My audio system works great, it's called my ears and they saved me from listening to no more than a minute and a half of him rambering on.

 

When you think about it though, we grew up hearing a lot of that stuff on the radio and radio limiting borders on the kind of limiting such remasters get. So it's not just millennial ears.

The real wackiness happens when brickwalled mixes get played on the radio. It's Inception of dynamics. Often they come across softer.

 

That seems easily achievable on your DAW.

 

I'm in the UK and I don't recall ever hearing DSOTM on the radio, my exposure to them, probably up to their Wall hit song, was entirely on LP. Of course, the system I heard it on wasn't up to much either and that may actually defeat my argument somewhat. But going forward I would expect digital audio quality to continue to get better.

 

Being an advocate for "the wall of shit" I would think that you wouldn't know what a clean, defined mix is to save your life. You have also demonstrated you have no idea of how vinyl is mastered.

 

But the main reason your audio is bad and there's nothing you can do about it is that your snare sounds like shit.

 

Abbey Road on the 60's was eating distortion and noise for breakfast, WTF this guy is saying. His Hi-Fi reprod system must be broken, and there's nothing i can do about it

 

@saccamano
Assumptions without basis.
Have a nice day.

 

there are a lot of people who are great mixers and mastering engineers etc. who have literally 0 idea of the world of music outside pop/rock, but they speak from the highness of their throne and pretend music is only what they do. i do not want to call them artists

 

So to summerize:

- Back then, distortion was seen as a problem that they had to solve.
- Now, distortion is seen as a creative tool and is used as such.
- Unfortunatly this came with some bad practices (eg loudness war).

Still, I'd rather see distortion as a creative tool than as a problem.

 

funny that the crybabies are always old people with hearing loss

 

That's one way to describe humans that experienced multiple transitions of cultures between different fields of expertise. An invaluable experience only learnt by the passage of time, impossible for youth to understand but inevitable nonetheless. Modesty is the keyword here.

 

We can't ignore the irony of Milleniums discovering vinyl records and exclaiming how much better they sound than digital.

Does anybody know exactly what they're hearing when they say it's better? Is it objectively better?

 

This guy... I couldn't make it past a few minutes of this video. Not only because it's a tired old argument from twenty years ago that has been on endless repeat for many years and he didn't appear to be stating anything new but primarily because he reminded me of a particular flavour of authoritarian voter. The type that appears from out of their house to monitor your presence when you walk past because your haircut doesn't meet military regulations.

Aside from my prejudice, he's utterly deluded. The best recordings / productions ever made are being made today. He's obviously listening to the wrong recordings if he believes otherwise. Percentage wise, there's an equal amount of crap to good ratio from the 70s, 80s and 90s as there is now. There's very little from those periods, outside of classical and jazz, that can compare with the production standards of even the average recording in the modern era.

He's also way off the mark regarding when the loudness race began (A preferable description to the trivialisation of war as nobody has been murdered by limiting as far as I know); that's been going on for much, much longer. For the best part of 80 years in fact. Starting with engineers trying to squeeze as much level out of a pressing as they could for competitive jukebox playback. There's also the ever present fact that FM radio, by necessity, having to compress audio in order to keep the signal from being overwhelmed by background noise has had a massive influence on the way music is mastered and listened to. Another important fact that renders his argument pointless is that loudness standards do now exist and in general the average has reduced over the last decade. Even TV and digital radio, less acknowledged but perhaps the worst culprits of loudness smashing, have adopted standards (still abused by advertisers ramping up dialog to equivalent LUFS as music so it presents at a ludicrous volume in comparison to the TV programmes they intercede).

Of course the problem hasn't disappeared entirely. It's not too long ago that I was doing mastering work for a library artist and we both agreed what levels we were aiming at. They were actually very sensitive to compression and desired less than I perceived to be the sweet spot; a compromise was reached. However, when the material reached one particular library company they spat it back out demanding more loudness. Too much loudness, to the extent that it went back and forth again until the material reached the point of noticable distortion (I probably shouldn't say as some people will see it as a tip but such a level couldn't be achieved on that material with any conventional limiter I tried without the audio completely disintegrating, I had to resort to clipping and waveshaping to achieve it). Needless to say, the artist was distraught at having to damage all their work in order for it to be published but obviously accepted the demands. It's worth mentioning that in over 50 masters that I did for this client not one piece contained metal guitars or huge banging techno kicks, it was all fairly easy going electronica/classical/acoustic/low key pop material so the crushing was completely inappropriate for this type of material.

I'm not on the fence regarding remastering classic albums, in most cases the results are definitely superior. Take a listen to any of the Steven Wilson remasters of classic 70s prog albums for confirmation of that argument. There are always cases where standards are negatively deviated from. One album that is a particular favourite of mine from the 70s is "Thank Christ For The Bomb" by a band called the Groundhogs (actually the only album that appeals to me by them). Now, I'd never argue that this album is a shining example of audiophile glory, it's raw, aggressive and distorted but being able to hear the ride cymbal, retrieve some bottom end plus open up the width and give it a gentle loudness push is what remastering old material is (or should be) about. I sourced two different remasters of that album and it turned out that the first half of one was a great improvement but the second half was deteriorated. It was the exact opposite for the second version. How both remasters managed to get it so right and so wrong at the same time is odd, but an outlier in my experience. At least I got a decent remaster by combining them...

I agree that with some styles of music, heavy compression is a key part of the sound, but not to the extent that it damages the recording like "Death Magnetic". Introducing audible distortion at the mastering stage is NEVER acceptable. At the recording (if deliberate) and mixing stages it can be abused to any level chosen. From subtle harmonic enhancement to an outright square wave horror show and has been used from the dawn of creative production as is rightly pointed out by this:

They were actually redlined TWICE as they were fed through two pres to achieve that particular fuzz (try that in the box with a digital emulation and watch it crumble
).

A popular technique amongst the 90s UK acid techno scene. I have a Tascam MM-1 specifically for this purpose. The preamps on this are very special when overdriven. It's like having a twenty channel overdrive pedal.

What to say about this...
As someone who has worked in most areas of engineering, both studio and live for near 40 years, I categorically do not want to hear recorded music at such excruciatingly loud levels that my ears go into compression (do some research), full of anti-feedback notch filters, awful phase issues, everything swamped in reverb (because you can't switch down a real venue's reverb), plus countless other issues that I could reel off as opposed to the clean controlled environment of a studio. Sincerely, sorry to take issue with you on this but obviously you've never done a days work in live sound and have no idea what you're talking about. Live sound is 99% prevention and hardly ever about making it sound good. It's actually the energy and volume of a gig that makes people believe it's high quality, rarely the sound.

 

Last edited: May 3, 2023

These were artistic decisions made at the PRODUCTION level. Not purposefully added afterward at the mastering stage. As I have already stated, attempting to inject the antics of what generic "mastering" is comprised of today into the vinyl mastering process (which back then was THE major distribution medium of choice) is simply not possible.

 

Last edited: May 9, 2023

Comparing vinyl to ANYTHING (well most anything released in the pop/top 40 realm) recorded these days is usually a difference of night/day. There is artistic license taken in ALL cases on production side. However mixes that are destined for, and mastered using the vinyl process are way more transparent, have most of the audible dynamic range (there is a great deal of compression used in the final stages of vinyl, but it's not used in a detrimental way), and translate much better to other mediums.

In a nutshell, listening to the modern day compressed/chopped/limited/mashed up mess "wall of shit" whose dynamic range is maybe 1-2 db and where individual elements can only be imagined if they are there or not, to a LESS LOUD, more defined transparent final delivered mix where one can pick out each individual element that makes up the whole that has 10+ db or more of dynamic range (if it's warranted and was there in the original mix - genre dependent) is what everyone who compares the two is on about. This is not rocket science here. It's a matter of how one accepts and wants to digest recorded audio. If it is a matter of artistic license making something that has the dynamic range of a pile driver then so be it. But to put EVERYTHING into the same bag and call it a "better" process is looney tunes... Just because the digital medium offers this kind of control doesn't mean it has to be used in this fashion.

I equate this all to video production as well. Is it really artistic license being used when movie productions are colored with yellow green grass and orange skin tones etc.. Or is it just the new found control given to production companies via digital video, just using it because they can?

 

Last edited: May 4, 2023

@Haze You live in the UK? How about, Lynyrd Skynyrd Live at Knebworth ’76, most live recordings at Isle of Wight, all BBC sessions etc etc. In the U.S.A., all 1969 Woodstock recordings, ABB at Fillmore East and many more. All were mixed on the spot by sound engineers. Seriously now, are you leaving or staying?

 

Yeah pal, I'm of the UK...

Seriously, what I say isn't personal and I have no intention of offending or wanting to be drawn into an argument. Not sure exactly what it is you're asking here but I can offer further "opinion".

Firstly, I honestly don't think I've heard any live recording from the 70s that I would rate. Not that I don't have them and listen to them, because I most definitely do. It's not for their fidelity though, it's because I like the music, DESPITE the quality. In fact, to go out on a limb, I'd say that even with today's live recording technology, studio recordings are still a far superior product.

Also, what you're listening to after the fact isn't a true representation of the live sound at all as the recordings are all post-produced in a studio. One only needs to look at the shitshow of sound from events that are broadcast in real-time to see how messed up things can be - Live Aid, Glastonbury etc, the sound is generally terrible. Live-mixing is nowhere near comparable to a considered studio mix in a controlled environment.

There are reasons for that: When mixing live, engineers make mistakes, sometimes howling mistakes (I certainly do ). That's both FOH and monitor mixers which can cause interactive accumulative problems. The degree of separation between musicians live is another issue, everything bleeds into everything, the drums, the amps, the wedges, the FOH PA and more than anything else, the room. The potential for feedback is always lurking; microphones have to be rung out to find problem frequencies in the soundcheck and removed, more often than not to the detriment of the ideal sound. For example, how is having to remove everything under 150Hz going to make a male vocal sound fatter? Or having to notch out a bunch of resonant frequencies right in the vital midrange gonna help with clarity and intelligibility? Microphone choices are utterly different in a live situation. Nobody uses a U87 as a live vocal mic, chances are it's gonna be a SM58, not everyone's first choice as a studio vocal mic..

Also, on a broadcast, the sound you're hearing isn't even mixed by the FOH engineer. The channels are split at the stage and sent dry to a guy sat in a truck who performs a "live" studio mix that will be entirely different to the one the punters are hearing in the venue (and that's before we even mention the overdubs ).

Anyone that pretends they can get a perfect mix first pass in ANY situation is massively deluded, even more so if they don't know the material in the first place, which is often the case, particularly with multi-artist lineups. Even the greatest engineers of all time would fail, hence why NOBODY works like that.

As far as the recordings you mention are concerned. I think I may have heard the Lynyrd Skynyrd recording in the past but don't know it well enough to make a valid comment but I can imagine what it sounds like, probably as good as Yes at QPR the previous year, which is truly terrible. Woodstock recordings are also terrible and they were recorded by Eddie Kramer! The technology simply didn't exist to do any better and it's testament to Eddie Kramer's skill that the recordings are just terrible and not completely unlistenable.

Isle of Wight! Seriously! Now there's a truly horrifying sound experience. The problems with that are truly up there with the worst examples ever. It just so happens I've heard more detail about the IOW festival setup than most as a good friend and ex-colleague of mine has a major obsession with vintage audio (it's his business). He actually owns a complete clone of the IOW sound system; Backline, PA, mixing and recording gear, some of which is the exact same equipment played through by those iconic artists of the period. Not many can say they own an amp and cab that has had Hendrix play through it. I also happened to work, for a number of years, as a touring live engineer with arguably the most deviant band that played at IOW 1970 so I've heard first hand the tales. Hint: they didn't play on the main stage, they played outside the festival in tents...

Regarding your moniker "Hot Rats". Which do you consider to be the superior recording? "Hot Rats" or "Them or Us"? I bet you can guess which one I think is the better recording . As a massive Zappa enthusiast myself I like 90% of everything available but at the same time recognise the quality development through the years, as did Zappa himself. However, liking both those albums equally doesn't affect my judgement from an engineering point of view.

In my original comment I did state:

"There's very little from those periods, outside of classical and jazz, that can compare with the production standards of even the average recording in the modern era."

Some Zappa recordings are amongst those exceptions...

 

Last edited: May 8, 2023

@Haze OK pal, you seem to be well educated and you have valid points. I’m not going to write an essay arguing one by one. To comment on the original post, this guy claims that 1995 was a turning point. I believe that metalhead engineers “destroyed” live shows / recordings together with the excessive use of subwoofers. Now, what I’m saying is that if fans enjoyed banging their heads to a music with no dynamic range and the guitars playing with a frequency range suitable for bass guitars only, you are right! I believe that fans enjoyed listening to CDs of the same dynamic range and sound quality as a live event. I’ve been on the London scene since the summer of 1967 up to and 1976; Marquee, Rainbow, Roundhouse, RAH you name it, including most small clubs and Ronnie Scott's. I’m obviously biased and suffer from serious hearing loss including tinnitus.. but I manage! Anyway thanks for taking the time!

 

Last edited: May 9, 2023

Because I'm a dedicated follower of fashion, who will never be be a famous celebrity or model.