Sound quality in modern music

I know that middle-aged folks listening to rap music in their Crown Vics scare the hell out of me.

 

Hey Pinknik,
You wouldn't catch me lookin' too hard out my side windows either.

 

Re: rap

I know where you're trying to go with this but it ain't gonna work! The rap scene is no more corrupt than any other segment of the music business.

Don't let your dislike of some rap music cause you to judge the whole scene and it's people. Remember, the rap music that many object to represents a very small part of the whole rap scene. It's just unfortunate that a lot of what many consider objectionable is what the teens and twentysomething males buy.

 

Re: Re: rap

I'm an exception.

 

rap

Grant;

I asked those questions because I didn't know much about it.
I took it there because I didn't understand why being able to use music
to intimidate would be a reason to buy any particular album and how this could become a marketing angle (the sales you mentioned.) The mainstream music industry is a marketing sham to be sure. Pushing the hot ticket like junk food to 15 year olds. Getting them hooked on a product and manipulating (somewhat) their buying habits as much as they can. And the crappy way they stamp out the physical product.

Djose

 

Not sonically, that's for sure. It's compressed to hell.

 

Interesting that you mention that, as it seems the majority of overcompressed recordings are not bright but somewhat muddy. Seems that in most cases clean clear highs just cannot exist in that environment and the rest of the treble is squashed.

 

Re: rap

Think of it this way, artists like Eminem, Alice Cooper, Kiss, and Marylin Manson crafted their music and image to shock parents or "the establishment". Same thing as with rap. I deal with teenagers and I can tell you that many of them listen to music because they know it pisses of a certain segment of society, even as they like the stuff. Once upon a time people listened to rock & roll and R&B to achieve the same thing.
How many adults steeped in the likes of Nat King Cole or Johnny Mathis blew a gasket when they were assulted with the music of Little Richard or The Beatles?


Getting back to the point I was making, the sound of something does have an effect on your body. Depending on your temperment, something loud and "in your face" can make the adreneline pump through the body and make one tense or even angry. Sometimes, the music we listen to reflects our personality and mood. When we turn up Metallica we want others to hear our agressiveness, we want them to hear the power. Rap is not supposed to be soothing or agreeable. If it doesn't cause intimidation or agressive feelings, the music is considered weak and probably won't sell as well to disenfranchised youth. Think if Public Enemy's albums were mixed and mastered preserving all the dynamic range and breath of life? You think many people would have listened?

 

I think that rap music (although I HATE it) sounds great, production-wise. It might be compressed, and loud- but it works incredibly well for that type of music. Why is it then that so much of the nu-metal/angry rock sounds so tepid, muddy and tame? Shouldn't the production be as "in-your-face" as rap? Listening to a label promotional sampler that has both rap and nu-metal, the rap tracks sound so much better (but remember, I HATE rap... ). Wouldn't it be ideal to have the rock track mixed similarly? It is possible. Guns N' Roses is one artist that has incredible production, especially the "Use Your Illusions". None of the nu-metal coming out makes me want to rock out- the only reason to "turn it up" is to decrease the muddiness and try to get some sense of seperation. That ain't no way to rock!


nashreed

 

Over the past five years, the most incredible current recording of undeniable audiophile quality that I've heard is Nickel Creek "Nickel Creek." From the past ten years, Ry Cooder & V.M. Bhatt’s “A Meeting by the River” is pretty nice as well.

 

rap

Well Grant, seems as though you've given this a lot of thought.
This could beg the question- If this is the usefullness of music for the young
will they find other uses later on..........

Djose

 

All popular music is compressed. The trend lately is to limit the living daylights out of it, so it's all loud, with little nuance. I believe rap is as much caught up in the trend as a trend setter. Fer instance, Ice Cube's Death Certificate, my favoritest rap album of them all is actually fairly dynamic. There are quiet sound effects moments, but even the overall beat has room to breath and pulse. It is, at the same time, fairly beligerent music, and to my ears, produced with a lot more talent than most of today's rap. I think it was an early 90's production. It's a shame, but it seems to me like modern popular sound was improving around this time, with the digital gear's sound finally starting to fill out without the thin, bass shy flatness that always gave it away. Then the new hard limiting trend comes in, and pow, the sound is irritating again. You can hear that some of them have good fidelity in there, if only they'd been allowed to breath. I wonder if my current situation would actually be better or worse if I had the money to spend on really nice gear.

 

I TOTALLY concur! I think that early 90's CD's probably sound the best on the whole, as an "era".
I don't have super high-end equipment, but what I have is really sensitive to sonic flaws and bad production, so I too have wondered about that. I think it just gets worse the more high-end you go. Has anybody with the real mega $$$'s system made "Californcation" sound good?

nashreed

 

Rap...Music?...It' does not compute. Most Music of today is LOUD and SHRILL...Very high peak levels. Oouch! I do enjoy Aimee Mann and Mathew Sweet though...That's as far as today's music goes...although they are borderline of yesterday.

 

The few Beck albums I've picked up sound, IMO pretty good, especially the vinyl. One of the best ones is "Mutations" on Bongload!

 

What peaks? They are all shaved off with compression and limiting!

 

More modern music

Your discussion seems to centering upon a small (and to my mind rather middle of the road and lame) set modern music and comparing it to the peak of the 1950's,60's and 70's output then drawing the conclusion that the older stuff is better. Seems somehow unfair! Why not compare the Bay City Rollers, or the Captain and Tenille with the Beach Boys, it seems about as valid.

If you wish to try out good modern recording with tons of dynamics, slam impact and clarity try:

Yello - Baby.

Moloko - I am not a doctor.

Both have infra sonic bass by the bucket load too.

"I don't have super high-end equipment, but what I have is really sensitive to sonic flaws and bad production, so I too have wondered about that. I think it just gets worse the more high-end you go."


Not in my opinion, the better the system the better the sound. My experience is systems that merely show up how bad recordings are, are in fact just bad systems. Most recordings have their merits, a good system draws these out and make the music enjoyable in spite of technical foibles..

"Has anybody with the real mega $$$'s system made "Californcation" sound good?"

On the other hand, the world is governed by the rules of Physics. Isaac Newton himself said "Californication shall sound bad at all times". And he was right!

 

Re: More modern music

I don't think so! The majority of new releases suffer from this. I also have local or independant CD releases that are level maximized. Load your favorite CDs into an audio editor and see what we mean. Sure, many are boosted to some extent, but many more are so bad the wave looks like a two-by-four.

 

My take on this is,


First, Anybody has the ability these days to make their own records.
All the equipment available now for not much money let's anybody have
their own studio. They record, produce, engineer, mix, master,(badly)
everything. a lot of today's music is made by a lot of people who don't have a
clue what the hell they are doing. In the good ole day's, artist's had to go to major labels and studios to record and the people who ran them knew what they were doing (most anyway's)
Second is, With all the digital this, digital that, everything is mostly recorded
direct thru amp, mic, vocal simulaters. so there is no dynamics like you would
get from true good mic placement and room ambience because it's all in a box now. Push a button, instant this or that!
Third, Talent, talent, talent, kinda goes with first paragraph i think?
Of course it's good that artist's don't have to rely totally on major labels these
days with all the home gear available. Hey i'm a musician and i love the fact that i can record top quality stuff myself ( sonically speaking of course! ) but there's no
substitute for experience in mastering and engineering.
Now there are exceptions in todays music and we can tell who is getting it right.
Who has talent and who does not. Easily i think!


BTW this is my first post and i want to say i really enjoy this forum. Iv'e learned a lot
from all you people here. It's nice to know their are others out there as anal about their music as me. Keep up the good work Steve! It's much appreciated.............

Scott

 

What a first post! Great points all around!

What you've described here have been my experiences as well. Of course, most of the new music I buy is on small labels (Metal Blade, Inside Out, Magna Carta, Favored Nations, Zebra). Although, FWIW, some of it has been mastered by big name guys.

For convenience, look at King's X. After the switch to Metal Blade, it's been one person producing, engineering, mixing, and mastering. In his spare time, he does the cover art, writes, sings, and plays guitar. Equipment is cheap, so -- as you said -- he has his own studio full of digital stuff. Digital is good for some things, but it's not the most forgiving format when it comes to, say, distortion.

Excellent point about playing a real live amp, too. Said person has made the move to POD's, with questionable results in tone. I guess it's a lot more convenient.

 

Yeah? Well what about major label releases by major acts that sound like Californiafication????

 

I can generally only speak to the smaller labels and less mainstream artists. The only RHCP CD I have is Mother's Milk, and it's no sonic gem.

BTW, I wanted to mention something in my last post and it slipped my mind. I've been reading some old Van Halen interviews lately. Andy Johns produced "For Unlawful..." for them, but they wanted to mix their own live tapes after that for the "Right Here, Right Now" CD/video. Eddie and Alex got to work. After a month or two, they called in Andy again. They admitted that Andy's work was much better. I found it relieving that a big shot artist would admit that a big shot producer could get a much better sound -- although their live album is still a piece of crap!

 

Grant,
Try making a Standalone CDR copy,everything is maxed out. Years ago CDs almost never went to 0 and above.. Some peak into the red+1. That's what I meant OK!

 

More modern music

"I don't think so! The majority of new releases suffer from this. I also have local or independant CD releases that are level maximized. Load your favorite CDs into an audio editor and see what we mean. Sure, many are boosted to some extent, but many more are so bad the wave looks like a two-by-four"

Well maybe I'm lucky. Or maybe its because I tend to buy vinyl. I don't hear much 'buzzsaw' distortion.

"Second is, With all the digital this, digital that, everything is mostly recorded
direct thru amp, mic, vocal simulaters. so there is no dynamics like you would
get from true good mic placement and room ambience because it's all in a box now. "

Have a listen to Is a Woman by Lambchop. Real musicians, in a real room, playing live. Nice recording too.