It does apply to everyone, I'm just quoting YOUR insults. If you hadn't made the insults in the first place, I wouldn't have quoted them back at you! If you don't want to be addressed as a delusional nutter then don't act like one, if you don't want to be insulted then don't insult others, if you want some respect then treat this sub-forum with respect. Is this another example of an extremely simple concept that you are incapable of grasping?
If it is a myth then what do they hyper-compress songs for? The whole point of loudness war is to be louder than competition. If not on radio then louder where?
To have the loudest CD/download, period. To sound the loudest on a consumer's CD changed or mobile device. All I'm saying is that it's not necessary to use the phrase 'master for radio', since the station's aforementioned processing chain will do that already.
Mastering for radio could also mean a 'radio cut', either the single version or one cut down to a shorter length, as Billy Joel put it: "3:05"!
To have the loudest CD/download, period. To sound the loudest on a consumer's CD changed or mobile device. All I'm saying is that it's not necessary to use the phrase 'master for radio', since the station's aforementioned processing chain will do that already.
Mastering for radio could also mean a 'radio cut', either the single version or one cut down to a shorter length, as Billy Joel put it: "3:05"!
Why do you need to be louder when someone plays a CD? You have already been paid when the CD was sold or digital music was purchased and downloaded. On radio you need to be louder so you arouse (dumb) people's interest for purchasing the music. After payment, who cares how loud or quiet the music is? Is someone even comparing the loudness to something else? Maybe I just can't understand this because I care about sound quality and music instead of whatever "noise" is louder. Every now and then some people complain about a "quiet" CDs and how they need to crank the volume up compared to other CDs. I am like crank the volume up then, where is the problem? That's what the volume knob is for!
And the whole concept of "mastering for radio" is a myth....
All I'm saying is that it's not necessary to use the phrase 'master for radio', since the station's aforementioned processing chain will do that already.
Just occasionally, an actual fact would be nice or at the very least, an assertion which does not contradict the actual facts!! You do realise this is the sound science forum?
I would agree to this in a qualified manner, I think several people are being far too personal in their posts, and it doesn't reflect well on anybody. If you can't have a conversation/debate with somebody without resorting to insults and personal attacks that is a shame. I'm going to check out of the thread as I don't really see much effort to communicate going on and I don't have much to add to the discussion anyway. I hope everybody can take a step back and be a little nicer to each other. This is a world full of real problems worth getting heated up about, I'm not so sure that this is one such issue.
Why do you need to be louder when someone plays a CD? You have already been paid when the CD was sold or digital music was purchased and downloaded. On radio you need to be louder so you arouse (dumb) people's interest for purchasing the music. After payment, who cares how loud or quiet the music is? Is someone even comparing the loudness to something else? Maybe I just can't understand this because I care about sound quality and music instead of whatever "noise" is louder. Every now and then some people complain about a "quiet" CDs and how they need to crank the volume up compared to other CDs. I am like crank the volume up then, where is the problem? That's what the volume knob is for!
Back in the 1990s, when bands like Oasis started releasing louder CDs, and people still put multiple discs into changers and hit shuffle, they found they had to turn up the volume during some CDs, and turn it back down when the player played a track from one of the louder discs. Thus, the genesis of the current
Loudness/Density era. Had little to do with radio. Nowadays, all CD releases of popular music are maxxed out volume-wise, and are brick wall limited.
Back in the 1990s, when bands like Oasis started releasing louder CDs, and people still put multiple discs into changers and hit shuffle, they found they had to turn up the volume during some CDs, and turn it back down when the player played a track from one of the louder discs. Thus, the genesis of the current
Loudness/Density era. Had little to do with radio. Nowadays, all CD releases of popular music are maxxed out volume-wise, and are brick wall limited.
I would agree to this in a qualified manner, I think several people are being far too personal in their posts, and it doesn't reflect well on anybody. If you can't have a conversation/debate with somebody without resorting to insults and personal attacks that is a shame. I'm going to check out of the thread as I don't really see much effort to communicate going on and I don't have much to add to the discussion anyway. I hope everybody can take a step back and be a little nicer to each other. This is a world full of real problems worth getting heated up about, I'm not so sure that this is one such issue.
of course anytime we get mad or resort to personal attacks, the actual discussion is lost. it's ineffective and forbidden, so I'm not going to say that I approve. but you need to put this in context. tansand has basically repeated the stuff I warned him about on another topic some time back. I was at the time seriously considering getting rid of him for the way he was talking about sound engineers. and of course some sound engineers, like Gregorio, weren't taking any of it. bis repetita...
who's doing the very job discussed and who's a consumer full of himself thinking he knows better, that's almost irrelevant(I say almost because in this section we're supposed to care about facts a little). but when the both of them took the gloves off last time, the situation was one guy whining about a situation he doesn't fully grasp(TBH I'm not sure I do), while the other was defending his profession and was feeling personally insulted. I didn't think I should treat them equally then, and I don't think I should now. but I understand that for people discovering this topic out of context, things may seem even more biased than they are. I was personally revolted by many moderation actions in the past for such reasons. I complained and asked to look at the circumstances in this section so often that here I am with my moderator starter pack.
that said I'm not supposed to discuss moderation(also a rule of Head-fi), so I'm now going to write myself a PM and demand that I stop this instant.
it's pretty clear that everybody here has said at least one relatable stuff within the blurb of nonsense and oversimplifications. for example nobody here is a fan of totally ludicrous brickwall limiting. and everybody would love to be able to easily find an old version he grew up with.
but then we have people who consider compression to always be bad. that is nonsense. here we're really discussing brickwall limiting, the loudness war promoted that use, now the loudness war has been on the decline for several years, in part because of many laws and choices to rely on EBU R128 and equivalent solutions. which result in the most compressed albums to be the most attenuated, killing the initial objective of sounding louder. despite that, some keep doing it, so I'm guessing that no matter what some say, most people don't care, or maybe even like it(I'm guessing, it's like with all things, compression can be pleasing up to a point). but really I don't know. one thing I know is that remasters seem to rarely be motivated by music. maybe instead of hating on sound engineers, some people here should look into why copyright laws are the way they are, and look up how much money and time are given to "come up" with a new master nowadays.
@castleofargh, fair enough, and I'm sorry if it seemed that I was being critical of you. I do agree that coming into the discussion well into the history of it I was likely missing some context. Still, I think g was getting really demeaning and the language was really personal and in that light it seemed that both parties needed to cease and desist. I have never seen a thread that gets to this state ever recover. Not sure why they don't just block each other if they really have such strong negative feelings toward one another? And absolutely, the topic is complex enough and certainly has some subjectivity to it such that there isn't an absolute right or wrong and trying to batter somebody out of their position, which social science research suggests is very hard to do so not much chance of either winning the other over. With that being the case the only thing they can achieve is to constantly trade continually worsening insults.
I'm not going to quote the post above as it's likely to get deleted, but if the poster can respond without resorting to results or the "internet tough guy" routine, I'd like to know how the single example cited proves (or could disprove) the points in question.
The original master is better, thus the remaster is unnecessary. Disproves what's his face's contention that remasters are better because engineers know what's better. It's not much of a contention anyway, really, just some pompous arglebargle with insults and exclamation points.
The original master is better, thus the remaster is unnecessary. Disproves what's his face's contention that remasters are better because engineers know what's better. It's not much of a contention anyway, really, just some pompous arglebargle with insults and exclamation points.
I don’t recall anyone making the universal statement that all remasters are better than the original. If I missed it, please link the post.
Otherwise, all I see here is you cherry picking a single example and extrapolating it into some kind of universal truth. Many of the recent Steven Wilson remasters of some “classic” prog are significantly better than the originals and include a 5.1 mix that wasn’t previously available - can I claim those prove all remasters are better than the original?
I'm not going to slog though dude's posts to satisfy you, that's just entirely too much to ask. Either pay attention, or do your own research.
Otherwise, all I see here is you cherry picking a single example and extrapolating it into some kind of universal truth. Many of the recent Steven Wilson remasters of some “classic” prog are significantly better than the originals and include a 5.1 mix that wasn’t previously available - can I claim those prove all remasters are better than the original?
He's paying their rent though. He decides what he wants, and doesn't, and will stop paying their rent if they piss him off by not providing it. Simple ecomomics, man.
The bottom line problem for me of remastering is where the engineer imagines their creative input is wanted, and starts junking up the original recording. The band and the original creatives had their ideas about what they intended, a lot of their energy went into making things sound a certain way (for good records, I mean, in general). They had a logic, and communication about what they were trying to create together.
All of that is unavailable to some jackasses 20 years later, who just want it to sound different so they can call it improved, and sell a few more. Or some egotistical freak thinks he knows better, and wants to destroy what they've done to 'prove' it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
