[mibutenma]

Quote:

so here is my wild thought to the Black Sabbath listeners.
 
in 1982, If Sabbath had chosen the same producer and the same console settigs that they had in 1969, Born Again would have come out as crispier as their debut.

Born Again's problem has been placed on Geezer Butler for producing it.
 
And would they use Bain again?
BS really didn't like Rodger Bain one reason why they quit using him after their 3rd album.
I know Judas Priest really hated him. And Rocka Rolla 1974 sounds way better than any of the first 3 BS albums maybe go as far as saying all 8 Ozzy Sabbath albums.
KK Downing hated Rodger Bain so much that he wouldn't let Victims of Changes or The Ripper be on Rocka Rolla.
 
Just considering when it came out 1983 Born Again it should have sounded better period.
 
But are any of the early Sabbath albums really considered good amazing sound?
They have a raw 70's sound to them which is appealing.
But.... other bands had much nicer sounding tones and albums coming out at the same time.

 

[mibutenma]

Quote:

Early digital recordings are awful. 

Not all. Rush Power Windows 1985 and Judas Priest Turbo 1986 sound great and were recorded digitally.

 

[mibutenma]

Quote:

Most of the album referred to in this thread do not suffer from subtle imperfections at some points in the recording, but show evident faults whose impact on perceived sound quality can be subjective : bad mixing, some instruments being covered by others, vocals too loud or too lean, people might disagree on those points to some extent; For example someone has mentioned Rising, while i don't think it's that terrible, but not good either.
 
However the "badly mastered" label can derive from technical faults on a recording, digital clipping, excessive compression, sibilance etc, no hi-fi system will make Death Magnetic sound good, that's a badly produced album.
 

 
 
 

Exactly might as well say all albums are badly made.
Since not many albums are sonically perfect.
Just because there is a flaw doesn't mean it is horrible the end.
 
And you really can't fault 70's albums some were made on small budgets, and you only had a couple takes to do it and 1 week to record it.
 
Not a huge budget, all the technology available now and countless time like Metallica.
But still release something that bad sounding.

 

[sonance]

Were there any (or many) poor early digital recordings? Certainly. The best early digital recordings were still limited by the original capture - I would argue that the best of today's digital captures are superior.
The issue is more with the way CDs are now mastered for CD compared to the restraint shown early on. I won't rehash what's already been explained in this thread and links, but clipping and raising levels to achieve loudness accounts for a large portion of what people are complaining about, along with a desire to "dirty up" the recording so that it doesn't sound clean and overproduced (I imagine) - think of it like adding grain and tinting to movies to make them look more like.. something.
 
I think that modern records could sound much better (and the best examples sometimes do sound much better) than the average song released on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. It's like they're butchering them on purpose, and it's not because the equipment has suddenly become much worse than it was in the 80s, it's despite the improvement in equipment, software and capabilities.

 

[sgrossklass]

Quote:

I think that modern records could sounds much better (and the best examples sometimes do sound much better) than the average song released on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. It's like they're butchering them on purpose, and it's not because the equipment has suddenly become much worse than it was in the 80s, it's despite the improvement in equipment, software and capabilities.

Agreed.
 
BTW, this "early digital recordings suck" thing is silly. Sure I have rock records with a good amount of clipping distortion and classical stuff that sounds like it was recorded with preemphasis and the emphasis flag got lost at some point. However, I am under the impression that the classic "digital sound" is more of a result of the measures previously taken to counter the inevitable losses during analog (!) recording and editing. Keep in mind that high-frequency stuff like cymbal crashes would normally lose some energy due to frequency-dependent tape saturation levels, so something that would have sounded just right would now come out too bright. Of course it wouldn't surprise me if the opamps in the anti-alias filtering and all the equipment before contributed their share of distortion.
Nonetheless, listen to something like Rainbirds' 1987 hit Blueprint, and "'80s sound" aside, you'll find a crystal clear mix. I don't find much to complain about on Peter Gabriel's 4th album either, in spite of it being one of the first to be digitally mixed.

 

[fatcat28037]

There is nothing good to say about the production of this album, it's just that lousy.

 

[Alc Jr]

The infamous "Raw Power" album by the stooges and what I've heard of "Hot Mess" by Cobra Starship (self mastered tracks).

 

[DaeO]

The Tallest Man On Earth - The Wild Hunt.  Kids On The Run is the final track and the glitches are so bad when using headphones its terrible.  Even on Spotify the track sounds awful, and its new this year.  Great music otherwise

 

[JoetheArachnid]

I've found that Coldplay always seems a bit muddy, particularly in the vocals. Parachutes was fine because it had a sort of soft indie vibe and things seemed stepped up a bit for Viva La Vida, but Rush of Blood to the Head and X&Y are just messy.

 

[Dabears2240]

Quote:

Quote:

Sadly, the Flaming Lips are compressed all to hell. I wish they'd put out SACD versions that weren't brickwalled.

Yup - I really hated how horrible Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots sounded. Some really great songs are just ruined by the harsh clipping and compression artifacts. I would rebuy a better version of this (SACD, CD, DVD, DVD-Audio, digital only, anything) in a heart beat.

I came into this thread asking if it was just me who thought it sounded bad.  Poor instrument seperation, it just sounds "blurry" if that makes any sense
 

 

[Calexico]

For whatever reason, I've always taken The Flaming Lips' production just to be their intended "sound" rather than a result of poor production.

 

[MythNoob]

Californication by Red Hot Chili Peppers instantly springs to mind. They are my favourite band and that album is one of my favourites of theirs but i cringe everytime im listening to it and thinking about the sound quality, id love to know how they went so wrong with it. Hopefully an interview will bring the question up and either Rick Rubin or one of the band members will explain further

 

[Kiiskinen]

Quote:

Californication by Red Hot Chili Peppers instantly springs to mind. They are my favourite band and that album is one of my favourites of theirs but i cringe everytime im listening to it and thinking about the sound quality, id love to know how they went so wrong with it. Hopefully an interview will bring the question up and either Rick Rubin or one of the band members will explain further

I remember listening to Californication first time with good headphones. My first thought was 'wow what a horrible rip' as it was not my own rip (I do have the CD though, somewhere) so I got myself another version, with lossless WMA. And same horrible clipping remained. One more try with 320kbs mp3 and same freakin' deal. I couldn't believe it because I had listened to the CD before with a mediocre stereo system, and had noticed none of said problems so clearly.
 
What a horrible disappointment, considering how many great songs there are in said album. How can someone mess up a CD like this? The first thing I was taught in audio handling course was THIS IS CLIPPING, AVOID IT AT ALL COSTS. You'd think the person who's responsible for mixing a Red Hot Chili Peppers album has attended a few courses as well, or is it the classic case of 'missed one lesson', we'll never know.

 

[jTizMLG]

 

[milesgixl3]

/img/forum/go_quote.gif


Bruce Springsteen - Darkness on the Edge of Town.  I'm only a mid-fi kind of guy, but when I bought the vinyl album (an all-time favorite, despite the shoddy vinyl pressing and a so-so transfer to CD) in 1978, I was disappointed at the quality of the sound (admittedly, mostly due to badly recycled vinyl with lots of pops and crackle, even on the first play).  Soon to be rectified by the mammoth reissue of Darkness this fall -- remaster of the original album, two CDs of unreleased material, and three DVDs ... unless the mastering is somehow as overbearing as ...
 
... the sonic assaults that are Springsteen's more recent Magic and Working on a Dream.  Without getting into whether the material is pleasing to me, the sound  of these two CDs is so harsh that I wouldn't listen to one all the way through.
 
Check out the old school dynamics of Darkness on the Edge of Town compared to some of the highly compressed contemporary stuff, by too many artists to mention in one post.  Who's Next or Katy Lied (to cite two other 1970's albums) it wasn't, but the unobtrusive production of Darkness at least helped tell a story in a way that complemented the song writing and playing -- and allowed for repeat listening.

Now I got it, Thanks for your explanation! It helps me out of the problem.