music in the background on laptop speakers, portable Bluetooth speakers etc... People even listen to music on the speaker of their phone. A very, very small percentage of the music consumer has the equipment available to even highlight how shoddy some recordings actually are. Lots don't even listen in stereo anymore!
Everything in the mix is at the same volume and it's loud, job done for 99% of the people buying/streaming music. The fact that it's a pile of junk on a HiFi is totally irelavent to the record industry. Hi-fi is becoming more and more niche all of the time. The resurrection of vinyl is still a very small fraction of music buyers and even then it's got nothing to do with sound quality.
Movie soundtracks are mastered quite well on the whole, purely because the focus is on being made for the cinema experience. Music on the other hand today is largely made for the iTunes and portable speakers experience.
I bought a new vinyl this week, It is totally unlistenable, it's the most poorly mastered recording in my whole music collection. The digital version is just as bad. I'm actually considering complaining to the record company for churning out such dros and charging for the privilege of it just becuse it's on heavyweight vinyl. What a complete waste!
I fell like I should say something to them because it's really abysmal. Can't list the title because the spam filter is a ****
MeanandGreen
Well-known member
- Dec 26, 2012
- 149
- 69
- 18,670
It's a A Noel Gallagher 12" single, If I had a gun/ AKA what a life remix.
Don't know why the spam filter wouldn't let me post that on my other post, but there you go.
It's the remix that's terrible, so much distortion. It's really horrible.
Don't know why the spam filter wouldn't let me post that on my other post, but there you go.
It's the remix that's terrible, so much distortion. It's really horrible.
David@FrankHarvey said:
Re vinyl, it gives the record company another sale of what they have already sold probably in the case of older music and the cost of vinyl is much higher to buy than cd and sales are increasing while cd sales plummet. Record companies will recycle the same music as many times as possible, vinyl, tape, cd, download, 24 bit, blu-ray, vinyl again, mono, remaster versions, 25th30th/35th anniversary versions, deluxe editions etc. then what 32 bit, 64 bit probably a complete waste of time if recorded years ago. Yes I probably agree with your other points.
MeanandGreen
Well-known member
- Dec 26, 2012
- 149
- 69
- 18,670
BigH said:
I know, I own every album they made. None of them are anything like this the Oasis stuff is a bit rough, but if anything it sort of adds to the feel of the music. This release I'm talking about really is shockingly bad. Not just poor or a bit rough, the sound is so thin and distorted. I'm talking crackling/screechy horrible distortion on vocals and instruments.
David@FrankHarvey said:
it would be nice to think like that, but in reality it wouldn't happen. Firstly, marketing - that lovely side of things that can sell a turd to a toilet and secondly, people just really aren't that bothered.
I think quite a few sound engineers don't have very good hearing anyway, according to my experiences at rock concerts. They must be half deaf after working in those environments. The only concert with good sound I've ever been too was Steely Dan.
Obviously the record industry and the hifi manufacturers missed a trick by not adopting hybrid SACDs on a wide scale. One disc would have satisfied different markets: one layer for multi channel audio, one layer for uncompressed stereo and one CD layer for compressed audio. The CD layer could be ripped in a computer for use in portable players and of course be played in cars. And if you didn't want to play your SACD in a car, you could have made a CDR copy of the CD layer.
The hybrid format is IMHO a very elegant solution for a problem that never should have existed in the first place.
Obviously the record industry and the hifi manufacturers missed a trick by not adopting hybrid SACDs on a wide scale. One disc would have satisfied different markets: one layer for multi channel audio, one layer for uncompressed stereo and one CD layer for compressed audio. The CD layer could be ripped in a computer for use in portable players and of course be played in cars. And if you didn't want to play your SACD in a car, you could have made a CDR copy of the CD layer.
The hybrid format is IMHO a very elegant solution for a problem that never should have existed in the first place.
MeanandGreen said:
I know what you mean. I've never been much of an Oasis fan, partly due to cr@p sound as well as some dodgy playing (particularly drums). On the other hand, some of their songs have a classic quality and Gallaghers latest album is really rather good..
......... except for the sound quality!
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram