As a consultant, I have seen this so many times.
Companies contact to get a problem fixed or looked at. Instead of actuality providing technical help, you often end up being more like some kind of organization psychologist.
Often even so bad that if you just talk to the individuals, they would be more than capable to come with a solution themselves.
It's one of the reasons why I am always trying te have a critical but open minded view as much as possible.
The Secrets of Consulting - Weinberg
A link to an older book (above) that actually convinced me not to go into consulting--once I "graduated" from working for large corporations.
That book was written by the same guy that wrote An Introduction to General Systems Thinking -- which is filled with interesting wisdom found nowhere else.
Note that the "audiophile" profession (if I might call it that) is completely chocked full of useless organizational cultural norms, such as emphasis on electronics over room acoustics and loudspeakers, tube electronics, cable and interconnect fetishes, magic rocks, emphasis on vinyl records and turntables, and that "music tracks are sacred and hallowed ground that should not be touched", etc. etc.
Chris
A link to an older book (above) that actually convinced me not to go into consulting--once I "graduated" from working for large corporations.
That book was written by the same guy that wrote An Introduction to General Systems Thinking -- which is filled with interesting wisdom found nowhere else.
Note that the "audiophile" profession (if I might call it that) is completely chocked full of useless organizational cultural norms, such as emphasis on electronics over room acoustics and loudspeakers, tube electronics, cable and interconnect fetishes, magic rocks, emphasis on vinyl records and turntables, and that "music tracks are sacred and hallowed ground that should not be touched", etc. etc.
Chris
Last edited:
I can tell you, that is not only in the audio industry, and also not only as a consultant.
As a consultant it's only much more clear, since you're the outsider.
I lost track of the amount of times I have heard "never change a winning team" which means "We don't have a freakin clue and are afraid to touch it".
Bad position to be in.
Thanks for the interesting reads, I will have a look at them! 🙂
..and here I thought it was Simon Cowell and his talent shows that forever f’ed-up the music industry.
-last excellent pop song I heard was in 2002, and while there have been other good songs since then - given the intervening 2 decades: there haven’t been that many. Even most of the artists today recognize this.
-last excellent pop song I heard was in 2002, and while there have been other good songs since then - given the intervening 2 decades: there haven’t been that many. Even most of the artists today recognize this.
I have to admit that I don't pay any attention to "popular music" (i.e., music that is played on Hot 100 music lists compiled by radio DJs, etc.) since I turned 25-30 (more than a few years ago, and I really stopped paying much attention to the top songs when I turned 14-15 yo). I wonder what the notion of "pop songs" even means nowadays, since even my own offspring apparently pay more attention to the music that I acquire and play on my setup than anything on broadcast radio, etc. So I can't really ask them. It seems everyone chases the music they like to hear, not songs from a canned list that comes out once a week.
So this situation is really extraordinary compared to my youth, when no one I knew listened to the music their parents listened to (except perhaps classical and bebop jazz).
I have to keep reminding myself that the world has changed, and the notion of "hits" doesn't mean a lot nowadays--at least not anyone I know.
Chris
Last edited:
..the 80’s had so much competition with good or even excellent song’s that just being in the top 50 for a single week was notable. Song’s with changing time signature, vocal duets, multi-artist ensembles, song’s not even in English: all in the top 50 (in the US).
And I don’t think I have a significant bias here; even during the 80’s I quite liked a great many songs from the 70’s and even 60’s (mostly Mowtown from the 60’s, though pop icon’s like the Beetles and The Beach Boys we’re also favored). The quality and variety was declining in the late 90’s but the top 20 was still viable. In this respect then I can’t lay all the blame on Simon, but still: most of the blame.
And I don’t think I have a significant bias here; even during the 80’s I quite liked a great many songs from the 70’s and even 60’s (mostly Mowtown from the 60’s, though pop icon’s like the Beetles and The Beach Boys we’re also favored). The quality and variety was declining in the late 90’s but the top 20 was still viable. In this respect then I can’t lay all the blame on Simon, but still: most of the blame.
Im trying to understand the comparison since these are both copies of the 2010 remaster.
One copy has been uploaded at lower resolution
the other higher resolution by the label.
Most the comments seem to say they like the First Example better?
Its funny because it appears it sounds better to people because the uploader has
slightly boosted EQ and seems to have used a loudness maximiser.
Kinda ironic since what is "ruining music" is actually what made a low res file
seem to sound better and be more "dynamic"
and the more dynamic mix is claimed sounds worse because at initial start, sound level
is lower and the treble/bass isn't slightly boosted
Sounds familiar to articles in the 80's where people were told it was a tube amp
and they just added more EQ and raised the volume with a solid state.
And people claim "tube" sounded better.
Read through this lot, listened to a few examples. There is something about those loudness wars. But something has been overlooked in the whole discussion: what did the artist wanted? Taste and art changes the whole time.
The thread starter's .pdf mentions pipe organs. Do you listen to recordings made on period pipe organs tuned to the period pitch and period temperament? I guess not because there aren't any left, they were changed to suit the taste of the day long before we were able to record music. Likewise as good as all classical music will be concert pitch and equal tempered.
Now to come back at the first post and the 2 examples. I don't get why YT video's should be the reference audio material but apart from that, if you normalise both tracks they are very identical. There is indeed some difference in loudness in the balance between different instruments but nothing that would make me prefer one track over the other. If you are in a live performance, like differences will be heard depending on where you are in the room. Further out high frequencies will be less heard. But what is the balance the artist(s) are playing to? You can only guess and have a preference that could be wildly off. And if there are several years between both masterings and they are done at a different place then such differences are pretty normal.
But I find it very funny that while there is such a rage about those minor differences, did nobody noticed that the timing of the beats is different between both YT videos? The remastered one is slightly slower. Which I find strange because something played faster is generally perceived more appealing.
The thread starter's .pdf mentions pipe organs. Do you listen to recordings made on period pipe organs tuned to the period pitch and period temperament? I guess not because there aren't any left, they were changed to suit the taste of the day long before we were able to record music. Likewise as good as all classical music will be concert pitch and equal tempered.
Now to come back at the first post and the 2 examples. I don't get why YT video's should be the reference audio material but apart from that, if you normalise both tracks they are very identical. There is indeed some difference in loudness in the balance between different instruments but nothing that would make me prefer one track over the other. If you are in a live performance, like differences will be heard depending on where you are in the room. Further out high frequencies will be less heard. But what is the balance the artist(s) are playing to? You can only guess and have a preference that could be wildly off. And if there are several years between both masterings and they are done at a different place then such differences are pretty normal.
But I find it very funny that while there is such a rage about those minor differences, did nobody noticed that the timing of the beats is different between both YT videos? The remastered one is slightly slower. Which I find strange because something played faster is generally perceived more appealing.
Sorry maybe the first link I've posted was wrong and is not the original uncompressed ... I checked a few ones just by ear and heard large differences sounding familiar to what I encountered as typical for remasters having a low DR value .
But the basic problem stays as it is ... a very large negative change in sound due to "remaster" quality ... (Alan Parsons "I Robot"made my ears bleed , completely unlistenable at elevated playback levels)
I don't like to be fooled by the music biz , no money no more from my side!
But the basic problem stays as it is ... a very large negative change in sound due to "remaster" quality ... (Alan Parsons "I Robot"made my ears bleed , completely unlistenable at elevated playback levels)
I don't like to be fooled by the music biz , no money no more from my side!
So the answer is simple (from my side): invest in the original media on which the album been released.
So second hand physical format ( being it digital or analog).
That is the reason i still have at home TT, cassette deck, reel to reel deck, CD player and computer with good interface for backup ( and restauration if needed) in digital format.
No streaming service except for casual listening and no way i pay for something i already own again!
So second hand physical format ( being it digital or analog).
That is the reason i still have at home TT, cassette deck, reel to reel deck, CD player and computer with good interface for backup ( and restauration if needed) in digital format.
No streaming service except for casual listening and no way i pay for something i already own again!
I believe it was J.S. Bach that composed his Well-Tempered Clavier in all 24 major and minor keys to demonstrate the advantage of well-tempered tunings over meantone temperament. There is a reason why we don't listen to those early tunings anymore-because they were awful.
I don't think I can agree on that point. They are very different-although well within the variations that you'd probably find in performance between venues and calendar dates that the musicians played them live.
What kind of loudspeakers or headphones are you using to listen to the two track versions?
Chris
There is also a great variation in concert pitch of, for instance, European orchestras and those in North America, even today. For those people possessing absolute pitch, this drives them crazy, since the different pitches are perceived like they are different compositions. If you don't believe me, just listen online to the music of composers from the Baroque, Classical and early Romantic eras (i.e., before the year 1800). To me, some of them bear little resemblance to each other--and the majority of the difference is basically only "concert pitch".
Chris
I know certain music and albums that just sounds like absolute crap on modern (much better) systems.
With older speakers with especially some tube amps (poor damping factor), the whole music comes to life.
(Loudspeaker) Distortion is in some cases also very clearly noticeable.
Is that proper sound reproduction? I don't know lol, but the alternative is worse.
Unless you spend a lot of time making different EQ's for each album or so.
Nothing so new as the oldest you can find?
I remember reading the great drummer Dave Mattacks who played on XTC's Nonsuch album saying he begged Andy Partridge to allow the drums to NOT be compressed and Partridge, who does seem to possess good ears, wanted them compressed since he liked the sound of compressed drums. I guess if that is the color one thinks is best; when I listen to the record, and it is a very good record, one cannot help but wonder how much more interesting it would be if the drums sounded more like real drums instead of some kind of especially good drum machine.
In a recent interview on YOUTUBE Partridge talks about discovering the sound of "silky high" frequencies. On a previous album, Skylarking, they had been distressed that the original CDs were the wrong polarity. So with POP music it is all artifice and dabs of paint on a canvas.
None of us have any idea what they are supposed to sound like. So we can all relax.
I do find many instances where the remasters have made strange choices mixed in with some good. I often prefer my original CD copy.
As Salvador Dali said: do not fear perfection - you will never achieve it. Comforting.
I remember reading the great drummer Dave Mattacks who played on XTC's Nonsuch album saying he begged Andy Partridge to allow the drums to NOT be compressed and Partridge, who does seem to possess good ears, wanted them compressed since he liked the sound of compressed drums. I guess if that is the color one thinks is best; when I listen to the record, and it is a very good record, one cannot help but wonder how much more interesting it would be if the drums sounded more like real drums instead of some kind of especially good drum machine.
In a recent interview on YOUTUBE Partridge talks about discovering the sound of "silky high" frequencies. On a previous album, Skylarking, they had been distressed that the original CDs were the wrong polarity. So with POP music it is all artifice and dabs of paint on a canvas.
None of us have any idea what they are supposed to sound like. So we can all relax.
I do find many instances where the remasters have made strange choices mixed in with some good. I often prefer my original CD copy.
As Salvador Dali said: do not fear perfection - you will never achieve it. Comforting.