Neil Young has issues with the MacBook Pro and he's eager to tell you about it.

1

1_rick

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
5,397
Neil Young says the MacBook Pro has ‘Fisher-Price’ audio quality
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/28/...t-interview-phil-baker-book-pono-hi-res-audio

"It’s not about money. It’s not about hits. It’s about quality. It’s about sound. It’s about museum quality. It’s about the real thing. The facts. The real sound. What happened when you opened your mouth and sang? What went into the air? That’s what we’re not getting with the new technology."

He contends the audio subsystem is garbage and you need an external DAC.

There's also a 45-minute podcast/interview at the link.
 
1_rick said:
Neil Young says the MacBook Pro has ‘Fisher-Price’ audio quality
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/28/...t-interview-phil-baker-book-pono-hi-res-audio

"It’s not about money. It’s not about hits. It’s about quality. It’s about sound. It’s about museum quality. It’s about the real thing. The facts. The real sound. What happened when you opened your mouth and sang? What went into the air? That’s what we’re not getting with the new technology."

He contends the audio subsystem is garbage and you need an external DAC.

There's also a 45-minute podcast/interview at the link.
Click to expand...
I didn't watch (and I don't use a macbook), but do people expect great sound from notebook computers?

And while I like Neil, this is the same guy who keeps saying vinyl sounds better than a CD, when given the same master, the CD will never sound worse than vinyl, at least not on equipment that normal people actually own.
 
nilepez said:
I didn't watch (and I don't use a macbook), but do people expect great sound from notebook computers?

And while I like Neil, this is the same guy who keeps saying vinyl sounds better than a CD, when given the same master, the CD will never sound worse than vinyl, at least not on equipment that normal people actually own.
Click to expand...

Don't think that is what Neil has said at all... he is a proponent of hi res digital music. What he keeps saying... and what he put his money behind. Pono failed of course... but he was never wrong. Compression is cancer, and 44.1khz isn't hi quality. CDs are not terrible... and Vinyl is not "better". Its also not worse given high quality fresh vinyl. There are differences which one can hear beyond just the "Warm" effect people claim. Vinyl is capable of more frequency range... and CDs are capable of more dynamic range. Of course Vinyl will wear out with plays... and CDs won't rot out for years. CD clearly has a lot of advantages... especially for newer recordings. Fully digital modern recordings use modern mics with freq and dynamic range to match digital formats... few artists record analog anymore. Mics that record freq above the CD limit of 22.5khz are rare (cause yes most, perhaps all humans can't hear anything above 20). Still having listened to a lot of older high quality analog recordings pressed on premium vinyl... there is something to Vinyl being superior. Something about the bass and the separation of recorded instruments and voices just sounds more pronounced to me anyway. (but whatever its subjective... on paper CDs are superior, in my experience a a good mid range player on the same setup vinyl sounds different in a good way. Technically the CD is probably the better format still a good record is the closest I have gotten to live music without the live music. :) )

Point is Neil says MP3s and other compressed formats are BAD I don't recall him ever talking up Vinyl (he sold his own flac player)... and CDs are early 1980s tech that should be updated. Which is why he wanted to sell people 192 khz / 24 bit uncompressed or better recordings. He feels the old high end Analog masters deserve the higher bit rate... and newer studios all record in at least 192/24 and dither things down to 44.1 for CDs and streaming. As good as the algorithms are to do that... there is no doubt 96/24 sounds better as long as you have decent playback hardware. The shit stuff on laptops and on mother boards play 96/24 and sometimes 192/24 these days but they don't do it well... I guess that is his gripe with the Mac. But ya old man screaming into the wind. No laptop maker even Apple is going to include a 300 or 400 dollar DAC that would please someone like Neil. lol
 
Last edited:
ChadD said:
...and CDs are early 1980s tech that should be updated.
Click to expand...

It was updated, to a format superior to all others (SACD [DSD]) but it's a niche product because the majority of the population either a) naturally can't hear a difference, b) doesn't have playback equipment with sufficient fidelity to reveal the difference, or c) doesn't give a shit, while going around telling people who can hear the difference that they're "cork sniffers."

I'm leaning toward c based on how the majority is perfectly content with streaming video when Blu-ray/4k Blu-ray is vastly superior in both video and audio quality, and while I can understand that some may not be capable of hearing the difference in audio quality, the difference in video quality is quite obvious (and this is coming from a legally blind person).

We've reached a point where the masses said "good enough" and it has prevented superior formats from hitting the mainstream, thereby keeping its cost too high and limiting the available content.
 
I admit I like the sound of vinyl more than CDs, but I'm not willing to pay a premium for it. But when I listen to the few vinyls I have there is something to it that I can't feel from CD records.
 
prime2515102 said:
It was updated, to a format superior to all others (SACD [DSD]) but it's a niche product because the majority of the population either a) naturally can't hear a difference, b) doesn't have playback equipment with sufficient fidelity to reveal the difference, or c) doesn't give a shit, while going around telling people who can hear the difference that they're "cork sniffers."

I'm leaning toward c based on how the majority is perfectly content with streaming video when Blu-ray/4k Blu-ray is vastly superior in both video and audio quality, and while I can understand that some may not be capable of hearing the difference in audio quality, the difference in video quality is quite obvious (and this is coming from a legally blind person).

We've reached a point where the masses said "good enough" and it has prevented superior formats from hitting the mainstream, thereby keeping its cost too high and limiting the available content.
Click to expand...

Indeed superior format alone is never enough. Business first is always the bottom line.

I like to think of myself as a sane cork sniffer. lol I know technically cause I'm not a freaking moron that the CD format is superior in almost every way to vinyl. Where Vinyl wins really shouldn't technically be important. Yet there is something magical about a good vinyl setup with good quality newish media. Stuff like Monk and Miles sound fantastic of course... but I hate to admit it Thriller might the most drastic difference I have heard between CD and Vinyl, embarrassing but the first time I spun a new copy of Thriller on my mid range Pro-Ject I might have teared up. lol

Different strokes I guess... guess we all get picky with stuff we love. Gamers are the same way... the masses don't feel they need crazy high end rigs either cause they just don't see the difference. To me a $200 bottle of wine tastes as much like piss as a $10 bottle. Guess we all just sniff our own corks. lmao
 
Vinyl vs CD all depends on the master. Problem is most audio masters are now lossy due to record labels being stingy with storage capacity, stick a lossy master onto vinyl or CD and it's going to sound like ass.

Where as get a quality vinyl pressing from the 70's/80's and it can very well sound better than a digital medium on quality (not necessarily audiophile grade) gear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
I hope Neil Young will remember, a southern man don't need him around anyhow.

Count me in the "good enough" crowd. I can tell the differences between analog and digital, but my preference depends. When I'm on long car trips, there is only so much digital I can listen to from CD's or MP3's before my ears begin to be tired, and I have to switch to radio to give them a break.

But then again, maybe this critique by Mr. Young will help Apple lose some of the "because it's Apple" luster, and people will start looking at their products for what they actually are, not what they are marketed to be.
 
I wonder how many bits are adequate for rockin in the free world......????

upload_2020-1-30_8-39-11.png
 
Louis Rossman would probably agree. Neil Young isn't young anymore he's 74 years old his hearing could be going bad from all those years playing loud music.
 
I heard Mr. Young talk about her. Well I heard old Neil put her down. I hope Neil Young will remember an AppleFan don't need him around, anyhow.
 
Mazzspeed said:
Vinyl vs CD all depends on the master. Problem is most audio masters are now lossy due to record labels being stingy with storage capacity, stick a lossy master onto vinyl or CD and it's going to sound like ass.

Where as get a quality vinyl pressing from the 70's/80's and it can very well sound better than a digital medium on quality (not necessarily audiophile grade) gear.
Click to expand...

The early 70s - the mid 80s was the sweet spot. There is a reason today's kids are into 80s music. My 16 year old listens to more Queen and Bowie then I ever did. lol Those years where the height of analog recording technology and the sound is so much better then the overly compressed overly loud crap production of anything current. The early 90s till the 2000s give or take are responsible for some truly awful master quality recordings. Its a shame that some of the greatest acts of the 90s where recorded in early digital studios. Film and TV had the same issues... the earliest digital stuff in all mediums didn't age very well.
 
A simple curmudgeon if I ever heard one.... dude, just go record on analog tape and stop whining about obvious things like "MacBook needs an external DAC for best quality" ffs...

oh, that's right, you have nothing important to say, like a true artist that has lost touch and is now bitter about it and instead of looking inwards you blame things around you...

class act this one (an no, it's not projection, I sear HAHHA)

but all respect for his past work. I'm not sure I'm a fan, but for those who like his music, rock on for all I care...
 
Youn said:
A simple curmudgeon if I ever heard one.... dude, just go record on analog tape and stop whining about obvious things like "MacBook needs an external DAC for best quality" ffs...

oh, that's right, you have nothing important to say, like a true artist that has lost touch and is now bitter about it and instead of looking inwards you blame things around you...

class act this one (an no, it's not projection, I sear HAHHA)

but all respect for his past work. I'm not sure I'm a fan, but for those who like his music, rock on for all I care...
Click to expand...

Well he does have a bit of a personal hate for Apple in general. I'm sure he blames itunes for killing off his pono music store. I wouldn't be shocked to hear there was some behind the scenes Apple pressure on the record labels as well. Out of the gate the labels where on board with Neil... getting to charge for back catalogs again was fine with them. (they have managed to find that again in Vinyl to the same market for Pono/HDtracks) In any event no doubt I have a feeling Neil has a very special hate for Apple. lol
 
ChadD said:
Don't think that is what Neil has said at all... he is a proponent of hi res digital music. What he keeps saying... and what he put his money behind. Pono failed of course... but he was never wrong. Compression is cancer, and 44.1khz isn't hi quality. CDs are not terrible... and Vinyl is not "better". Its also not worse given high quality fresh vinyl. There are differences which one can hear beyond just the "Warm" effect people claim. Vinyl is capable of more frequency range... and CDs are capable of more dynamic range. Of course Vinyl will wear out with plays... and CDs won't rot out for years. CD clearly has a lot of advantages... especially for newer recordings. Fully digital modern recordings use modern mics with freq and dynamic range to match digital formats... few artists record analog anymore. Mics that record freq above the CD limit of 22.5khz are rare (cause yes most, perhaps all humans can't hear anything above 20). Still having listened to a lot of older high quality analog recordings pressed on premium vinyl... there is something to Vinyl being superior. Something about the bass and the separation of recorded instruments and voices just sounds more pronounced to me anyway. (but whatever its subjective... on paper CDs are superior, in my experience a a good mid range player on the same setup vinyl sounds different in a good way. Technically the CD is probably the better format still a good record is the closest I have gotten to live music without the live music. :) )

Point is Neil says MP3s and other compressed formats are BAD I don't recall him ever talking up Vinyl (he sold his own flac player)... and CDs are early 1980s tech that should be updated. Which is why he wanted to sell people 192 khz / 24 bit uncompressed or better recordings. He feels the old high end Analog masters deserve the higher bit rate... and newer studios all record in at least 192/24 and dither things down to 44.1 for CDs and streaming. As good as the algorithms are to do that... there is no doubt 96/24 sounds better as long as you have decent playback hardware. The shit stuff on laptops and on mother boards play 96/24 and sometimes 192/24 these days but they don't do it well... I guess that is his gripe with the Mac. But ya old man screaming into the wind. No laptop maker even Apple is going to include a 300 or 400 dollar DAC that would please someone like Neil. lol
Click to expand...

You'll have to show me a double blind test with vinyl using the exact same master as a CD and then being able to tell them apart, because I've never seen one where people can here that. MP3 vs CD? Sure, though you have to listen closely in most cases, but when I've done those tests, I've picked uncompressed 4/5 times.

As for vinyl, Neil was a big proponent of vinyl back in the 90s up until around the time he came started working on Pono.
 
ChadD said:
The early 70s - the mid 80s was the sweet spot. There is a reason today's kids are into 80s music. My 16 year old listens to more Queen and Bowie then I ever did. lol Those years where the height of analog recording technology and the sound is so much better then the overly compressed overly loud crap production of anything current. The early 90s till the 2000s give or take are responsible for some truly awful master quality recordings. Its a shame that some of the greatest acts of the 90s where recorded in early digital studios. Film and TV had the same issues... the earliest digital stuff in all mediums didn't age very well.
Click to expand...
Early digital is the early to mid 80s, not the 90s and I think recordings by Flim and the BBs still sound good. Maybe it'd have sounded better in analog, but I still listen to Tricycle and Neon (and I think Tricycle was recorded in 82).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
blame the loudness wars for the majority of crap digital music these days, no amount of great sounding DAC or expirements in 1bit/2.8224MHz (DSD) tech is gonna save from brick-walling sound waves into oblivion just to satisfy some A&R rep or scummy clueless producer-wannabe
 
nilepez said:
You'll have to show me a double blind test with vinyl using the exact same master as a CD and then being able to tell them apart, because I've never seen one where people can here that. MP3 vs CD? Sure, though you have to listen closely in most cases, but when I've done those tests, I've picked uncompressed 4/5 times.

As for vinyl, Neil was a big proponent of vinyl back in the 90s up until around the time he came started working on Pono.
Click to expand...

Show me a double blind test where more then a margin of Error can see the difference between a 4k and 8k screen that isn't 100 feet wide. To be honest techincally 99% of people shouldn't even be able to tell the difference between 1080p and 4k at around 6 feet away. The human eye simply can't resolve anymore detail then about 50 ppi at 6 feet. At cinema screen distances and sizes 4k is somewhere between 5-10 ppi which accedes the theoretical 7-8 ppi 99.9% of humans can actually see.

My only point is.... there are people that claim rightly or wrongly they can tell a difference. Audio just like Eye sight is limited by us... although there is a very small fraction of people that can see and hear better then the rest of us. I have no idea if I am part of a 0.1% of people that can tell the difference... but I have no doubt Vinyl is capable of better sound reduction then red book audio. Still as someone else pointed out its more about the mastering process then the media. Same is true for video formats... there is a big difference between perfectly mastered and cheap and dirty poorly mastered stuff. A poorly mastered overly compressed CD is going to sound like shit no matter what. And to defend CD a bit... no one is looking to master audiophile level stuff on CDs. Where as the modern audiophile Vinyl is being mastered by some of the best in the industry to max out the format. A dotted on master aimed to push Vinyl is going to sound better then the cookie cutter compressed volume cranked mastered getting burned on CDs these days.
 
Last edited:
nilepez said:
Early digital is the early to mid 80s, not the 90s and I think recordings by Flim and the BBs still sound good. Maybe it'd have sounded better in analog, but I still listen to Tricycle and Neon (and I think Tricycle was recorded in 82).
Click to expand...

Fair.... some of the mid 80s stuff is pretty terrible as well. At least the big names in the 80s where mostly still recorded on tape. :) And no doubt some of the earliest digital stuff was actually good. I think digital the way it happened... is the first digital studios where the show pieces the best of the best prototype level stuff... then a few years later they started mass producing it and all the smaller (cheaper) studios got that early mass produced less expensive stuff. For sure there is a stretch of a decade or so there where the majority of DDD recorded music was just bad.
 
ChadD said:
Who me a double blind test where more then a margin of Error can see the difference between a 4k and 8k screen that isn't 100 feet wide. To be honest techincally 99% of people shouldn't even be able to tell the difference between 1080p and 4k at around 6 feet away. The human eye simply can't resolve anymore detail then about 50 ppi at 6 feet. At cinema screen distances and sizes 4k 5-10 ppi which accedes the theoretical 7-8 ppi 99.9% of humans can actually see.

My only point is.... there are people that claim rightly or wrongly they can tell a difference. Audio just like Eye sight is limited by us... although there is a very small fraction of people that can see and hear better then the rest of us. I have no idea if I am part of a 0.1% of people that can tell the difference... but I have no doubt Vinyl is capable of better sound reduction then red book audio. Still as someone else pointed out its more about the mastering process then the media. Same is true for video formats... there is a big difference between perfectly mastered and cheap and dirty poorly mastered stuff. A poorly mastered overly compressed CD is going to sound like shit no matter what. And to defend CD a bit... no one is looking to master audiophile level stuff on CDs. Where as the modern audiophile Vinyl is being mastered by some of the best in the industry to max out the format. A dotted on master aimed to push Vinyl is going to sound better then the cookie cutter compressed volume cranked mastered getting burned on CDs these days.
Click to expand...
Nothing that's on vinyl can't be done on CD. The problem with modern masters is they do too much compression, which is exactly the opposite of what was originally intended with CD. The goal was to have a wide dynamic range, but starting around the early aughts that changed dramatically.
 
ChadD said:
Fair.... some of the mid 80s stuff is pretty terrible as well. At least the big names in the 80s where mostly still recorded on tape. :) And no doubt some of the earliest digital stuff was actually good. I think digital the way it happened... is the first digital studios where the show pieces the best of the best prototype level stuff... then a few years later they started mass producing it and all the smaller (cheaper) studios got that early mass produced less expensive stuff. For sure there is a stretch of a decade or so there where the majority of DDD recorded music was just bad.
Click to expand...
I can't speak to all 80s bands, but Rush was doing DDD by 85, and it's fine (and AFAIK, they continued doing almost all digital to the end, but definitely through Counterparts).

Overall, I can't say, because I generally think 80s pop is among the worse music of the rock era.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
nilepez said:
Nothing that's on vinyl can't be done on CD. The problem with modern masters is they do too much compression, which is exactly the opposite of what was originally intended with CD. The goal was to have a wide dynamic range, but starting around the early aughts that changed dramatically.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Its not that digital its not of course... redbook audio isn't even that bad. 44.1/16 bit is pretty damn good if the people doing the mastering take full advantage.

Today ya they aren't... where as a stupid over priced new chunk of Vinyl has been pressed on high quality modern presses, on thick sheets that get closer to that theoretical higher max freq range of Vinyl. The recordings are mastered with much more care then the mass market stuff... be it current CDs or even vintage Vinyl.

That was the main advantage of SACD. Which I wish hadn't died out. It was technically better... although it was proven that most people couldn't tell the difference. However being a "audiophile" format there was some fantastic high end remastered on the format that no doubt sounded better due to improved mastering.
 
Neil Young. Long time fan here. What a man with two honorary music doctorates and decades of studio experience knows about sound quality I cannot say. He is for improving things and I am all for it. For too long we have been subjected to compressed recordings and bass expanded to the moon geared toward ear buds and thimble-sized speakers.

Vinyl. Most studios go straight to digital now so only makes sense modern records will sound same as CD. Older albums recorded analog and transferred to the metal 'mother' disk for stamping will have their unique characteristics for sure. And those mother disks do wear out after many thousands of pressings. This is why audiophiles seek out original releases. Can say with absolute certainty my original 'Pecko Duck' (google that) copy of Led Zeppelin IV has much more sparkle than same album bought in the 80s. Too bad I didn't take better care of it in my youth though. Pops and crackles are part of the game.
 
Last edited:
nilepez said:
I can't speak to all 80s bands, but Rush was doing DDD by 85, and it's fine (and AFAIK, they continued doing almost all digital to the end, but definitely through Counterparts).

Overall, I can't say, because I generally think 80s pop is among the worse music of the rock era.
Click to expand...

Rush was ADD in 85. This one I do know.

84s Grace under pressure their 10th was the first album they recorded without Terry brown. They recorded it mostly themselves at Le Studio in Quebec on the studios 2 24 track Studers A800s. Le Studio was one of the first digital studios but they didn't install their Radar I until it was released in 1993.
85s Power windows their 11th album was recorded at Elora Sound Studios in Ontario recorded on a single 24 track Studer A800... but they where experimenting more with midi timing devices ect.
87s Hold your fire ... was their first partially digital recorded album. It was a 50/50 production. Everything was digital... accept the drums and base Neil at that time anyway preferred that on tape. It was converted when it was mixed. So its mostly digital true. And I agree it was well done.

Basically all their albums till the mid 90s where mix mashes... with digital and analog recording. They must have been a cool band to work with. In 93s counterpart for instance they recorded at Le Studio again and all the guitar where 100% analog... the rest digital. I believe after that they likely went 100% digital... but they where wise enough during those years to use the gear that sounded best for the job. Even the great Rush though screwed up later... Vapor trails from 2002 is overly compressed and sounds like ass, which is fucked up as it was mastered by Howie Weinberg who was with masterdisk disc at the time. He is a well respected award winning mixer he mastered Nevermind and some seminal VH and Metallica records. Guess even the best where falling in for the compression crap then.
 
Alright, so more seriously. Who cares?

Anyone who is serious about audio, be it a recording artist, or an audiophile playing shit back is NEVER going to use the internal audio hardware in ANY computer.


nilepez said:
Nothing that's on vinyl can't be done on CD. The problem with modern masters is they do too much compression, which is exactly the opposite of what was originally intended with CD. The goal was to have a wide dynamic range, but starting around the early aughts that changed dramatically.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The loudness wars are to blame here. And just to be clear, we are not talking about space compression like in mp3's. We are talking about dynamic range compression.

The CD format was designed to be 16 bit for a reason to be able to accurately be able to express the entire volume range from 0 up to 100% (I forget the dB values but for this conversation they are irrelevant.

Then some bright fellow noticed that people find louder music more enjoyable, so as a marketing stunt they used so called compressors, to bring the average volume for every recording up to about 96%. The theory there is, if you hear a song on the radio, the louder one will stand out, compared to a quieter one, and thus people will get to know it and like it, and then - hopefully - go buy it.

The issue there is that you have now taken an EXCELLENT 16 bit recording, but are only using the range of it that spans from about 92% to 100% volume, or 8% of it. 8% of excellent is no longer excellent, so while it on average is louder, it also sounds much much worse.

Don't pay too much attention to the numbers above, as they are used for example only, in reality this stuff is logarithmic and much more complicated to explain, but the above does a qualitative, not quantitative job of it.

Most people who shit on digital audio and want to go back to analog are either just trendy idiots who don't know shit about shit, or have heard too many of these over-compressed CD's, and not enough CD's which use the full dynamic range of the recording.

Read more about the Loudness Wars here


The good news is that after much criticism of the loudness wars, this practice has slowly started to diminish, or at least it is being used to a lesser extent than it was in the late 80's through the 90's. Other terrible psycho-audio techniques have crept in too though.

The same type of Psychology/Sound engineer types have discovered that we associate LOUD with GOOD have also figured out that we associate the distorted sound a blown speaker makes with LOUD.

In the last 15 years it has thus become increasingly common to distort the bass drum and other bass sounds in recordings to psychologically manipulate people into buying more music, further reducing quality in music.
 
Youn said:
blame the loudness wars for the majority of crap digital music these days, no amount of great sounding DAC or expirements in 1bit/2.8224MHz (DSD) tech is gonna save from brick-walling sound waves into oblivion just to satisfy some A&R rep or scummy clueless producer-wannabe
Click to expand...


I dunno - the Loudness Wars are mostly over and done with. Only one new album I bought last two years is stilll mixed too loud, and that was QOTSA Villains.

I've been pleasantly surprised by unexpectedly well-mixed albums from bands who had previously cashed-in on being loud/distorted: Metallica's Hardwired, and Foster The People's Sacred Hearts Club.

I can tell when an album is distorted beyond the range , because I can't listen to it for more than twenty minutes without getting a headache. I can experience this listening to Songs for the Deaf or Death Magnetic.

You will still find exceptions, but I think producers have begun to listen!
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
Alright, so more seriously. Who cares?

Anyone who is serious about audio, be it a recording artist, or an audiophile playing shit back is NEVER going to use the internal audio hardware in ANY computer.




Exactly. The loudness wars are to blame here. And just to be clear, we are not talking about space compression like in mp3's. We are talking about dynamic range compression.

The CD format was designed to be 16 bit for a reason to be able to accurately be able to express the entire volume range from 0 up to 100% (I forget the dB values but for this conversation they are irrelevant.

Then some bright fellow noticed that people find louder music more enjoyable, so as a marketing stunt they used so called compressors, to bring the average volume for every recording up to about 96%. The theory there is, if you hear a song on the radio, the louder one will stand out, compared to a quieter one, and thus people will get to know it and like it, and then - hopefully - go buy it.

The issue there is that you have now taken an EXCELLENT 16 bit recording, but are only using the range of it that spans from about 92% to 100% volume, or 8% of it. 8% of excellent is no longer excellent, so while it on average is louder, it also sounds much much worse.

Don't pay too much attention to the numbers above, as they are used for example only, in reality this stuff is logarithmic and much more complicated to explain, but the above does a qualitative, not quantitative job of it.

Most people who shit on digital audio and want to go back to analog are either just trendy idiots who don't know shit about shit, or have heard too many of these over-compressed CD's, and not enough CD's which use the full dynamic range of the recording.

Read more about the Loudness Wars here


The good news is that after much criticism of the loudness wars, this practice has slowly started to diminish, or at least it is being used to a lesser extent than it was in the late 80's through the 90's. Other terrible psycho-audio techniques have crept in too though.

The same type of Psychology/Sound engineer types have discovered that we associate LOUD with GOOD have also figured out that we associate the distorted sound a blown speaker makes with LOUD.

In the last 15 years it has thus become increasingly common to distort the bass drum and other bass sounds in recordings to psychologically manipulate people into buying more music, further reducing quality in music.
Click to expand...

^^This. I was just about to post pretty much the same.

Loudness and dynamic range compression is what makes Vinyl sound better. Just wait till vinyl is pressed with the same compression and will sound the same or even worse.
 
ChadD said:
Rush was ADD in 85. This one I do know.

84s Grace under pressure their 10th was the first album they recorded without Terry brown. They recorded it mostly themselves at Le Studio in Quebec on the studios 2 24 track Studers A800s. Le Studio was one of the first digital studios but they didn't install their Radar I until it was released in 1993.
85s Power windows their 11th album was recorded at Elora Sound Studios in Ontario recorded on a single 24 track Studer A800... but they where experimenting more with midi timing devices ect.
87s Hold your fire ... was their first partially digital recorded album. It was a 50/50 production. Everything was digital... accept the drums and base Neil at that time anyway preferred that on tape. It was converted when it was mixed. So its mostly digital true. And I agree it was well done.

Basically all their albums till the mid 90s where mix mashes... with digital and analog recording. They must have been a cool band to work with. In 93s counterpart for instance they recorded at Le Studio again and all the guitar where 100% analog... the rest digital. I believe after that they likely went 100% digital... but they where wise enough during those years to use the gear that sounded best for the job. Even the great Rush though screwed up later... Vapor trails from 2002 is overly compressed and sounds like ass, which is fucked up as it was mastered by Howie Weinberg who was with masterdisk disc at the time. He is a well respected award winning mixer he mastered Nevermind and some seminal VH and Metallica records. Guess even the best where falling in for the compression crap then.
Click to expand...


Right, DDD didn't happen until the early 90s. That was the pinnacle for digital music: it was before the loudness wars, but AFTER they ditched the limitations of BOTH Analog tape AND Vinyl's dynamic range! Can you say real bass response?

FUCK VINYL. It only sounds acceptable when you spend thousands of dollars on your turntable + needle + preamp. And thanks to digital storage, you don't have to deal with any of that shit just to rip your CDs!

I'm all for higher-quality studio productions, but higher than 16-bit /44.1 khz on the final result is overkill :D
 
Last edited:
Kids today listen to compressed lossy music streamed over the internet via their phone using bluetooth to a tiny speaker with a cheap class D amplifier and think that sounds great while sales of real HiFi gear dwindles as it takes up too much room and looks intrusive.

No wonder they think modern music is good - They can't bloody hear it.
 
Mazzspeed said:
Kids today listen to compressed lossy music streamed over the internet via their phone using bluetooth to a tiny speaker with a cheap class D amplifier and think that sounds great while sales of real HiFi gear dwindles as it takes up too much room and looks intrusive.

No wonder they think modern music is good - They can't bloody hear it.
Click to expand...

And we listened to cassette tapes in boomboxes and fm radio. The general public has always listened to 'good enough' quality of music. Audiophile grade equipment was never the standard, it was outlier.

Or did you forget about the "SSSSSSSSSSSS' noise floor of tapes? :)
 
defaultluser said:
Right, DDD didn't happen until the early 90s. That was the pinnacle for digital music: it was before the loudness wars, but AFTER they ditched the limitations of BOTH Analog tape AND Vinyl's dynamic range! Can you say real bass response?

FUCK VINYL. It only sounds acceptable when you spend thousands of dollars on your turntable + needle + preamp. And thanks to digital storage, you don't have to deal with any of that shit just to rip your CDs!

I'm all for higher-quality studio productions, but higher than 16-bit /44.1 khz on the final result is overkill :D
Click to expand...

Can't cay I agree with any of this, analog tape (not cassette) actually sounds very good with a dynamic range of ~80dB in the case of studio masters. A well cut vinyl record can exceed ~90dB which is more than enough considering the limitations of human hearing.

Sure, digital may be able to exceed this depending on the sampling rate and bit depth used (which you claim is unimportant) - But alising and quantization noise will always be an issue just like S/N ratio is an issue regarding analog recordings.

A nice Pioneer SX-1010 and quality Pioneer turntable through some decent speakers will sound fine. Having said that such equipment demands a high price on the second hand market, probably for this reason.
 
Darunion said:
And we listened to cassette tapes in boomboxes and fm radio. The general public has always listened to 'good enough' quality of music. Audiophile grade equipment was never the standard, it was outlier.

Or did you forget about the "SSSSSSSSSSSS' noise floor of tapes? :)
Click to expand...

In the day I used to record cassettes that sounded far better than a 128k MP3 using either DBX or Dolby C with HX Pro and correct bias settings as well as recording levels set for each individual track recorded.
 
Mazzspeed said:
In the day I used to record cassettes that sounded far better than a 128k MP3 using either DBX or Dolby C with HX Pro and correct bias settings as well as recording levels set for each individual track recorded.
Click to expand...

No doubt, the rest recorded tapes off the radio to listen to later. I guess my point is more that the medium the music is stored on isn't its weak point as much as the system that is playing it back. Which is also your point in your previous post I believe.

The average consumer stuff has always just sucked IMO. I will say, even my iphone with its earbuds sure sounded better than my sony discman, though I didnt need a protective case for my discman, could toss it against the wall and couldnt even harm it.
 
Darunion said:
And we listened to cassette tapes in boomboxes and fm radio. The general public has always listened to 'good enough' quality of music. Audiophile grade equipment was never the standard, it was outlier.

Or did you forget about the "SSSSSSSSSSSS' noise floor of tapes? :)
Click to expand...

You could reduce that "SSSSSSSSSSS" by using proper cassettes ;)
upload_2020-1-30_22-41-35.png
 
Darunion said:
No doubt, the rest recorded tapes off the radio to listen to later. I guess my point is more that the medium the music is stored on isn't its weak point as much as the system that is playing it back. Which is also your point in your previous post I believe.

The average consumer stuff has always just sucked IMO. I will say, even my iphone with its earbuds sure sounded better than my sony discman, though I didnt need a protective case for my discman, could toss it against the wall and couldnt even harm it.
Click to expand...

I cheaped out and bought a TEAC discman in the very early days of CD, the intention was to use it in the car. It skipped so bad I couldn't tell you whether it actually sounded any good or not.
 
Factum said:
You could reduce that "SSSSSSSSSSS" by using proper cassettes ;)
Click to expand...
That is awesome! Never seen it to be honest.

Mazzspeed said:
I cheaped out and bought a TEAC discman in the very early days of CD, the intention was to use it in the car. It skipped so bad I couldn't tell you whether it actually sounded any good or not.
Click to expand...

I had something before the sony, same thing if you breathe too hard it skipped lol. I had that discman all the way until replacing it with a zune.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top