Why the majority of your CDs sound horrible.
Jan 13, 2007 at 5:08 AM Post #106 of 217
Quote:

Originally Posted by Esidarap /img/forum/go_quote.gif
We're gonna need a name for this.

WaveWiki?
WikiWave?

Let's throw some names together, see what sounds best.
biggrin.gif



SongView
 
Jan 13, 2007 at 5:09 AM Post #107 of 217
^ That's catchy.. I like.
cool.gif
 
Jan 13, 2007 at 10:33 AM Post #108 of 217
I've found an area where compression bothers me (in my earlier post I was saying I didn't have the impression it was so wide-spread).

Mark Knopfler's Live recordings from the Shangri-La Tour 2005 and with Emmylou Harris in 2006. The live tracks available for purchase of MK's website are compressed to hell, so is MK and Emmylou's DVD, Real Live Roadrunning. Good examples are Speedway at Nazareth or Song for Sonny Liston. The drums sound crap on the official DVD. Even the crummy amateur audience recordings convey more emotion.

I couldn't quite pin down what was bothering me on those official recordings but, reading this thread, I realized it was compression.

Damn! Why do I read this stuff?
 
Jan 13, 2007 at 1:28 PM Post #110 of 217
The most horrible clipping in my whole library: http://www.sendspace.com/file/zd71vq
Clipfest of 7:26 minutes (the included clip is 5 minutes shorter). It's really a shame because the record is great (St. Germain: Tourist). Other tunes on the record have it too, but not that bad.

Part of the waveform. Doesn't look as bad as some here but believe me, it is!
waveformlo0.png
 
Jan 13, 2007 at 1:52 PM Post #111 of 217
It is so easy to see, hear and prove the problem. if many of us complain and send waveform proof to companies and keep calling attention to it we may get past this problem sooner.
I figure when enough people know and protest this practice that it may revert back at some time.
 
Jan 13, 2007 at 3:37 PM Post #113 of 217
I have a winner: "Metal Tov" from volume 1 of At the Mountains of Madness by Electric Masada; basically the only time that it isn't completely saturated is when the audience is applauding. How are we getting and posting the screen shots for this thread/the Waveform wiki?

Ooh, another good one. If you try "The Outlaw Torn" by Metallica it has areas of saturation but doesn't look too bad ... keep magnifying the waveform and you end up, though, with waves that look distinctly like mesas instead of arêtes. I suppose we're going to have to be careful, though, that the clipping that we report isn't just a product of guitar distortion rather than bad mastering. I think that we're looking for saturation + clipping (i.e. the waveform has to be all-blue and the actual wave squared).
 
Jan 13, 2007 at 4:32 PM Post #114 of 217
Improving your source, amps, and headphones will only lead you to hear more of these recording defects and poor mastering practices. We need to go back to basics. The recording has to be good or else all our effort is futile. And if that's the case, I am going to aim to get headphones that are mediocre and will mask so of those recording defects...How does this sound? I think we need to start a war with record labels and recording studios.
 
Jan 13, 2007 at 9:52 PM Post #115 of 217
If the only music you are interested in is heavily compressed butchered stuff that looks like a tube of sound, lacking any definition or range---very expensive gear is pointless.

I laugh when I read reviews where people talk about tonality, cold vs warm, soundstage, depth, sibilance, smoothness, transparency, etc, then when you look at the music they used, 90% of it was heavily distorted and messed up long before it ever entered their systems.

Many/most of anyone who is active here, likely already has at least some "high end" gear.

This means you can appreciate good recordings.

Pretty much any classical CD you buy will be virtually free from compression or any "loudness" effects.

If you want good recordings but are not interested in classical, head over to Chesky Records. Everything they produce is "pure".
 
Jan 14, 2007 at 12:21 AM Post #116 of 217
Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Why Audacity? It doesn't hold a candle even to older versions of Cool Edit.
biggrin.gif



I guess I'm a real noob, but I downloaded Audacity and see that I can display the waveform or the waveform db. What is the difference? One shows my tunes playing on average close to zero, the other about -36. What's going on. Appreciate the feedback.
 
Jan 14, 2007 at 12:34 AM Post #117 of 217
Quote:

This is most annoying for ppl who are trying to legimitize their music collection, also thinking that the CDs will sound better than their MP3s and therefore justifying the purchases, only to find that the CD doesn't sound better at all - they were simply recorded/mastered badly, and if anything, the MP3 conversion was actually masking some of the hideous noises on the original!

I laugh when I read reviews where people talk about tonality, cold vs warm, soundstage, depth, sibilance, smoothness, transparency, etc, then when you look at the music they used, 90% of it was heavily distorted and messed up long before it ever entered their systems.


This is so absolutely true. I don't know how many times I was ready to blame compression for any number of audible faults in a track only to go back and find out that the original CD sounded exactly the same! Minute differences between one bitrate and another don't amount to much when the source was crap to begin with.
 
Jan 14, 2007 at 12:58 AM Post #119 of 217
Quote:

Originally Posted by SeagramSeven /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Here's an "MP3" that likely sounds better than the vast majority of your source CD's.

http://rapidshare.com/files/11596500...rding.mp3.html

Give it a listen through your best gear, and give some feedback
cool.gif

(Don't forget to turn it up!)



Rapidshare free download limit reached... Rapidshare sucks ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top