[doug s.]

it may not be the music, but the way it's recorded - here's a depressing website:

http://www.mindspring.com/~mrichter/

my ol' trusty dbx/3bx can help for some of these types of recordings, but this still sucks big-time!  

doug s.

[BikeWNC]

I remember a friend that had a DBX/3BX that he used with his Nakamichi (sp?) cassette deck.  I was amazed at how much it opened up the sound.  I hear compression in a lot of popular music.  Sometimes its so bad it really just sounds like a clipping type of distortion on the peaks.

Andy

[nathanm]

This was covered in an older thread, but it bears repeating.  

And another thing, whatever happened to that 'ol RedVu site anyway?

To say nothing of the sound quality issues, those kind of wave forms are impossible to edit cause it's a solid freaking line! How are you supposed to find anything visually?  Sheesh!

[azryan]

Great! I was looking or this from a long time ago!

This subject's pretty sick. So much music far below CD's dynamic range yet people insult it as a format and call DVD-A and SACD SO much better.
Must be the musical info that's beyond audible range I guess.

Take the raved about SACD of Dark Side.

Not only is the 2-chan. CD and SACD layers from lesser quality tapes than the 5.1 version, but the levels are diff on all three versions.

AND the CD layer has over 300+ clipped samples... the SACD layers? NONE.

On purpose? Hmmm... naw. Sony'd never do that would they. Maybe on a famous album, but not some album like this that hardly anyone even remembers. Yeesh!
And let's not forget it was gonna be a DVD-A till Sony poured money on it.

[IanATC]

Pop and rock titles are the worst offenders for having thin, murky, or just plain aweful sound.

One recording I recently heard was "Diana Krall/Love Scenes"  this recording has several intentional or unintentional gaffs.  There is clipping and/or compression in the instruments, and mic saturation.  If you have a good system, you know what I am talking about here.

I like the music, but alas, the fidelity is rubbish.  

I think one thing that separates new recrdongs from classic vinyl era, is over production.

Single-mic/close mic two track vs multi-mic/multitrack mess. (Perhaps an audio engineer can elaborate on this)

Want a good rock recording?  Look at Pink Floyd DSOTM.  Madonna:  immaculate collection.  Roxy Music.  and there are others.

I think gimmickry and even perhaps hack-ery is rampant in the biz. Sometimes I regret having a revealing system.  But once I put on the GOOD recordings, I am locked in place for hours.  

[nathanm]

Is there any end in sight to the maximum loudness trend?  Will people get sick of this strained, overloaded sound and will the pendulum swing back the other way or are we doomed to a future of square waves jammed in our faces?  Louder is usually better, but when you're maiming the waveforms, it is definitely NOT better.  One shitty pop song which is louder than another shitty pop song is still a shitty pop song.

[Dark Tranquility]

Is there any end in sight to the maximum loudness trend?  Will people get sick of this strained, overloaded sound and will the pendulum swing back the other way or are we doomed to a future of square waves jammed in our faces?  ...

As long as people think KLH Rave's are good, no...

[Raj]

Hi,

Yep, this is a real problem, I've tweaked my system to nigh on max, and what happens? I end up hearing all the cackle used in digital samples, clipping on voices etc. I don't suppose there's enough people concerned enough for the recording studios to listen. My nephew worked in recording, told me that after mastering a track the studio manager would listen and then tell them to boost signals so it would sound good, I suppose with radio playback in mind..............
 
Thanks
Raja

[WerTicus]

ughhhhhh its sad isnt it?

[Carlman]

I don't think artists care... I heard an interview with David Gray who said he didn't care about the SQ, only that the moment was captured... His comments led me to believe he, like many artists, don't understand the connection between SQ and the ability to recreate.  Most musicians I've known (which are many) have terrible sound systems and do not/will not realize the capability of good hi-fi.  I've tried very hard to get this point across to my band friends.

I've gotten one friend to step up from using truck speaker boxes to a receiver and Polk bookshelves.... Score!  Getting him to spend money on real hifi isn't going to happen, though.  

I blame the ALL LEVELS AT THE TOP crap on the recording studio but, I also blame the artist for not caring about it.  I'm most disappointed with Coldplay.  Such interesting music that I can't bare to listen to for more than a minute..

[SWG255]

I think the problem is that most musicians hear the music and not the sound. Of course many would say the problem with audiophiles is the reverse, we "hear the sound and not the music".  Neither generalization is true, but my discussions with most musicians lead me to believe they're like David Gray, the recording is there to "capture the moment" or the musical idea first. It is the exceptional musician (and recording) which manages to put forth a great musical moment and appreciates it sonically.

It is an eye-opening experience to read some of the "recording magazines" geared to home studio enthusiasts. They often have articles written by this or that producer or engineer going on and on about the pains they took to make one or another album sound great, and when one listens to the album one wonders whether its the concept of "sounding great" or what that explains why to one's ears it doesn't "sound great" at all. Much of what's wrong with these recordings happens before the dynamic compression occurs in the mastering step. There are so many processors, equalizers, compressors, colored microphones and mic preamps in the production chain that it's amazing this stuff sounds like music at all. Wait a minute, some of it doesn't!

I don't think artists care... I heard an interview with David Gray who said he didn't care about the SQ, only that the moment was captured... His comments led me to believe he, like many artists, don't understand the connection between SQ and the ability to recreate.  Most musicians I've known (which are many) have terrible sound systems and do not/will not realize the capability of good hi-fi.  I've tried very hard to get this point across to my band friends.

I've gotten one friend to step up from using ...

[doug s.]

... It is an eye-opening experience to read some of the "recording magazines" geared to home studio enthusiasts. They often have articles written by this or that producer or engineer going on and on about the pains they took to make one or another album sound great, and when one listens to the album one wonders whether its the concept of "sounding great" or what that explains why to one's ears it doesn't "sound great" at all. Much of what's wrong with these recordings happens before the dynamic compression occurs in the mastering step. There are so many processors, equalizers, compressors, colored microphones and mic preamps in the production chain that it's amazing this stuff sounds like music at all. Wait a minute, some of it doesn't!
...

it's also amazing to read all the product adwertized f/s in full compass' catalog.  full compass, as most folk know, is a place geared to sell to the pro-audio market.  the plethora of processors, mics, eq's, compressors, etc, f/s to the pro-audio market is truly mind-boggling.  it really makes me wonder that as much software can sound as decent as it does, considering the equally dizzying array of different combinations of gear awailable to the audiophile...  makes me tink that spending inordinate sums on "tone controls" such as cabling is really a crap-shoot, considering that the software itself is likely as big a part of the equation as anyting else, as to whether or not the final result in the home is enjoyable...  it seems probable that, in any given rig, some software could sound better w/some cabling,  other software w/other cabling...

doug s.