the importance of analog sound in prog - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: September 18 2012 at 03:57

JediJoker7169 wrote:

Dean wrote:

...we don't want (or like) perfectly flat responses and perfectly noiseless systems - we like the imperfections that the media imposes, we like the indefinable and the unmeasurable essence that each system possesses.

I am a recording engineer, and I want (and like) the lowest amount of noise possible, and you had better believe I want the flattest frequency response possible from my monitoring gear. Even for pleasure listening, for me, flat is where it's at. Then again, I haven't had the opportunity to record "outside the box." And, indeed, I do like the "warmth" of analog recordings and that certain je-ne-sais-quois, often referred to as coloration, of certain (analog and digital) studio gear. Vinyl as a storage medium, however, is not sustainable. Every time a vinyl record is played on a standard turntable, the stylus damages the disc. This is unfortunately true of almost all analog storage media, including magnetic tape.

For recording I wholeheartedly (less a smidgen) agree with you, you want to record the instrument with the highest fidelity you can achieve and you want to monitor that as transparently as you can so all you hear is what you recorded. After that you mess around with the EQ on individual instrument and on the mix-downs to your hearts content to get the sound you want - what gets mastered is not a flat response, but it's what the recording engineer, producer and hopefully artist wants it to be. Playback by the consumer is a whole different ball-game. We don't know what it sounded like to you in the studio - a transparent home hi-fi system should replicate that sound at home but that does not mean the listener will like that sound, and home systems are far from transparent - sure I have an amp with no tone controls and another amp where the bass, mid and trebble have never moved off their centre spot since the day I unboxed it and both have flat-responses from here to next Michaelmas but neither of them in a home system will reproduce the exact sound that was heard in the studio because home speakers and the home listening environment are not flat-response and they are not colouration free. [I'm not getting dragged into discussions on cables, gold connectors and other escoteric nonsense - if you like that stuff then go for it]. And the evident truth seems to be that people don't like flat-response 100% fidelity playback - CD and solid-state coupled to a decent set of headphones can reproduce that but most audiophilists hate it - they like the so-called warmth of their value amps (erm, we call that distortion in the trade) and the imperfections of their analogue media.

JediJoker7169 wrote:

It is also true that digital recording technology affords greater possible dynamic range, due to a lower noise floor (among other things), but unfortunately, that is an advantage rarely exploited outside of the Classical and Jazz world. If you're looking for a demonstration of the best aspects of full-digital recording, look no further than Flim & The BB's recordings on DMP Records: super-low noise, incredible dynamics, superior detail and transparency, with none of the sterility or "harshness" often associated with digital recordings. Impeccable musicianship and formidable composition chops help, too.

Popular music can handle a greater dynamic range, but the typical listening environment (for popular music) cannot. We don't all sit in the sweet-spot of a purpose-built listening room in subdued lighting and a nice comfy chair to listen intently to every nuance of a recording. For most of us music is the soundtrack to daily life. Even us prog fans will use music as background while we do other things, such as driving or doing homework or just doing the dishes and for that huge dynamic range is a disadvantage.

JediJoker7169 wrote:

What I really want to know is why DSD (SACD) has not become the universal digital audio standard. It is vastly superior to PCM (CD, DVD-A, Blu-ray Audio and everything else) in its approximation of analog waveforms, leading to a warmer, more "analog-sounding" recording, without the drawbacks of analog technology. And on top of that, why are optical discs still the primary storage medium of uncompressed (and losslessly compressed) audio recordings? Other electronic components transitioned to solid state long ago (even if tubes sound great). It's like we're still living in the '80s when it comes to high-end consumer audio.

Cost more than anything else. SACD has "failed" because most consumers cannot tell the difference between cheap and cheerful CD (or low bit-rate mp3) and anything better, even when the playback equipment was effectivelty free (PS3) no one could be bothered to buy the SACD discs to play on it. CDs are still around because they are stupidly cheap and very easy to reproduce - solid state storage is far more expensive and ultimately redundant since the content can be delivered directly - downloads have pretty much replaced optical discs.

Edited by Dean - September 18 2012 at 04:02

What?

Catcher10

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17497

Posted: September 18 2012 at 09:35

Dean is spot on.....the SACD probably will never "take off" just like Betamax never really "took off". Cost to the consumer is a huge thing. Had SACD format come out 25yrs ago, it probably would be the standard....but today with so many people 100% happy and content with compressed 256kbps mp3 files and streaming audio thru their 1" laptop speakers, the SACD will never enjoy the broad acceptance to threaten the regular CD.

The "high end" CD sometimes does not sound good, so I for one have no desire to spend the extra money when at best it might be hit and miss in terms of sound quality.

I am perfectly happy with redbook 16/44.1 CDs.

A good point is brought up about music genre.....the higher quality recordings are usually found in classical music and jazz, very true. There are more quiet passages and less stuff going on than with pop or rock music.....and that listener is more discerning than the standard listener and will pay better money for a better recording and a SACD.

Just take a look at HDTracks.com most of what is offered there as hi-rez 24/96 or 24/192 downloads is classical and jazz.

moshkito

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148

Posted: September 18 2012 at 12:34

pitfall wrote:

... My view is that the analogue medium is far more important in the creation of the music in the first place. ...

Not sure this sounds right, or that you expressed it the way you wanted ... it's like saying that the accoustic is far more important than the electric in the first place ... a few years before the analog/digital thing!

I always thought ... it's the same thing, so to speak ... the person's feeling either comes through or it doesn't! And I think this is massive for me, since I can appreciate accapella as well as any other music going back thousands of years.

I don't think of Beethoven, Bach, Stravinsky, Beatles, Yea, Amon Duul ... as this or that ... I think of them as "music" from a perspective that is not limited to a time and place ... I listen to all these folks, not because they are "digital" or "analog", or "accoustic" ... I listen to them because of the music they made!

The thought that Bach is better digitally than it was 400 years ago accoustically is very scary to me, btw ... like the worst horror movie!

Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com

moshkito

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148

Posted: September 18 2012 at 12:57

JediJoker7169 wrote:

...

I'm with you here ... and specially agree with the recording techniques, and I remember that RCA Red Label that had very special recordings of many things, none of which were "progressive" ... but a lot of very good things ... from Tomita to Alan Stivell!

(... this is a bit general coming up!) I've always thought that rock music was too much into an idea of some kind of sound and vision, in order to be able to help define its own ... like you get into the song Gimme Shelter, or Sympathy for the Devil, and why bother making the music better recorded? ... it doesn't make the whole thing any better in my estimation, and a lot of it has to do with the rock music thing that "attitude" is a lot more important than the music itself ... so hearing Janis Joplin scream out in Balls and Chain is more important than the recording of it, and the value of the musicianship behind it.

Some of it is good, and like youth, sometimes we're so much into "this and that", that the value of it all is sometimes wasted ... but we can not devalue the emotion and some of the things that came out ... with that "attitude".

On a technical level, there is a massively scary point here .... that we're confusing the quality of the recording with the music itself ... and I don't think that is fair ... Tom Dowd did the best he could with what was there ... you do the best you can ... George Martin did the best he could with what was there ... and the differences? ... simply what was there or not.

But comparing the "warmth", is a subjective exercise as Dean states, and I agree with it!

While that Tom Dowd DVD is not quite about the recording industry and its process a whole lot, it is, by far a massive history of the recording medium covering 30 to 40 years ... and I highly recommend it, btw!

Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com

presdoug

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 24 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8084

Posted: September 18 2012 at 13:16

In classical music, there is a tendency now, which frightens me personally, that "Digital sound" is the be all to end all, and the most important consideration when listening to something.
Most of the classical music i have is Historical (recorded before 1960) and i can tell you with a straight face that these older recordings are the ones to have. Conductors, singers, instrumentalists, orchestras, were of a much, much higher standard than the scene of today. Today, everybody wants to hear Wagner's Ring by a weak conductor like James Levine in this so called "be all to end all" digital sound, i say, what's the point, when all of the notes sound the same. A lot of people don't realise that you can hear The Ring in a much better way in Mono with Furtwangler, or Krauss conducting, conductors that go deeper into the score, and thus the notes are saying so much more than in this modern, blessed Digital age we live in.
Sorry, this thread is about prog, not classical music, but i just had to sound off. Smile

moshkito

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148

Posted: September 18 2012 at 13:35

presdoug wrote:

... Most of the classical music i have is Historical (recorded before 1960) and i can tell you with a straight face that these older recordings are the ones to have. Conductors, singers, instrumentalists, orchestras, were of a much, much higher standard than the scene of today.

...

NICE ... and thank you!

There was always a reason why those folks were recorded ... Karajan for this or that, Leinsdorf for his Puccini's, Bernstein for his Tchaikovsky's and Stravinsky's and Stokowski (sp) helped in other ways ... because of their detail to various things and emphazyz on one thing or another, that made the music different ... and still good!

But we don't like it when we hear 10 different versions of The Endless Enigma, or 5 different versions of something else ... how progressive of us, makes me think! And there are some very good and very different versions of Tosca ... with different tenors! ... and Pavarotti's is not any better than Gigli's or vice versa! They are totally different!

But there is, today, as well as yesterday, just as much subtlety and softness and quietness in Bitches Brew, as there is in Tales From Topographic Oceans, as there is in A Passion Play, as there is in Hot Rats! ... and I consider the instrumentation in these just as good as some of these "classical" things ...

One joke ... ready? ... digital is killing classical music ... people are so into their rap and iPod's and KW sampling the theme from Romeo and Juliet, and the next Rush thread on this board, that I am not sure that the majority actually enjoy and appreciate listening to anyone you or I mentioned!

Edited by moshkito - September 18 2012 at 13:35

Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com

presdoug

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 24 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8084

Posted: September 18 2012 at 17:11

^And thanks to you, for your thoughtful and thought provoking response.
Yeah, and i also wonder how many really get what moshkito and me are getting at here!

Edited by presdoug - September 18 2012 at 17:24

presdoug

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 24 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8084

Posted: September 18 2012 at 18:01

And there is not as much diversity or individuality in Classical music interpretation today. In the golden age, you had "the Stokowski Sound", "the Toscanini Sound", the "Furtwangler school" of interpretation.
Nowadays, a lot of important orchestras and their conductors sound so much alike, it's scary.
As each year passes, people tuned into the older eras die off, and i know you all know that already, but it really is a shame. A lot of today's crowd don't know what they are missing, and that is a crime.

Edited by presdoug - September 18 2012 at 18:02

Catcher10

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17497

Posted: September 18 2012 at 18:06

presdoug wrote:

^And thanks to you, for your thoughtful and thought provoking response.
Yeah, and i also wonder how many really get what moshkito and me are getting at here!

I get it....and its the main reason I listen to vinyl, because I do "get it". Hearing something the same way over and over is not a pleasure for me.

Now I may not listen to classical, but I totally understand why there would be certain recordings you may only want to hear in mono......I have heard some mono recordings and they are ear boggling to say the least at the detail you can hear......It makes sense.

The title of this thread is "the importance of analog sound in prog". Its not asking for the tech/specs/detail of analog sound.....you have to read the title carefully to understand that the question does make some sense, especially if you consider older prog rock, jazz and even classical music.

presdoug

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 24 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8084

Posted: September 18 2012 at 18:11

And in the world of progressive music, i must say it is really something to hear from members of PA that are older than myself, like moshkito, cstack3, TODDLER, and more, with their insights and perspectives on older scenes like the analog sound period, which i find invaluable. Guys, your words are precious to me. Smile

presdoug

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 24 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8084

Posted: September 18 2012 at 18:15

Catcher10 wrote:

presdoug wrote:

^And thanks to you, for your thoughtful and thought provoking response.
Yeah, and i also wonder how many really get what moshkito and me are getting at here!

I get it....and its the main reason I listen to vinyl, because I do "get it". Hearing something the same way over and over is not a pleasure for me.

Thanks

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: September 18 2012 at 19:17

Catcher10 wrote:

The title of this thread is "the importance of analog sound in prog". Its not asking for the tech/specs/detail of analog sound.....you have to read the title carefully to understand that the question does make some sense, especially if you consider older prog rock, jazz and even classical music.

I haven't quoted, pushed or championed technical specs in this thread, or used them to answer the OP question, I have repeatedly said that if people prefer analogue then that is a perfectly acceptable answer, but to understand the question you have to read the actual question (and not just the thread title) and you have to read it carefully because it contains a false assumption:

pkos76 wrote:

as i understand in order to apreciate prog you should pay attension in detail especially in the techique of the musicians.this detail only analog sound can offer to you.many prog gems like early genesis albums i started to love them when i listened them in vinyl format.i want to know if other proggers of this forum aggree with me

The OP wasn't asking whether you preferred analogue, he made a specific comment about detail in the recordings (such as the technique of the musicians).

That detail is present in the analogue recording but it is there more in digital recordings. If people think they can hear more detail in analogue then that's fine but what they are hearing is the perception of more detail. If people prefer recordings from 1950, 1940, 1930 or 1920 then that's just fine too, but do not say it is because those recordings are better on any technical level because they are not, (nor can they ever be) or because they contain more detail because they can't.

In the extreme detail is like listening for the tick of a watch while standing next to a 747 jet at take-off, moreover, it's like listening to that watch and trying to tell whether it is an Omega Incabloc Oyster or a Timex - with digital you have the dynamic range where both the watch-tick and the jet engine noise can be present in the recording simultaneously and you have the signal-to-noise ratio such that the watch-tick is "louder" than the noise-floor. Now obviously no human can hear a watch-tick over the sound of a jet engine, but if you now remove the jet from the recording without changing any of the volume levels (on the microphone recording the watch back in the studio or on the playback system in your living room) you can now hear the tick. You don't have that with analogue - the dynamic range is limited by the noise-floor and because the jet-engine is so loud the noise-floor is now "louder" than the tick of the watch, once you remove the jet-engine from the analogue recording without changing the volume levels just as before you still cannot hear the watch-tick because the background noise drowns it out. This isn't some esoteric subjective assessment that can be overcome with fancy cables, sound absorbing/deadening foams or any other audiophilist techniques or with set-ups that have price tickets worth more than the value of my car, it's a physical objective limitation of the recording media.

As I said, that example is in the extreme, with good technical artists we are not listening for detail that is anything like as subtle as that. Certainly the majority of the "detail" we are listening too is well within the range of analogue media even if it is not as detailed as digital media can be (emphasis on the "can be") - if it wasn't there we would not have revered those musicians back in the day.

I had the immeasurable pleasure of seeing Steve Hackett play live last month and took the opportunity to watch the deftness his techniques at close-hand when he effortlessly played the lead in Firth of Fifth. Standing in a field in the Surrey countryside isn't the ideal listening environment and outdoor stage PA isn't the ideal playback equipment but I "heard" more of Hackett's technique that day than I ever got from listening to the various recordings (analogue and digital) because I could see the fingers that made the notes (and a lot more of the sounds made during that song came from his guitar than I thought from just listening to a recording). Attention to detail is of some importance to Prog, but whether analogue or digital is better for that is purely subjective and purely a matter of personal preference.

Edited by Dean - September 18 2012 at 19:21

What?

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: September 18 2012 at 22:17

You CAN lose more detail in analog because of the scratches and the hissing and all that but you don't in digital, every sound is well separated and clear. At the most, you may have to adjust the equalizers to push up some sounds you want to hear more clearly. When people say they don't like digital recording, in all likelihood they only mean they don't like what albums they have heard that were recorded digitally. Donald Fagen's Nightfly was recorded with some of the earliest and most rudimentary digital systems and it does not lack in dynamics. It is not digital by itself that kills dynamics but (a) the nature of the music itself and (b) excessive compression. In what way does 12:5 lack dynamics or detail....even a so called live-in-studio prog recording from the 70s wouldn't have so much detail. Grace for Drowning is another example often cited in these debates.

If you like the scratches and the distortion, fine, but those are not details. Details are the sounds you don't get to hear as well as you could if there was no distortion.

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: September 18 2012 at 22:47

pitfall wrote:

I am not anti digital, and have quite a lot of it in my studio, but I hardly ever use it, as analogue instruments and effects sound infinitely better to my ears.

In fact I'd say that the rise of digital has led to a reduction in the quality of music being made.

You seem to have misunderstood the OP. It talks about analog vis-a-vis digital formats. Now I agree that simply copy pasting the same 'perfect' drum fill wherever it is required in a track instead of recording the drummer playing it each time sucks out the human element, which is vital to rock and metal recordings. I don't have strong opinions, one way or the other, on the instruments, which is in any case a matter of preference. But I believe the question was about ostensibly the same music recorded in analog vis-a-vis digital format?

Catcher10

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17497

Posted: September 18 2012 at 22:51

rogerthat wrote:

You CAN lose more detail in analog because of the scratches and the hissing and all that but you don't in digital, every sound is well separated and clear. At the most, you may have to adjust the equalizers to push up some sounds you want to hear more clearly. When people say they don't like digital recording, in all likelihood they only mean they don't like what albums they have heard that were recorded digitally. Donald Fagen's Nightfly was recorded with some of the earliest and most rudimentary digital systems and it does not lack in dynamics. It is not digital by itself that kills dynamics but (a) the nature of the music itself and (b) excessive compression. In what way does 12:5 lack dynamics or detail....even a so called live-in-studio prog recording from the 70s wouldn't have so much detail. Grace for Drowning is another example often cited in these debates.

If you like the scratches and the distortion, fine, but those are not details. Details are the sounds you don't get to hear as well as you could if there was no distortion.

Hmm...I don't agree with much here. You CAN lose detail in digital, if it is compressed too much and the mids and highs dominate the sound then you do not hear the low end details. For example the long sustain of a bass pedal or bass guitar, digital has a difficult time with low end sounds and an easy time elevating the mids and highs to the point of distortion as you say.

Also digital has the ability to have as much wow & flutter as a turntable....Almost all CDP are tray designed so there IS a moving part that will cause jitter and distortion (I think this word is being used wrong here, but it is what you are using). Also there is digital jitter from a not so good DAC, that does not convert the digital signal to analog very well....it exists and can be heard.

There are many digital albums I have heard I do not like, plenty of CDs I own I do not play.

Some of my mishandled vinyl has scratches, but that does not cause distortion.......For example inner groove distortion is due to misaligned equipment, not the vinyl.

Fagan's digital album may not lack in dynamics, but in the same respect a lot of my vinyl does not lack in dynamics either......And CD/Digital IMO cannot match the soundstage effect that analog does create, new or old.

Edited by Catcher10 - September 18 2012 at 23:00

Catcher10

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17497

Posted: September 18 2012 at 22:59

To me it sounds like the ones that oppose analog took the question from the OP as a comparison question/comment between analog and digital.....Where I as a music lover, and I enjoy both mediums, took the question more as a comment that to understand old prog there is a thought that listening to the analog issues gives you the ability/background to understand these old prog rock albums. I find some substance in that thought......

But as Dean states how you eventually listen to the music on an ongoing basis is totally subjective......Do what you feel your ears like best and what gives you the best physical experience......and to me I like how my vinyl takes me to another place when I spin Yes - Tales/Topographic Oceans.

stonebeard View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057

Posted: September 18 2012 at 23:07

I think a lot of people confuse poor mixing and mastering with a flaw in the medium. Over-compression and distortion can occur at all stages of recording up till pressing. It is a fact that CDs have the ability to produce more dynamic range than vinyl. Higher quality digital mediums have that even more so. So the devil is in the mix and master, and the point it that for most "normal" mixes won't even want to use that range because it would be tedious for most songs. The capability for high dynamic range is nice, and if you want a really, really clear mix with as little noise as possible, digital is obviously more for you. Plus, yippee for any medium being able to record frequencies over 22kHz. Good luck hearing it.

My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: September 18 2012 at 23:13

Catcher10 wrote:

You CAN lose detail in digital, if it is compressed too much and the mids and highs dominate the sound then you do not hear the low end details. For example the long sustain of a bass pedal or bass guitar, digital has a difficult time with low end sounds and an easy time elevating the mids and highs to the point of distortion as you say.

I did mention over compression. My argument is that is a conscious choice by the producer, the engineer or the band, whomsoever are responsible for it. It does not mean any and every digital recording is bound to be over compressed and lose detail. And what I am saying is not just theoretical. There are digital recordings that are not over compressed, don't sound like one constant, loud wall of sound. Not every digital recording is as bad as Death Magnetic.

Catcher10 wrote:

Also digital has the ability to have as much wow & flutter as vinyl....Almost all CDP are tray designed so there IS a moving part that will cause jitter and distortion (I think this word is being used wrong here, but it is what you are using). Also there is digital jitter from a not so good DAC, that does not convert the digital signal to analog very well....it exists and can be heard.

There are many digital albums I have heard I do not like, plenty of CDs I own I do not play.

I don't use CD players anymore, just play them on the computer with good speakers. So I am not really aware of this problem and cannot comment on it. I used CD players earlier but abandoned them, not because I noticed such a problem (though it may have been present) but because the players generally wore out too quickly and I felt it was redundant if I could connect the PC to good speakers.

Catcher10 wrote:

Fagan's digital album may not lack in dynamics, but in the same respect a lot of my vinyl does not lack in dynamics either

So the point is....? I never said analog lacks dynamics. I said it is not true that digital inherently lacks the capability to capture dynamics. Merely because the music recorded on some digital albums inherently lacks dynamism doesn't mean the format itself destroys dynamics. And a lot of heavy music of today IS very un-dynamic and excessively loud, but that has more to do with the priorities of the musicians and the producers than the capabilities of digital.

Catcher10 wrote:

......And CD/Digital IMO cannot match the soundstage effect that analog does create, new or old.

I disagree. Again, it has to do with the decisions made by the technicians involved. A friend of mine who makes prog rock had a thing against delay or reverb and preferred a dry sound for vocals. He seems to have finally been persuaded against this but my point is, the dry sound would then be his choice, not a lack of delay in digital systems.

What did the musicians want the listeners to hear on the album, what was the equipment used, how capable were the engineers...without all this information, it is difficult to make generalized comments on digital recording. Also, do consider that almost every analog recording of a reasonably successful band from the 70s is quite professionally done but there is a lot more DIY involved in today's scene. I think recordings of mainstream albums are still quite powerful and professional. They might be consciously recorded too loud or compressed or they might simply have music that you don't enjoy, but that's beside the point.

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: September 18 2012 at 23:15

Catcher10 wrote:

That was indeed the original question but the topic has gone well beyond the scope of it. I don't have any problem with what people prefer because it is their choice. I am just saying objective claims about the capabilities of one format vis a vis the other may be very difficult to justify.

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: September 18 2012 at 23:17

stonebeard wrote:

I think a lot of people confuse poor mixing and mastering with a flaw in the medium. .

My point, exactly.