add to wish list | library


45 of 52 recommend this,
would you recommend it?

yes | no

 

Discussion: Genesis 1976-1982

Posts: 79
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 next

Post by claypool June 17, 2007 (51 of 79)
Old Hack said:

I am a recording engineer. Not only have I seen the inside of a studio, I own one.

However, it is not this that determines the value of my opinion that these recordings are drastically over compressed.

It is more down to the fact that I have a half-decent pair of ears, and I can HEAR the dynamic compression like anyone else with half-decent ears.

The fact that because YOU don't get it, and so feel the need to drag down those that do, kind of makes YOU pathetically sad.

Well said, Old Hack. I agree completely. You don't need an analysis tool to hear this amount of compression. You can hear it easily if you just listen...

But what you said about these being compressed at the mastering stage...I've read some opinions that the biggest damage had already been done in the mixing process.

Post by racerguy June 17, 2007 (52 of 79)
Old Hack said:

I am a recording engineer. Not only have I seen the inside of a studio, I own one.

However, it is not this that determines the value of my opinion that these recordings are drastically over compressed.

It is more down to the fact that I have a half-decent pair of ears, and I can HEAR the dynamic compression like anyone else with half-decent ears.

The fact that because YOU don't get it, and so feel the need to drag down those that do, kind of makes YOU pathetically sad.

A recording engineer? Gee, that's so nice for you. I see that you're quite humble about it.

FYI, you aren't the only one here (if you really are anything more that some guy with a hard disk recording setup in his basement). You do seem to be the only one who knows everything about everything, though.

You've taken an impressive amount of cheap shots at people in this thread, and made unsubstantiated claims as if they were fact. Since you are making the claim that Tony Cousins is a "lesser mastering engineer," I'd like to see a verifiable list of the major artists you've recorded. Without establishing such credibility, you're just another Big Talker on the Internet. And that is the definition of "pathetically sad."

Post by Old Hack June 18, 2007 (53 of 79)
racerguy said:

A recording engineer? Gee, that's so nice for you. I see that you're quite humble about it.

FYI, you aren't the only one here (if you really are anything more that some guy with a hard disk recording setup in his basement). You do seem to be the only one who knows everything about everything, though.

You've taken an impressive amount of cheap shots at people in this thread, and made unsubstantiated claims as if they were fact. Since you are making the claim that Tony Cousins is a "lesser mastering engineer," I'd like to see a verifiable list of the major artists you've recorded. Without establishing such credibility, you're just another Big Talker on the Internet. And that is the definition of "pathetically sad."

What? I haven't taken cheap shots at 'people', only Tony Cousins (although it's interesting what Claypool mentioned about the damage being done at the mixing stage, which to be fair may be the case - but it doesn't sound like it. Mastering limiting has a very distinct sound, and that kind of limitation is really not added at the pre-master stage, otherwise the mastering engineer wouldn't have much of a job left to do).

I also made a point that the fact that I am a recording engineer does NOT qualify me to make these judgements, only my ears! The only reason I mentioned my job was because you critisized another person who commented on the compression - you said they don't know what they are talking about because they've 'never seen the inside of a studio'. It wasn't meant as a brag - studio engineers are two a penny in the city in which I live.

My only point was that obviously I have seen a studio (as many have) and so was giving support to the original poster by countering your crass comment.

I repeat, my working in a studio was not meant as a big deal, it was in response to you calling another person 'pathetically sad' just for expressing an opinion having probably never seen the inside of a studio. And now you felt the need to do it to me because I work in one. Hmmm, sounds like YOU'RE the sad one on this forum.

By the way, I checked out your list of sound equipment - seriously, very nice.

Post by racerguy June 18, 2007 (54 of 79)
Old Hack said:

What? I haven't taken cheap shots at 'people', only Tony Cousins




The only reason I mentioned my job was because you critisized another person who commented on the compression - you said they don't know what they are talking about because they've 'never seen the inside of a studio'.

My only point was that obviously I have seen a studio (as many have) and so was giving support to the original poster by countering your crass comment.

I repeat, my working in a studio was not meant as a big deal, it was in response to you calling another person 'pathetically sad' just for expressing an opinion. And now you felt the need to do it to me too. THAT is sad.

Yes, you took a cheap shot at Tony Cousins, and attempted to bolster it with claims of being an industry professional. You still haven't offered anything in the way of credibility to back up your position. Tony Cousins is a well-respected professional, with an impressive resume and a long list of well-known recordings by major artists under his belt. And you?

Your claim that I criticized a poster here on SACD.net regarding his comment about compression is wrong. Before you start slinging insults directed at specific people, you really ought to be sure of what it is someone is saying. Be aware of context. Perhaps you should go ponder this, rather than continue making yourself look like an ass.

Post by Old Hack June 18, 2007 (55 of 79)
racerguy said:

I have seen posters insist that a narrow dynamic range, which is the natural result of mixing down a multi-track, is a clear sign of post-production compression.

Racerguy, please don't think I am deliberately targeting you - as far as I am concerned it is all water under the bridge.

But I'd be interested to learn where you heard that a narrow dynamic range is a 'natural result of mixing down a multi-track'.

That is not the case, especially in this digital age. But applying compression to the individual tracks, and then to the whole mix at mastering stage, is what narrows the dynamic range.

This is NOT a bad thing, it is entirely necessary (as I'm sure you know). But when used to excess, that's when things start sounding flat and lifeless.

Generally, an over-squashed dynamic range on a commercial CD/SACD is indeed a sure sign of post-production (mastering) compression/limiting.

Regardless of the cause, it's a mystery to most of us (having read many interesting comments) why this extra heavy compression trend has taken off in the last 10-15 years or so, but it has, and many of us think it sucks because the music suffers.

Post by Old Hack June 18, 2007 (56 of 79)
racerguy said:

Yes, you took a cheap shot at Tony Cousins, and attempted to bolster it with claims of being an industry professional. You still haven't offered anything in the way of credibility to back up your position. Tony Cousins is a well-respected professional, with an impressive resume and a long list of well-known recordings by major artists under his belt. And you?

Your claim that I criticized a poster here on SACD.net regarding his comment about compression is wrong. Before you start slinging insults directed at specific people, you really ought to be sure of what it is someone is saying. Be aware of context. Perhaps you should go ponder this, rather than continue making yourself look like an ass.

Jeez, come on man, lighten up! I quoted you! You called another poster 'pathetically sad'! I know there was more to it (about interperating results of analyses, etc) but that is hardly the point.

And as for offering evidence to back up my so-called 'credibility' - why the hell should I justify myself to you! On the one hand you call me a big talker (simply for me saying I'm a sound engineer) and then you actually ask me to state who I've worked with, as if encouraging me to brag. Maybe in another conversation, under a less confrontational mood, I will be happy to share my work history with you (and it's not that great, don't get me wrong - but not all that bad either, at least I think so). But following your tone, it's just not the right time my friend. Give me a break!

Post by racerguy June 18, 2007 (57 of 79)
Old Hack said:

Jeez, come on man, lighten up! I quoted you! You called another poster 'pathetically sad'!




And as for offering evidence to back up my so-called 'credibility' - why the hell should I justify myself to you! On the one hand you call me a big talker (simply for me saying I'm a sound engineer) and then you actually ask me to state who I've worked with, as if encouraging me to brag. Maybe in another conversation, under a less confrontational mood, I will be happy to share my work history with you (and it's not that great, don't get me wrong - but not all that bad either, at least I think so). But following your tone, it's just not the right time my friend. Give me a break!

You make me laugh! You really, should have done as I suggested in my previous post, instead of plowing ahead and further embarrassing yourself. Just FYI, I did not call any poster in this thread pathetically sad, despite your protestations. Your reading comprehension truly sucks.

You certainly don't need to try to justify yourself to me - especially since you can't. I do find it humorous when a basement recordist puts on airs and badmouths respected professionals. Envy is an ugly thing, but it can be quite entertaining to watch!

Now, if you really want me to give you a break, perhaps you should go back and reread the posts that you have obviously misunderstood.

Post by racerguy June 18, 2007 (58 of 79)
Old Hack said:

But I'd be interested to learn where you heard that a narrow dynamic range is a 'natural result of mixing down a multi-track'.

That is not the case, especially in this digital age. But applying compression to the individual tracks, and then to the whole mix at mastering stage, is what narrows the dynamic range.

Again you take something completely out of context. Oh well. I see that you can't help it.

Where did I learn this? In the studio, by doing it. It is a natural result of mixing down an ANALOG multi-track, which happens to be how many, if not most pop/rock recordings done prior to the mid 1980s were recorded. I'm well aware that mixing digitally recorded tracks in the digital domain doesn't create this effect. Analog is different than digital.

One would think that a big-time recording engineer like yourself who is so talented and knowledgeable would know these things.

Post by MichaelCPE June 19, 2007 (59 of 79)
We will never agree to like the same things.

But we should be able to agree about how the Genesis multi-channel SACDs compare to other similar material.

The quiet bits have been made much louder (which some take as increased clarity), and the loud bits have been very compressed. This makes these SACDs sound closer to todays "loud" CDs.

Some people like this "modern" sound.

Unfortunately I find these new SACDs unlistenable.

What I mean by 'listenable' is that I sit down and try to listen to the whole disc (while not doing anything else). A good recording of good music keeps my attention. At the end I am still just listening - I am still immersed in the music, and if anything, would like to turn the volume louder. And after listening to the whole album I am so enjoying music that I immediately want to put some more music on.

When a recording is over compressed I find that I cannot keep paying the music attention. After a while I pick up something to read or browse at the computer. And while I might have started listening fairly loud, I have been turning the volume down. And when the disc finishes I am not wanting to immediately play some more music.

Listen to only a few minutes of the Genesis and it might to many sound good. Have it all on at a low level as background while you are doing something else, and it may also sound OK. But I wonder how many of those who say the new SACDs sound good have sat down and just listened to the whole album?

I think you need an educated ear to quickly hear that a recording is over compressed. But I think the fatigue of listening to overcompressed music happens to most. I think that it is very likely that over compressed music is one reason why young people no longer sit and listen to music.

Cheers,
Michael

Post by amatala June 19, 2007 (60 of 79)
I fully agree with you, Michael. I actually agree with everything you wrote.
I am no trained professional, but I try to spend a couple of hours every day listening to an album or watching a concert on DVD without doing anything else at the same time.
So you can imagine my disappointment when I came home with my newly acquired Genesis SACD Box, I sat down on my sofa placed and played "Trick of the Tail" in multichannel for the first time... After less than two minutes I stopped and pulled the disc out... Something was terribly wrong: the sound was too harsh and clear, the louder passages lacked impact... I had to check my system by playing another SACD which I knew sounded well... My system played the other disc just fine...
In the meanwhile I managed to get over the first shock and listen to all the SACDs in the Genesis Box, but none of them managed to provide an unforgettable listening experience... The only thing these discs can make you dream of is how good these albums could have sounded on a really well mastered SACD.
This is the only fact which can be considered "pathetically sad"...

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 next

Closed