This may interest some:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDZcz-V29_M&feature=youtu.be
Pretty good, not long and easy to understand for everybody. Let's hope it works
I agree 100% (you're preaching to the choir) but ...
Trying to convince someone that 'how they listen to music actually sucks all the life out of it' - while they are in fact listening to that commentary (and some music) with compressed audio on their computer - is gonna be an uphill battle. Not too mention .... pretty ironic.
It's like talking about a really great Paella or Fiorentina while you're (happily) eating at McDonalds.
it's worth mentioning that there are several mp3 codecs around and the video kind of glosses over this point. Not all mp3 codecs are the same or sound the same for all audio projects. We compare different mp3 codecs before transcoding for those who want mp3s for the digital uploaders. As far as we know the digital distributors don't do this, very few mixing studios who 'master' do, and the 'home/projectmastering' files on soundcloud etc don't tend to do this.
I also thought about the irony but the clip-to-nonclip example in the video translated very well
Again I totally agree Ken.
It's a long time since i heard any release where there has been a really good 3d field - some are ok but just not great. it tends to be almost a mantra with me when producers and/or engineers ask me for critical feedback before we master - lack of field. Far too many sit between the monitors and are just lfat and 2D.
Some of the best recordings I can remember are oldish classical recordings from the 30s through to the 50s. Very simple techinically and equipment wise compared to wha we have today but they were just well recorded with v. good mic placement.
I keep coming across younger engineers and producers who can't tell the difference between a 3dB vox up take and the original. That worries me an awful lot as you have to wonder what they hear and focus on.
Another thing that intrigues me is that some are now quick to point out that vinyl had it's sonic limitations. That's very true but we learnt not just to work within those limitations but to push them. With DAWs a lot don't even seem to know the simple basic stuff never mind work to the limitations or push the boundary.
I'd aree also that the poor quality must be putting a lot of people off. What's the point in really listening to and loving a tinny, thin, compressed and distorted piece. Whilst you could get exctied by finding a rare Horowitz recording years ago i can't imagine anyone getting excited by finding they've still got Pharell's (Cut and Paste vocals) 'Happy' on their smartphone in a few years time.
Music is art - the rest is silence (to deliberately mis quot Jacques Attelier) .
Very nice vid. I think we have an ilness of focusing to make things perfect in case of recording less than giving it life. I guilty of a charge as well. I know what You mean and I won't try to excuse myslef. Something has went wrong these days ...
I'm sure. But at the same time I'm afraid this is going to be a standard as long, as some celebrities will create a new hype. And I mean not a single, respected musicinas know within the musicians closed circle, but people who affect masses. Like with cloths....
About the 3D in recording field. I like to make esperiments and notice how the frequency response of instruments act while changing distance from them. I try to adopt this in my recordings but still way too go
I had a chat with a friend who has been doing the live sound for James and we got to talking about our early experience of sound engineering ...
...years ago when I started my training one of the first things that I was was the importance of balance. It was considered so important that our senior engineer used to say that we balanced the track rather than mixed it. We were expected to learn how to position all the parts in the sonic field BEFORE we applied any effects or processing. In fact at that time that particular studio had a split console and not that much outboard so eq, compression etc were always secondary.
Nowadays the importance of balance seems a bit lost as many do a basic placement and go straight to using eq etc. It perhaps goes back to your comment Ken about people having lots of gear but not achieving much with it. In some ways it's as if balancing a track just isn't thought to be 'sexy' enough since you don't get to show off lots of outboard to the client.
Just on the subject of gear - vsts may well have a lot to answer for. It takes me 100s if not 1000s of hours to get used to a piece of hardware and to really know how it will affect audio. So I don't have masses of hardware, just a few mastering pieces that I know well and use regularly. With lots of people though they have literally 100s of vsts and it just seems unlikely that many really know the difference between them and when, where and how to use them. How many really know the basic difference between optical, vari-mu and VCA compressors let alone fine detail as to the differences between one optical comp and another? All they seem interested in is the badge on the front - 'hey it's a Manley software emulation so it must be good to use on the cymbals!' With the badge thing - how many use a pultec emulation without having ever heard a Pultec? If they've never heard the original just how can they know if the emulation is any good and worth the extra cash over a vanilla vst? Seems unlikely but you can easily and quickly find internet studios that list 100s of plug ins, the vast majority of which are emulations of Manley, Pultec, SSL and so on.
Last bit - take a look at those same studios and most also have mix monitors more suited for a home/project studio and the monitors are nearly always poorly positioned. I wonder what the chances of the engineer really being able to hear fine detail are especially as the audio and stereo field are compromised even before they start...
In England wasn't the proper name (for a recording engineer) a 'balance' engineer?
I roll my eyes when I see a studio list VSTs as if they're the 'real' thing. "A full suite of Universal Audio plug-ins".
That which is known, is that which is liked - Teodor Adorno
TAKE HEART FRIENDS!!
There is GOOD NEWS on the horizon As bandwidth continues to increase, and as streaming services become just another part of the plumbing (as it were), eventually, the standards will rise a bit just like they did when audio went from DVD to BluRay. Most folks didn't know or care, but it was improved none the less.
Most folks just want stuff to work, and be easy. They listen on cheap ear buds in many cases or laptop speakers. So most of the work done on the front end is simply lost on them. So even when bandwidth increases start predicating higher bit rates and less compression, we still have the end user listening on ear buds. Hopefully, as time goes on, the earbud driver technology will continue to advance as well. Eventually, cheap headphones and high bandwidth will meet in the middle of audio consumer NIRVANA Hopefully.
Yes they were called balance engineers originally in the UK and arguably it actually described the role well.
I come across quite a few studios who advertise that they have items by Manley, Pultec, SSL etc when what they really mean is that they have software by UA, Waves etc Some of them even go so far as to include the Manley etc badges/brand signs on their sites. To me it's rather like claiming that you have a Ferrari when what you actually have is a computer car driving game. I guess it's easier to impress people with a claim of the former than saying that you spend your time hunched up in your bedroom in front of your computer screen playing by yourself in the dark (I chose the preposition carefully ).
(As usual Adorno pretty much nailed it.)
Even if the demand for quality remains slack (as it is currently) the standards will hopefully continue to rise as bandwidth and processing power continues ever upward. Almost by default, things should get better Almost despite the consuming audience.
I saw some news about the new "super high fidelity" digital audio player that Neil Young is involved in. It seems he's taken over the company? I can't help wondering who the product is actually for? I guess they are hoping for the "lossless" crowd to come on board. But as it stands APPLE is embracing "lossless" codecs and 24 bit files with "iTunes Plus" so trying to launch an entirely new platform just seems like spitting in the wind. But hey, it takes all kinds
By the way - none of my rant is aimed at you Todd - I'm just irritated at the amount of ill conceived drivel that has surrounded the media hype for pono.
+1
As much as I love Neil that whole Pono thing just sounds like snake oil to me.
IMO he's definitely 'spitting into the wind' as Todd says.
*As atavistic as I may seem, I also have no desire to go back to wax cylinders and one crappy mic again ala Jack white and Neil Young, lol!
Just to be cynical (what me cynical ) I have to wonder how much Neil can hear anyway given how many years he's spent on stage at high volume during the years when many of us did little to protect our hearing...
Though not absolutely scientific I have compared FLAC and recent issue, 180 gram vinyl on a fairly audiophile stereo system.
They both sounded great! *And IMO as a long time music listener, noticeably superior to an mp3 - no contest actually. I can't imagine anyone (musician or layperson) not noticing or acknowledging the better quality.
A little more emphasis on the very low end and high ends with the lossless FLAC files and a little more punch in the mids with the high quality 180 gram vinyl but neither was 'better'. Just different.
gree with your findings there Ken. I've always found that mp3s lose a lot of low end fine detail. In a way you'd think there would be some compensation from not having to dither as you transcode from the 24 bit file but you still lose quiet audio and fine detail. Top end I often find a harsh and brittle and with what I think is quite a pronounced roll off quite some way before 1/2 nyquist. The other discernable differences that I find is that mp3s seem a lttle lifeless when compared to a good audiophile vinyl release. There's less of what I would term rhythmic drive and movement (and I'm not talking about wow and flutter from a poor turntable motor or excessive drag on the stylus from a poor vinyl lathe cut). MP3s also seem to me to be rather dynamically flat even if done with a high end 320 CBR.
One other thing to consider is that many/all of us start to lose the top end of what we can hear frequency wise as we age. So you go from a theoretical 20-20kHz when you are young to a more restricted range as you age. I tested mine recently and I sit at 20-17.5kHz. Rather oddly a lot of younger people who did the test at the same time couldn't hear below about 50Hz. Again not scientific and not statisitically checked but the sample was a pool of sound engineers, musicians and producers.
No offense taken I'm with you all the way. I think they are trying to spin off and isolate a chunk of the market segment that doesn't really exist anymore. But I guess we will see how it all turns out. I think it's gonna be a huge bust.
Todd
Yes, very true Todd, given the rise of streaming that ship may well have sailed long ago.
The bit that surprised me Ken was that it was mainly younger (late 20s to eary 30s) producers and engineers who couldn't hear low frequencies particularly well. There's not enough evidence to validate this but I wonder if it's in some way connected to listening to audio on earbuds a lot.
Just like you I've spent a lot of time years ago with audio at high levels so I was expecting more high frequency loss than I actually have. There were quite a few people who couldn't hear above 8kHz .
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)