Quote of the day (Sheryl Crow)

[Richard C]

I've heard other 'artists' refer to this in-car method of evaluation.

A few years ago in Elektor magazine there was some discussion about clipping on CDs. I don't know if it's still available from the Elektor website but someone submitted software for analysing the data held on a CD.

The software produced a graph representing the frequency each sampled value appeared with 0 in the middle. An unclipped recording produced a sort of 'bell' curve whereas a clipped recording also showed peaks at the extremities.

Not only was clipping evident on many CDs but also from what I remember some weird effects such as an absence of odd value samples due to incompetent 'engineering' of the data.

I'll try and find the article.

[SimontY]

Oh my... I can't believe some people here actually think Sheryl Crow sounds good! My brother brought round the best of (iirc), so I put it on, thinking "this should sound pleasant" - wrong!!! It was harsh and un-natural, rubbish. Oh yeh, partly that was my system then, so I should give it another go now my system is more correct (excellent now ). The only thing that made it sound better than it might, was that it followed some earlier Bon Jovi, which was "quick, turn the volume right down" bad.

Back to the car thing, I can understand the logic. I only know 2 other people who have good hi-fis at home, but quite a few who have ordinary car radios. And Sheryl Crow sounds very good through a nasty car tape player. And its sort of driving music anyway, so it makes some sense.

But how many perfect CDs exist anyway? The only non-classical one I don't think has at least some problems is Diana Krall - The Look of Love. And its so boring I only ever listen to see what the last upgrade has done to affect the sound...

[mrfeedback]

The Dead Kennedys 'Holiday In Cambodia' is a good test track imo.
On a good system, it sounds clear (a bit tame even) but on a lesser system it will take your head off.
Same also applies to the Sex Pistols for instance.

I find that the intrinsically better that a recording is, the better it sounds on a good system, and it may or may not sound bad on a lesser system.

The pop/rock tracks that have stood the test of time usually sound good on good systems, and also on mediocre systems.

Friends of mine recorded a new record recently and neither of us are happy with the result.
The mastering engineer used JBL LSR32 monitors that had been auto equalised.
I understand that this engineer has blind faith in auto equalising his monitors and live systems, and from what I have heard this shows (badly).

My father has outstandingly good monitors and amplifiers, so good that his amplifiers and these speakers are now specified for a world major recording/mastering house and will be supplied in the near future.
On this system any warts in recordings are clearly apparent, and show up as just plain bad mastering, with the faults easily identifiable.
Perhaps in future we can look forward to better quality top-40 releases when this new monitoring system is installed.

Eric.

[Christer]

Originally posted by SimontY

But how many perfect CDs exist anyway? The only non-classical one I don't think has at least some problems is Diana Krall - The Look of Love. And its so boring I only ever listen to see what the last upgrade has done to affect the sound...

Very few even amongst the classical ones, at least if speaking
about modern recordings. I finally got a chance to visit a friend
over New Year and hear his pretty good equipment after his
latest upgrades. We found a few, very few, modern classical
recordings that sounded good, although not perfect and not
clearly better, just different, than the best ones from the 50's
and 60's. I have often seen people using Diana Krall for testing
equipment on this forum but have never heard her before.
Now I got a chance, but I don't know which of her CDs it was.
What can I say, it was probably a good CD for testing the
resolution of a system, but good sound? No, not really. It sounded
quite manufactured and unnatural on the whole. Not a sound
that was really disturbing though. Clearly decent for being a
modern recording, but nothing to write home about.

We also tried a
jazz hybrid SACD/CD with Nora Jones (?), which sounded quite
better and was a good demonstration of the difference between
CD and SACD, as was a hybrid Dvorak 9 with Ivan Fischer. We
also tried Beethovens violing concerto with Mutter and Masur
and there I could hardly tell which was CD and which was SACD
because both sounded so awful (well, it is a DG, of course, so
no surprise). I often wonder why some companies like DG make
so terrible recordings. Is it the same reason as for pop music that
it should sound good on a car stereo and bad equipment???
Even they ocassionaly get it right though. My friedn had a quite
good recent DG recording of Bach cantatas.

[fdegrove]

Hi,

I find that if a recording is right then it sounds right on all equipment.

Amen....

Cheers,

[mrfeedback]

Yeah, same as the local community FM station.

Whoever did the original install made a few idiot mistakes including phase/polarity reversals (that got corrected further downstream) and running L/R cables in reversed directions.
One by one I am finding these kinds of problems and correcting them.

Then there are limiter/processor settings to get sounding right too - I am mostly happy with these now.
Next job is to get the announcers to use the console VU meters correctly !!!

Not having really decent monitor reciever and speakers in the station makes the job harder and means I have to roughly judge at the station and then listen over the next week on other systems to decide.

I find that these changes and improvements (minor ones also) are clearly audible in my car, my home, my GF's system - IOW any sytem, anywhere.

Eric.


Web streaming version - Twin Cities FM

[sangram]

Studio monitors sound accurate. They will tel you what you've recorded, and if you know them well enough, how those recordings will sound in the real world.

A good recording engineer will test the recording on a large number of systems, including a portable boom box, and a car system, maybe also at home on a $5000 system, before committing the final mixdown. There can be multiple phase problems with bass on the minicompos with 'Bass contour' and other ugly tricks, which can be corrected or accounted for before mixing.

Car systems are across such a wide range it is impossible to tell whether what sounds good in one car, will sound good in another. However a car test will tell you whether it will sound good or like a bat out of hell.

The point of view that recordings that are well made, will sound good on any system, is absolutely true - because it will have been checked for being so. If it isn't checked and counted for, it isn't a good recording anyway, as not enough care has been taken in the production.

Then of course, it goes to be mastered, where the company rep says 'Just make the thing louder, OK?', and the engineer puts a limiter and compresses the life out of it.

[sangram]

Originally posted by mrfeedback
I still stand by what I am saying.
I find that if a recording is right then it sounds right on all equipment.
That eq needs to be applied on a particular system is only showing up the deficiencies of that system.

Eric.

Yes, and this would be something that applies to those recordings which are tailored to a particular system.

The job of the recording engineer consists of knowing his equipment, and knowing how that equipment will translate into the real world, and not in being able to tailor the recording to sound good on his own monitoring system.

As with many other things in life, the quality considerations even in this extremely creative profession are on the decline...

[phase_accurate]

I just read something in a consumer mag that is a little off-topic but still interesting in this context.
They mentioned that from the money you pay for an ordinary CD about 4 times as much is going into marketing (i.e. video-clips, advertisements etc , all those things you don't need as listener) than into recording work!



Regards

Charles

[Christer]

Originally posted by phase_accurate
I just read something in a consumer mag that is a little off-topic but still interesting in this context.
They mentioned that from the money you pay for an ordinary CD about 4 times as much is going into marketing (i.e. video-clips, advertisements etc , all those things you don't need as listener) than into recording work!



Regards

Charles

Welcome to the real world Charles, where marketing is
everything and the product nothing.

Although I am not so sure if that factor 4 is valid for all types
of music, I doubt it for classical and jazz for instance, I wouldn't
be the least surprised if it true most pop and other mass-market
music. Marketing still is important also for classical music. For
many years I actually thought DG did the best recordings and
that Karajan was the greatest living conductor!!! That
misconception made it difficult for me to appreciate many
of the great standard works until I started to find out what
good conductors and good recordings can mean to a work.