coq de combat said:

Agreed. I have 128 kbps mp3's sounding better than flacs. It's not that unusual when it comes to lesser known artists. I still argue that bad sound quality is not as directly related to the bitrate as it is to the recording, mastering, etc. The studios, sound engineers, their equipment etc. are the biggest culprits IMO.

Click to expand...

manveru said:

 

This is so true sometimes actually. It's a real shame. Some albums seriously sound like a crappy mp3 even when in lossless. Only time I can intentionally go and downconvert something to save space without feeling any guilt.

Click to expand...

coq de combat said:

It's a real shame that some artists just don't have the access to good equipment. I've been listening to indie rock/pop all morning today, and my oh my how wonderful it would've been if some of those guys and girls had superior equipment. Oh well, we can't have it all, can we?

Click to expand...

manveru said:

 

Equipment isn't necessarily the problem. Even with only the most basic stuff, with the right mixing/mastering skills its possible to make something thoroughly decent sounding, even great sounding. With indie rock/pop that would be especially easy. You could actually turn it into an advantage.

Click to expand...

coq de combat said:

Yeah, that is very true too. It's just that I would've liked to hear some of these songs with the same clarity, non-noisy and well mastered audio quality as some of the more known artists with million dollar studios and a well paid professional team doing the mixing/mastering and so on.

Click to expand...

manveru said:

 

Albums that are recorded by big hotshot studios are actually the ones that worry me the most, haha. Those are the ones that can sound truly terrible, as they run the risk of being way over-produced. A poorer recording can at least still be charming and emotional, but I find find it extremely difficult to get past one that is super digital and harsh.

Click to expand...

coq de combat said:

Haha, I see what you mean. Well, I'm more trying to just gain a little clarity and avoid hissing and avoid (absurdedly) overly emphasized frequencies. My Pro 900 is great at revealing hiss and it makes it somewhat of an anticlimax listening to some of the poorer recorded stuff out there - no matter how good they are. It's fun that we see things in different light when it comes to this, despite having the same basic idea. I wouldn't say I disagree with you, although I think we might have different sound preferences.
 
However, there's also a charm to those songs. Some indie rock you can hear how it sounds like they've been recorded in a garage LOL 
 
Edit: I think what I was trying to say is that some of the songs I heard were great but sounded like someone in the band was in another room, or that the mic they used was broken, or placed in another room, and so on. 

Click to expand...

manveru said:

 

Yup. It seems we pretty much agree. I think all I was saying was that it has the potential to turn out either way regardless of whether or not it was recorded in a garage or a $1500/hr studio. But of course, a poor recording is also still a poor recording, so I know what you mean. 

Click to expand...

john in cali said:

Recording equipment makes close to no difference in sound quality. Check this out, see if you can tell the difference between a $5000 set up and a $100 set up. http://www.recordingreview.com/quiz/signal-chain.php
The room has the most major effect on the quality and the skills of the engineer come next.

Click to expand...

manveru said:

 

Exactly.

Click to expand...

dubstep girl said:

i managed to pick out the more expensive component every time except once... of course, i was only using my dt 990s. if i had used my t1s or perhaps my akgs, i wouldn't of made a single mistake.

you get what you pay for, there is a difference! 

combined with a good engineer and a good room, the difference becomes much more noticeable.

Click to expand...