Why new music doesn't sound as good as it did.

[PewterTA]

FINALLY!!!

Right on the front page of YAHOO!!!

Tell everyone to read this (that already hasn't).

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/33549

[twitch54]

Thank the Good Lord for Quality Vinyl !!!!

[Alaric]

BINGO! , Dave. Also , check out some of the responses to the article. The vast majority of "music" fans are using crappy mp3 junk to store/listen to the tunes. Someone who thinks Pink makes music , and then listens to it on an iPod , probably isn't the target audience of that column. The alleged "artists" that are polluting the musical landscape aren't much help in determining if the production quality is good. A good MoFi Half-Speed Master on vinyl makes it all go away......

[wildfire99]

It isn't just music, it's everything. Entertainment is commoditized now... pump and dump, baby. Next fad, you're up!

[bigburner]

A key point missing from the article is the reason why record producers want to compress their music to make it louder. The main reason is to make it stand out from other music when it is played on the radio, or at least to make it as loud as the other music so it doesn't get ignored.

If you listen to music that doesn't get played on the radio then compression is less likely to be a problem for you. There are heaps of albums that never get to see the inside of a radio station, so my advice to members is to get some of that music.

Nigel.

[twitch54]

Thank the Good Lord for Quality Vinyl !!!!

To take my point one step further, to show that SOME new music is as good or BETTER one needs to look no further than Acoustic Sounds, Salina,Ks. Chad Kassem (owner) has produced some of the finest recordings one could ever want on his APO label @ Blue Heaven Studios.

On a recent visit with the Martin Logan Owners group we were given the 'Grand' tour of the Church which hosts the semi-annual Blues gathering and recording sessions. It was remarkable, so if any of you have any interest whatsoever in the Blues I suggest you pick up a recording or two under the aforementioned label and prepare yourself to be impressed !!

[joetama]

If you listen to some well mixed albums/groups you can still find good quality CDs. You just have to watch...

I will avoid some Producers/Engineers when I buy albums... LAWL

[dtb300]

All formats - Vinyl, CD, Tape, etc. can sound bad if not done right as there is no "best" format - just what each person likes best.

Each format has its own quirks and limitations that a recording engineer needs to be aware of to do the recording properly.

[joetama]

We'll I think the only way you can say vinyl has an edge here is older recordings usually didn't have this issue...

And, most of the new release stuff on vinyl has been setup correctly and not over run.

[twitch54]

All formats - Vinyl, CD, Tape, etc. can sound bad if not done right as there is no "best" format - just what each person likes best.

Each format has its own quirks and limitations that a recording engineer needs to be aware of to do the recording properly.

Dan, I agree, but............ there is FAR more Crap (I'm talking recording quality) that is currently being released today on CD versus what is CURRENTLY be released and or re-released on LP. Again there is excellent material being recorded and mastered on CD, I just feel as others do, that there is a fair amount of poorly mastered digital today, whereas what vinyl that is produced today tends to be done at a more "Quality Conscious" level. This is part of the resurgence of the vinyl format, IMO.

[dtb300]

Could be these "re-release" of vinyl titles was done from the masters originally done for Vinyl - it would be interesting to know this.

Now, take a master done for vinyl and put it out on CD and it will sound like crud - this was the main problem with CD in the early years.

Just because it is on vinyl does not assure one of "Quality Conscious" level recording. Thinking this just helps all involved fall into the marketing trap of needing to pay more for the new vinyl release as it is "supposed" to be better. SACD, DVD-A can also fall into this trap, the type of medium does not equate to a better sounding recording.

Again a good engineer can put out a great sounding release, no matter the format. It depends on the amount of money the label is willing to put into it. Cheap budget, cheap recording, cheap results - this is the main problem with pop, rock releases.

Another thing which may contribute to poor sound is the multi-track type recordings which sound pretty bad, where each artists comes in and does their thing then then mash it all together. Compare these to recordings done back in the late 50's as an example where they all sat down and just played the entire cuts with minimal microphones. They certainly did not have better equipment and recording media back then compared to now.

Again my opinion is each format can sound like junk, and each format can sound great and each of us has our preferences on the prefered format. I do not try to convert anyone from one format to the other - just decide on what you like best, as each has their sonic drawbacks, and enjoy.

[Russ L]

I've bought 60 CDs over the last year or so. I've found 10 to be unlistenable. 4 To be compressed but just listenable. 14/60= 23% of the CDs are not Quality recordings. I can get a few dollars at the used CD store for each one. :cry: Just another cost of this hobby. -Russ

[bigburner]

I've bought 60 CDs over the last year or so. I've found 10 to be unlistenable.

Russ, would you mind listing those 10 unlistenable CDs for us?

Nigel.

[Russ L]

Russ, would you mind listing those 10 unlistenable CDs for us?

Nigel.

Sure...
Mario Frangoulis - "Follow your Heart" His first CD on Sony Classical "Sometimes I Dream" is one of my best recordings, so go figure? Duet with Justin Hayward of Moodys is very good.
Lang Lang - "Dragon Songs" on Deutche Grammophon. First 4 tracks recorded in Beijing with China Philharmonic Orchestra of the "Yellow River Piano Concerto" are terrible. Reason I bought the CD. They recorded his piano but not the orchestra. Barely audible in the background. Rest of CD fine.
Michael Buble-"Its Time" Love that lounge music, the Sinatra clones but compressed and distorted.
Los Lonely Boys -"Sacred" Mucho compressioso... Too bad 'cause great band. Sounds OK on my computer speakers tho.
Secret Garden - "Dawn of a New Century" Their first album "Secret Garden" a very good recording. A New Age Classic. Then they record a bomb just to fool you?!
London Symphony Orchestra - Elgar's "Dream of Geriontus"
Robbie Robertson - "Robbie Robertson"
Alicia Keys - "Diary of Alicia Keys"
Russell Watson- "Amore Musica" Amazing songs on this album but poor SQ just makes the whole affair a painful disservice to such high Quality arrangements and performance. A Decca Classics recording. His first 2 albums are superb recordings.
Sorry can't remember no. 10 as the CDs now reside at the used CD store. Regards, Russ

[wkhanna]

Thanks for taking the time to make that list, Russ, and for the comments on their SQ.

The Robbie Robertson, Alicia Keys and Los Lonely Boys are all albums I would have picked up in my frequent forays to used CD stores.

[bigburner]

Thanks Russ. The only CD I've got from your list is Los Lonely Boys - "Sacred". I'll have to have another listen to it. I do know that track 1 "My Way" did get a lot of radio play.

Nigel.

[Russ L]

I thought the Los Lonely Boys sounded good at first because the band and songs are so good but on closer listening there are no dynamics. All the instruments are at the same volume. -Russ

[comeup]

I really believe it's the artist have ya ever noticed that some artist stuff never sounds bad like Kenny G I believe he insist that his music sounds at its best in the studio. I think a lot of artist and production companies focus too much on sells and not quality then again how many people are there like us who care?

[David Meek]

I really believe it's the artist have ya ever noticed that some artist stuff never sounds bad

Sure, in some cases. If a musician/group has the power to specify how they want their music to sound, or if they have a dedicated producer/engineer that wants their music to sound better then they'll have it. If it's a studio exec (read "bean counter") calling the shots then it'll sound like the over-compressed crapola that's coming out en-masse.

Numnuts, they're all numnuts, and I'd like to. . . :frypan:

[Briz vegas]

Little bit off topic - but I have just read a book on the blues which talked about the various stages of recorded music in the past 100 years. It seems that the issue of quality music and the masses who follow trends like lossey MP3 has been around for ever.

In the 1920s there were popular blues records (race records) and then there was Delta blues, the "real deal" (for some) with a much smaller market. Records were not for collecting, they were throw away items back then. Eventually some people started to take an interest in collecting records but then the radio started to get more popular at the expense of record sales. By the 1940s phonographs were on the decline and record collections were being dumped on the second hand market.

Delta blues had its own small following who loved the relatively rare recordings and also the records themselves. Unlike jazz and other popular genres the delta blues recordings were more valued and grew in price for this reason.

Ok sound quality was not the issue back then (I am sure that phonographs and radio did not sound that different), but there has always been the recorded music enthusiasts vs the general public who buy whatever is trendy at the time because is is trendy, and trends will continue to come and go. Enthusiasts will always be a small part of the market, we will never be part of the mainstream, but we will always have our little niche - if not for the medium, for the music that we love.

I think there will always be a limited number of artists that care about sound quality and our niche market, but the majority will always go for the mainstream market. I just hope they remember the importance of a physical medium, collecting HD music files may give unheard of music quality (as discussed on B&Ws new web site) but collecting something physical is a very human thing to do - more so than collecting files on a hard drive that you cannot flick through on a rainy afternoon when you should be out mowing the dog or whatever other pointless little jobs are going.

[spyboy]

Vinyl may sound great, however vinyl suffers from all kinds of euphonic distortion. This was confirmed many years ago in scientific tests. Some track on vinyl are out of phase.

Vinyl can't manage the dynamic range of CD. The bass grooves have to be very very large. They have to constrict the dynamic range on vinyl because the stylus and the grooves can't handle really wide range dynamics.

There are all kinds of myths about vinyl. The pops and ticks killed vinyl for me. I am not going to spend $300 on a cleaning machine, or $2,500 on turntable and cartridge.

The producers of CDs can made CDs sound any way they want. They can give them a really flat FR, however, really flat FR doesn't have enough bass.

I have one LP, but if it ever becomes available on CD, I would buy it right away.

All the Best

[Alaric]

I am not going to spend $300 on a cleaning machine, or $2,500 on turntable and cartridge.

Yet , $3000 for a CD player isn't outrageous , is it? I'm going to guess you are under 30 years of age and got you're "dynamic range" info from a CD player manufacturer. If the 'producers of CDs' can make them sound any way they want , why are people still buying vinyl and turntables? CDs are the FM of music. They are the mass-market , do-all , be-all. They are rapidly being replaced by mp3 crap-because most of the market doesn't care about sound quality. There will always be a (small) market for vinyl and audiophile CDs .
My CD player is likely "better" than my turntable , in a apples/apples oranges/oranges contest , and I have a few good CDs . However , my Pink Floyd Dark Side Of The Moon album still sounds better than my SACD of same. Also true of my Elton John's Madman Across The Water album vs. SACD.

I guess my point is , believe none of what you read and half of what you see.

[Russ L]

I am not going to spend $300 on a cleaning machine, or $2,500 on turntable and cartridge. All the Best

Its true that Cds have higher highs and lower bass than vinyl but that not as important as the analog sound you get from a vinyl record. Until the advent of some lower priced players like the remarkable Cambridge audio 840C CD player one had to spend $3000+ to get anything close to the analog sound of vinyl. Vinyl sound fills the room with music that sounds live despite the lack of bass. The music soars is perhaps the best way to describe it.The dynamics in vinyl are much better because of compression used in many CDs. Unfortunately the sound degrades over time. But don't use cleaning machines that helps the process. Just put the lid down on the turntable. Any other dust will be pushed aside by the needle. Problems start when you start gunking up the vinyl with cleaning solutions and scratching it with "soft" cleaning brushes. Somewhat contrary to expectations, todays technology has improved the turntable and the record. As far as price, the Rega P3 turntable is only $695.00 and that includes a cartridge. And good vinyl lps are $20-$25. So give it a try for grain free fun. Regards, Russ

[joetama]

Its true that Cds have higher highs and lower bass than vinyl but that not as important as the analog sound you get from a vinyl record. Until the advent of some lower priced players like the remarkable Cambridge audio 840C CD player one had to spend $3000+ to get anything close to the analog sound of vinyl. Vinyl sound fills the room with music that sounds live despite the lack of bass. The music soars is perhaps the best way to describe it.The dynamics in vinyl are much better because of compression used in many CDs. Unfortunately the sound degrades over time. But don't use cleaning machines that helps the process. Just put the lid down on the turntable. Any other dust will be pushed aside by the needle. Problems start when you start gunking up the vinyl with cleaning solutions and scratching it with "soft" cleaning brushes. Somewhat contrary to expectations, todays technology has improved the turntable and the record. As far as price, the Rega P3 turntable is only $695.00 and that includes a cartridge. And good vinyl lps are $20-$25. So give it a try for grain free fun. Regards, Russ

Indeed...

[dknightd]

but collecting something physical is a very human thing to do - more so than collecting files on a hard drive that you cannot flick through on a rainy afternoon when you should be out mowing the dog or whatever other pointless little jobs are going.

You can easily spend many rainy days flipping through, and orginizing, a computer collection of music. Trust me.

[Briz vegas]

You can easily spend many rainy days flipping through, and orginizing, a computer collection of music. Trust me.

Maybe, but to me it only involves one sense. Something physical also involves touch, smell and even sound - much more for the brain to savour. I think records have even more of this sensation - although my old box of vinyl just makes me sneeze as it is just collecting dust - most of my records are so gunky they are unplayable despite me replacing them in their sleeves staight away way back when vinyl was still the norm

Ok one for computer files -they will not gather dust or get gunky (but they do get corrupted - I guess even computer files are physical at one level).

Delta blues 78s were worth a fortune (possibly more now) because collectors valued the music and the medium - this is not likely with computer files. This is not good or bad - it just depends what you like about collecting music - everyone ticks different boxes - sound quality, artists, singles, albums, eras, genres, memories, musicianship, album covers and liner notes, testosterone, or just groovy tunes............or all of the above.

[Briz vegas]

......and I still think clipping due to overuse of compression sucks (just to get this back on topic)

[PewterTA]

My biggest thing that we sort of got off on is not the fact of what media is best and gives the best sound.... I've gotten a few people not knowing they were listening to Mp3s because they "can" sound that good. It's amazing what codecs like Lame can accomplish.

Yes you do loose quality, I'm not denying that...but it doesn't have to SOUND bad because of that. I have all of my CDs in two formats, Mp3 and .bin/.cue (well three formats since they are on CD as well). My Mp3s are created with Lame 3.98b2 (I think it's that version) using a modified setting putting most of my files around 230 - 250Kbit rate (VBR of course). For almost ALL but the most critical of listening, no one can really tell if they are just listening to music. Which to me, is about 70% of the time while I use the computer, clean, or whatever...

My point to this all, is the fact that even in the .mp3 or .bin (image of the disc) version as well as the actual CD in my CDP, they all SOUND very identical. The CDs that have dynamics to them, STILL have dynamics to them in MP3 format. While the Mp3 has a slightly less dynamic sense (on a very small level), I've found that now since my Rotel RSP-1098 can decode Mp3s, they sound very similar to how my Cambridge Audio 640c V2 plays the same CD. The difference I really hear more than the format they are in is the differences in the DACs of the 1098 vs 640c.
--------------------------------------

So my real problem is the fact that all these engineers and producers are creating "crap" from the beginning. I think Russ hit it right on the head with the Los Lonely Boys CD. At first it does sound amazing and IS a really good CD. But the more you listen to it everything IS at the same level, the trumpets and all other instruments in the songs have no dynamics to them. There is some sound stage presence as to the location of the instruments, but even that's not all that great. When I compare this to something that does have a lot of good dynamics (like Dave Matthews Band - Crush), there is a noticeable difference in presentation. You definitely 'feel' like you are there listening to them play in the studio...just close your eyes and listen.

To me there are very little CDs these days that have this type of "quality" to the music... course part of that could be the fact that there's really not quality music out there... or the fact that most music is synthesized now-a-days... lol.

I guess I'm frustrated as a consumer that is wanting quality music and wanting the bands/music I listen to, to BE quality sounding and not getting it.

It's a shame we don't have more people out there (in the recording industry) that push more for quality than just making the tracks as loud as they can be so they "stand out" on the radio/mainstream music channels...

[Russ L]

We Want Our Old Profit Margins Back!

I think that the music industry is responding to all the downloading thats going on.
They're not making the same amount of money as before. I saw a recent interview with David Foster (as you probably know a big CD producer). Does Celine Dion, Michael Buble, Andrea Bocelli etc. He said that music is doing great these days but the CD business isn't-not enough sales. To compete with downloads he said that( I paraphrase)"we will have to turn CDs into Big Macs but I'm not sure how...". In other words make them even cheaper to buy. We've seen recent price reductions and a further reduction will have to mean more cutbacks in production value and more attempts to sell CDs at the cost of quality EX: compression used to increase sales. I don't know about you but I don't want a cheap ol' Big Mac spinning in my expensive CD player! :cry: On the bright side I think we may see a rise in quality independent recordings. Artists like Aimee Mann have her own label Superego Records. Actually great to hear an uncompressed Rock CD for a change! Lost in Space and Bachelor #2 are excellent recordings. She got tired of the producers in the music biz and started her own label. Hopefully more will follow in her direction. :T -Russ

[PewterTA]

Then why not have the recording industry use lossless compression like Monkey Audio or FLAC... this way there's NO quality loss, no CDs sold and if you want to make a CD, then you are free to make it and use it in your CDP... To me that almost solves all the problems.

Yeah I know there's copy issues and loss of CD inserts and what not...but hey, I'm trying to be a forward thinker....

[seeker]

A key point missing from the article is the reason why record producers want to compress their music to make it louder. The main reason is to make it stand out from other music when it is played on the radio, or at least to make it as loud as the other music so it doesn't get ignored.

If you listen to music that doesn't get played on the radio then compression is less likely to be a problem for you. There are heaps of albums that never get to see the inside of a radio station, so my advice to members is to get some of that music.

Nigel.

Well said and 'amen' to your suggestion.
And here are a couple of links for further details:
Dynamic range compression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_level_compression
Loudness war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

[seeker]

The dynamics in vinyl are much better because of compression used in many CDs. Unfortunately the sound degrades over time. But don't use cleaning machines that helps the process. Just put the lid down on the turntable. Any other dust will be pushed aside by the needle. Problems start when you start gunking up the vinyl with cleaning solutions and scratching it with "soft" cleaning brushes. Regards, Russ

Well, here is what the experts say about cleaning and storing vinyl.

http://www.loc.gov/preserv/care/record.html

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byauth/st-laurent/care.html

[wildfire99]

What if CD's just cost less? They're insanely cheap to make, what if you could go to a store and pick them up for $4.99 each? Would that increase sales, hurt profits, or make no difference?

Personally, such a move would prompt me to buy music again. There are so many artists that it has become a commodity without the commodity pricing.

Or would it make more sense to simply go for digital downloads in a serious way, with every album available for that kind of pricing direct from the music studios, with a more 'premium' lossless version that is better than CD for say, $7.99 an album?

All of this of course without DRM so that you can use the tracks anywhere.

[cobbpa]

What if CD's just cost less? They're insanely cheap to make, what if you could go to a store and pick them up for $4.99 each? Would that increase sales, hurt profits, or make no difference?

Personally, such a move would prompt me to buy music again. There are so many artists that it has become a commodity without the commodity pricing.

Or would it make more sense to simply go for digital downloads in a serious way, with every album available for that kind of pricing direct from the music studios, with a more 'premium' lossless version that is better than CD for say, $7.99 an album?

All of this of course without DRM so that you can use the tracks anywhere.

Interesting thought! Think of it, if a CD album only cost $5 and there was actually INCENTIVE to not download individual songs. "Well if it's a few bucks to download the songs I like, why not just buy the album?" That's what I'd expect most consumers to think. They'll never really stop all free downloading, but that would obviously increase album sales, but is it enough to up profits? Tough to tell I suppose.

Of course, more in line with this thread, I'm sure we would still gladly pay a premium for better recordings. I really don't have a problem paying the $19 Telarc charges for a good SACD, or a few extra bucks of most titles for something I've researched online and know will be a good investment & enjoyable. A lot of the other music I listen to is out of smaller labels / studios, but much of it is captive to gross compression too. Song after song, the same volume..blehh.