Xann Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I think this brickwalling thing is more of an issue with classical music, which tends to have a naturally wide dynamic range... I'd rather they didn't compress classical recordings, especially since many (most?) car stereos have a compression option built in anyway - sometimes it's called 'Loudness'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tegis Posted January 29, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 29, 2012 I think this is what you're trying to say. Yes , in my own amateur listening way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I think this brickwalling thing is more of an issue with classical music, which tends to have a stupidly wide dynamic range. Classical buffs are always going on about how it annoys them when the mastering narrows it down. Me, I like it. I mostly listen to classical in the car, so quiet passages tend to get lost in the engine noise. So I turn the volume up. Then when a loud passage comes in, it's WAY too loud and splits my eardrums. I like to be able to set the volume at a given level and leave it alone - and still be able to hear all the music. Brickwall away, fellers. You shouldn't waste your time with all this classical music nonsense anyway. Look, the world population is approximately 30 times what it was in Beethoven's day. Therefore, statistically, the Chemical Brothers are 30 times as good as Beethoven. Anyway, nine times out of ten, re-mastering is nothing more than a marketing ploy. They don't need to do it well. (Sings in Morrissey voice:)"At the record company meeting...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I think this brickwalling thing is more of an issue with classical music, which tends to have a stupidly wide dynamic range. Classical buffs are always going on about how it annoys them when the mastering narrows it down. Me, I like it. I mostly listen to classical in the car, so quiet passages tend to get lost in the engine noise. So I turn the volume up. Then when a loud passage comes in, it's WAY too loud and splits my eardrums. I like to be able to set the volume at a given level and leave it alone - and still be able to hear all the music. Brickwall away, fellers. You shouldn't waste your time with all this classical music nonsense anyway. Look, the world population is approximately 30 times what it was in Beethoven's day. Therefore, statistically, the Chemical Brothers are 30 times as good as Beethoven. Anyway, nine times out of ten, re-mastering is nothing more than a marketing ploy. They don't need to do it well. (Sings in Morrissey voice:)"At the record company meeting...." I've never understood why the likes of Beethoven didn't experiment and collaborate more. If he had teamed up with Kraftwerk or some other Krautrock the synergy would have been obvious and the cross over would have introduced him to a wider audience. Mozart tried it a bit, but other than one hit with 'Amadeus Amadeus' he didn't do that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I think this brickwalling thing is more of an issue with classical music, which tends to have a stupidly wide dynamic range. Classical buffs are always going on about how it annoys them when the mastering narrows it down. Me, I like it. I mostly listen to classical in the car, so quiet passages tend to get lost in the engine noise. So I turn the volume up. Then when a loud passage comes in, it's WAY too loud and splits my eardrums. I like to be able to set the volume at a given level and leave it alone - and still be able to hear all the music. Brickwall away, fellers. You shouldn't waste your time with all this classical music nonsense anyway. Look, the world population is approximately 30 times what it was in Beethoven's day. Therefore, statistically, the Chemical Brothers are 30 times as good as Beethoven. Anyway, nine times out of ten, re-mastering is nothing more than a marketing ploy. They don't need to do it well. (Sings in Morrissey voice:)"At the record company meeting...." I've never understood why the likes of Beethoven didn't experiment and collaborate more. If he had teamed up with Kraftwerk or some other Krautrock the synergy would have been obvious and the cross over would have introduced him to a wider audience. Mozart tried it a bit, but other than one hit with 'Amadeus Amadeus' he didn't do that much.To be fair to him, he had a go with Massive Attack on his Unfinished Symphony, but they went and **** up the spelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 ...(Sings in Morrissey voice:)... Morrissey can't sing. He vocalises in a shite manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 ...(Sings in Morrissey voice:)... Morrissey can't sing. Neither can I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I've heard some very good remasters, and some appalling shite that entirely ruined the originals. Problem is with the brickwalling thing, pretty much everyone now HAS to do it... if you don't, the music comes across as thin and quiet in comparison to those who have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leemond2008 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I must admit I had to google ''brickwalling'' but I know exactly what you mean its infuriating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 As an aside, I have no idea what brickwalling means. Have a look at this The three sets of compression shown on the right are the same song, 'Black Or White' by Michael Jackson, originaly released in 91, then rereleased in 95 and 2007. By the third release it is almost a brick wall of green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sureshot Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Probably the best remasters I've heard are of Experience and Music for the Jilted Generation. They do what remasters should do - breathe new life into the original product and make any obvious corrections. It's true that the majority of remasters are gash, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I am lucky enough to have invested in a decent analogue turntable years ago. - I have a Linn LP12, and it's so much better than my CD player or any other modern source of comparable value. CD's were awful - far too bright and forward, and the invention of MP3 has just made things worse - Realistically - listening to an ipod like device on those shitty shitty little earphones - well, to be honest the leakage is so loud that the rest of the train carriage proably gets a more dynamic presentation than the actual listener - but with mp3 and earphones, everything needs to be loud, obvious and up front - you listen in an environment like a bus, and any dynamics to the music are lost over the ambient background. Theres no proper bass to most digitally stored music - the equiptment can't reproduce it so why bother? My turntable probably finds a complete octave or thereabouts that you might never have heard if you only listend to the compressed lossy mp3. Its like people want stack of compressed "noise" to take with them, that no one actually listens, properly, to the music. I think more and more music is recorded now for the MP3 generation, rather more than radio as were the 70's. A decent turntable, with a decent pressing by someone who recorded with care, is the best chance of accessing "the music" these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 A decent turntable, with a decent pressing by someone who recorded with care, is the best chance of accessing "the music" these days. I like vinyl, it has a naturally warm quality - but the CD should be a more accurate reproduction of the original studio master. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 A decent turntable, with a decent pressing by someone who recorded with care, is the best chance of accessing "the music" these days. I like vinyl, it has a naturally warm quality - but the CD should be a more accurate reproduction of the original studio master. I'm not sure the CD is more accurate. Digital is not as accurate as analogue at any rate - it's effectively taking thousands of snapshots of the original recording, converting them to digital and joining them together. Whereas as an analogue recording is a continuous thus truer representation of the music. There are no snapshots being taken, no converting the signal to digital, so what you get is a richer recording, and I think this is where the "warmth" of vinyl comes from. But... the dynamic range a CD is capable of covering (96db) is greater than vinyl, so in that sense you _are_ getting a more accurate reproduction. And the CD won't wear out on repeated plays in the same way as vinyl. MP3's are just... yuck. Convenient... but they have nothing more going for them. But more and more studios will now master with the final MP3 in mind, ie the mastering of the recording is optimised for the MP3 format rather than the CD. It's weird how we evolve better technology all the time, yet we're happy for the music listening experience to get progressively worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 This is a massive can of worms, and I'm on an early tomorrow. Will explain reasoning later. :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 This is a massive can of worms Yes. Yes it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 A decent turntable, with a decent pressing by someone who recorded with care, is the best chance of accessing "the music" these days. I like vinyl, it has a naturally warm quality - but the CD should be a more accurate reproduction of the original studio master. I'm not sure the CD is more accurate. Digital is not as accurate as analogue at any rate - it's effectively taking thousands of snapshots of the original recording, converting them to digital and joining them together. Whereas as an analogue recording is a continuous thus truer representation of the music. There are no snapshots being taken, no converting the signal to digital, so what you get is a richer recording, and I think this is where the "warmth" of vinyl comes from. But... the dynamic range a CD is capable of covering (96db) is greater than vinyl, so in that sense you _are_ getting a more accurate reproduction. And the CD won't wear out on repeated plays in the same way as vinyl. MP3's are just... yuck. Convenient... but they have nothing more going for them. But more and more studios will now master with the final MP3 in mind, ie the mastering of the recording is optimised for the MP3 format rather than the CD. It's weird how we evolve better technology all the time, yet we're happy for the music listening experience to get progressively worse. digital is technically more accurate. the sampling and quantization processes you use in analogue to digital conversion are theoretically perfect and linear - you get out exactly what you put in. (as long as the system is engineered and implemented correctly). dont think of it in the same way as something like film. "analogue warmth" is actually because analogue systems are less accurate. you get distortions and other artifacts, poorer frequency and transient response due to things like analogue tape compression, transformer saturation etc. however those inadequacies are things that people seem to prefer, and seem to make music sound better. its funny, but for years people have worked to make it so digital gives an exact representation of the original analogue signal. yet now we have it people are wanting to make things they have recorded have that imperfect analogue sound. i agree mp3 is horrible though. reduces file size but does it by removing content from an audio file (usually high frequencies). there are plenty of lossless data compression formats out there that can be used instead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 "analogue warmth" is actually because analogue systems are less accurate. you get distortions and other artifacts, poorer frequency and transient response due to things like analogue tape compression, transformer saturation etc. however those inadequacies are things that people seem to prefer, and seem to make music sound better. By the same token, there are plenty of things that can screw up a digital sound, and take away its "accuracy".... bad converters, incorrect dither, jitter etc can all make for a sound that is horrible and no more accurate than the analog with it's natural overdrive or tape compression. I'll take analog every time for recordings given the choice, but digital has improved massively in recent years. And ultimately, it's the workman that is the most important factor, not the tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 31, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 31, 2012 Well, I may be "talking shite", but I still don't hear any of these differences. I'm not saying I can't hear them, but I don't. Subtle difference. You guys may feel you are distracted from the music by poor sound. I find I'm distracted from the music if I even consider the sound. So I never think "Hooray, the opening chords of 'All Along the Watchtower'... but wait, there's something wrong with the way it's been mastered" - I just think "Hooray, the opening chords of 'All Along the Watchtower'", and I'm away. I admit I'm overstating things slightly - if a recording is VERY bad, I'll notice it. For instance, there's a Moody Blues compilation CD that has all the usual cheesy psych/prog/orchestral stuff on it (sounding OK to me) - with the early, Denny Laine hit "Go Now" tagged on the front. And I must admit that the sound is ghastly - sounds like it's been remastered from an ex-jukebox single. But for me to have noticed that is a real rarity. I liked LPs when they were "the thing". I like CDs because they take up less space (and still have a bit of room for artwork and sleevenotes). I like mp3s because they are cheap, fast to acquire and take up zero space. I never worry about compression, decibels and all that stuff. Please understand I'm not saying those who do are "wrong", I'm just giving my personal take on it. Like I say, I've probably got cloth ears, but that's OK with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 31, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 31, 2012 I'm with Mike. I just don't notice these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts