| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
MikeEnRegalia 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 20599
|
 Posted: February 16 2006 at 07:09 |
 oliverstoned wrote:
Believe me, a Moerlen's drum solo on my system would makes you believe that Pierre is still alive, there in the room, and you would feel each of its percussion right there in the solar plexus. |
 I figure that that is more because of the volume, not of the sound quality.
|
|
|
 |
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 08:15 |
|
No, exactly the contary, nothing to do with some "boom boom".
It's the dryness and the quickness of the percussion's impact, the deepness of the low, like the real drum in live.
The quickness is related to dynamic.
For example, when i upgraded from my little Nad CD player to my current separate drive/converter digital set up, i was amazed that how music seems to be played two times faster than before.
And it's very pleasant!! it makes music far more present and lively.
Edited by oliverstoned
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 20599
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 09:06 |
|
^ I know what you're talking about, but I think that this is mostly related to amp/cabinets. Of course you need really good (and heavy) cabinets, and an amp which is able to recreate all the dynamics of the source.
|
|
|
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308
|
Posted: February 19 2006 at 04:44 |
...on another hand, there are some engineers who know their job, like Bob Ludwig who done the beautiful Stones remasters, for example. 
Edited by oliverstoned
|
|
Tool/Rush/Mars
Forum Newbie
Joined: February 28 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 18
|
Posted: March 01 2006 at 14:13 |
i tend to like live albums more. I really don't go for superior quality when I record.
|
|
Marcos
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 08 2007
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 222
|
Posted: February 23 2007 at 08:31 |
I think the sound (quality) is important, but no essencial. In addition, I think the music that we listened is associated to a sound, and it's irreplaceable. For example, the symphonic-rock of 70´s couldn't be the same with 90's technology
|
|
www.postmortemweb.com.ar
|
|
Guests
Forum Guest Group
|
Posted: February 23 2007 at 12:41 |
oliverstoned wrote:
It doesn't matter for 99.9% of people, but you would amazed
by what a great system could do.
Eventually, the problem i'm faced to is that my system is too good for most of the "rock" Cd i play on.
Jazz and classical, and some fusion (ECM) Cds are overall much better sounding.
Rock Cds are bumped for mr everybody's nasty system.
To make low on a system without low. |
Quite agree - most people, inevitably, will be listening on equipment not worthy of the task of reproduction and pretty much anything will struggle to sound impressive. Until you get a top notch hi-fi you have no idea how good music can actually sound. I have now reached the point that any further upgrades will barely be noticeable. Prior to arriving in this enviable position I had a relatively good system but was still astounded when I managed to move higher up the scale. It was akin to having a completely new music collection. Things, hitherto familiar to me, actually sounded like a different recording.
Since when does "well-produced" mean compressed sound? That is actually the antithesis of "well-produced". A good production means creating an aural soundscape which should enable the listener to pick out any given instrument and follow it's course throughout the piece of music. It should have a spatial quality but still sound as in unison. What this creates is a soundstage that will swell way beyond the physical boundary of the speakers - the sound actually appearing to spread much wider than the distance between the speakers. There should also an apparent addition to the depth of the soundstage – appearing to emanate further back than your rear wall. This, however, CANNOT be attained by production alone - you do need a good system to achieve the desired effect.
If you want a better explanation of this, read the wonderful book "The Complete Guide To High-end Audio" by Robert Harley.
I have heard the term over-produced. This, again, is a misnomer. They cannot be over-produced but they can be poorly produced - creating a sterility which grates on the ear.
I would add that I'm talking about new albums. It is hard to re-master or re-produce old recordings without some detrimental effect. The loss of hiss can result in a clipping of treble tones, rendering a neutral, less exciting sound.
Having said this, not many new prog albums are well produced - in fact most are quite poor, suffering from that so-called compressed and constricted sound. I presume there is a cost factor to creating a top class production. and lets face it, not many prog bands make money!
Edited by Glueman - February 23 2007 at 13:14
|
|
mystic fred
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 13 2006
Location: Londinium
Status: Offline
Points: 4252
|
Posted: February 26 2007 at 07:58 |
i have both digital (using cd player as a source) and analogue (using a record deck) systems which i often compare from time to time so i know the difference, and digital really has come a long way from the horrible compressed muddy sound in the 80's, i bought a cd player but then but took it back i was so disappointed .
"compressed" digital is, i gather, what downloaded music sounds like ie "pinched" like the sound from a Minidisc or DAB player. i could easily tell the difference in a blindfold test, but digital is catching up fast, it is becoming difficult to differentiate with some recordings! both mediums have their pros and cons, but a lot depends on the mastering. 
incidentally, digital is also catching in the imaging world too - the average 8 mp digital photos can now challenge medium format film in picture quality, leaving 35mm way behind.
|
 Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
|
rileydog22
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 8844
|
Posted: February 26 2007 at 20:13 |
|
I don't really care about production. That's why I like bootlegs so much.
|
|
|
|
1800iareyay
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2492
|
Posted: February 26 2007 at 20:18 |
|
Production can hinder a good album, but it can't reduce the album's power. Quite a few metal recordings suffer from poor production yet the sheer quality of the music ensures I (and many others) will buy it.
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: February 27 2007 at 07:56 |
Glueman wrote:
Since when does "well-produced" mean compressed sound? That is actually the antithesis of "well-produced".
|
Compression has been in use before digital technology came along - most frequently on bass, I believe.
Now compression is over-used everywhere - but it's part of "the modern sound". Everything is turned up to make it sound louder and "more in your face", then compressed to stop it distorting.
It's a bit of an art, because too much compression leads to noticeable "dips" in the sound, but, since the average listener doesn't notice, most producers these days seem to use what I would consider excessive compression to get the "blinging" sound.
I've since come to actually prefer the more ragged sound of mostly uncompressed late 1960s-early 1970s recordings, which are also far more dynamic and exciting to listen to, IMO.
Glueman wrote:
I have heard the term over-produced. This, again, is a misnomer. They cannot be over-produced but they can be poorly produced - creating a sterility which grates on the ear.
I would add that I'm talking about new albums. It is hard to re-master or re-produce old recordings without some detrimental effect. The loss of hiss can result in a clipping of treble tones, rendering a neutral, less exciting sound.
Having said this, not many new prog albums are well produced - in fact most are quite poor, suffering from that so-called compressed and constricted sound. I presume there is a cost factor to creating a top class production. and lets face it, not many prog bands make money! |
Maybe you could consider the use of excessive compression as "over-produced".
Certainly, if you listen to something that's really well produced like, say, a Coldplay album, or if that's too much for you to bear, an early Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin or Beatles album (on its native vinyl), you can hear what it's like when the music hasn't had the life compressed out of it even on lowly equipment.
Good sounds can be produced on a budget without compression - Twelfth Night's "Live at the Target" was recorded on a mobile setup (I was there!), and still sounds great - if a tad toppy, and Necronomicon's "Tips Zum Selbstmord" was recorded on a very tight budget - but sounds absolutely amazing, if your head's inthe right space.
But every time I hear the compressor kick in to suppress overly dynamic tracks, I run a mile.
The other truly awful invention is pitch correction.
Why can't people sing in tune in the first place, or just sing with real feeling?
Everytime I hear the familiar ring of Antares correcting a slight wobble it drives me mad.
Engineering "mistakes" out of the music?
Now THAT's over-production!
Edited by Certif1ed - February 27 2007 at 08:05
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Guests
Forum Guest Group
|
Posted: February 27 2007 at 13:13 |
Certif1ed wrote:
Engineering "mistakes" out of the music?
Now THAT's over-production! |
Granted that's too much of an interference but I would not call that over-production as it is a negative process and yet again it is BAD production. Production should be (should be) a positive process that gives the music room to breathe. I would prefer a different word for processes such as compression and the like - possibly Re-duction?
Edited by Glueman - February 27 2007 at 13:16
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: February 28 2007 at 04:23 |
^Unfortunately, it's been called compression since forever - even the devices you use to do it are called compressors.
A compressor does reduce, but it reduces according to a ratio: If a signal exceeds a certain threshold, then the dynamic range of that signal is literally squashed, not simply reduced.
Think of a file compression program, like WinZip.
It uses a special algorithm to do things such as strip repeated bits from a file (statistical redundancy) and replace these with markers and data fields so that when it uncompresses the file, it can replace the data in the exact place it removed it from.
What this does is to reduce the file size by shrinking the file - but not the data that the file contains, so the file remains virtually intact.
*Note that this is not the only way a compression algorithm works - but it is the simplest to understand.
Consider also the compression used in mp3 files - it doesn't reduce the length of the piece or the contents, although lossy compression by definition reduces quality.
A high bitrate mp3 file, though, may sound pretty close to the raw audio source, but the file size is greatly reduced. However, it is still virtually the same piece of music.
Compare this to compressing tarmac, or anything else that's physical - you don't actually reduce the amount of matter, but you do make the thing smaller.
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
James Lee
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 05 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3525
|
Posted: March 03 2007 at 13:13 |
The original 'compressors' were the guys running the board- real flesh fingers on the sliders, trying to anticipate when to push up and when to pull back. The whole point of audio compression is to keep the volume peaks manageable and bringing up quieter sounds so they don't get lost. With analog signals, the distortion caused by overloading the peaks actually results in 'natural' compression, which can be musically useful at times (just ask Alan Parsons). With digital signals, even a little distortion is too much, so compression and limiting (extreme compression that cuts off the peak) have become much more of a necessary tool. Check out Metamorfosi's Inferno album for extreme 1970's compression. But on the main topic, I agree that a well-produced album is one where you can hear the details of the music. I don't need that in everything- I have a lot of bootlegs and recordings made with bad equipment, bad recording conditions, or simply bad engineering skills . And I'd far rather listen to Earthbound than Heavy Construkction despite the latter's much improved sonic qualities... I kinda feel sorry for oliver, who can't enjoy music unless it is perfectly reproduced. But if you are a jazz/ classical fan, that's probably a viable outlook. I've got too much rock and roll in me.
|
|
|
|
heyitsthatguy
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 17 2006
Location: Washington Hgts
Status: Offline
Points: 10094
|
Posted: March 03 2007 at 13:16 |
|
For the most part, if a record is produced badly, it pisses me off to no end. However, I'll still listen to it, and if reviewing it, I'll review it only for the music
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
the "Production Quality" of an album
