Audio quality...

[Novembers Paul]

I found this to be a interesting read...

http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-sizzling-sound-of-music.html

Basically, it's saying that today's MP3 listening generation actually prefer the sound poor quality of the MP3 then to the original CD, the same way people preferring Vinyl quality over CD. It comes down to what's familiar. Put aside all packaging issues, but those growing up on vinyl prefer the sound that is more comfortable to them, same as the MP3 generation.

As a musician, this bothered me. The amount of effort that goes into creating a top quality recording is tremendous, and when the majority of the listening youth, not only is OK with, but PREFERS the lesser quality sound, that really depresses me.

Even when I rip a CD I have for my iPod, I rip it at 320 kbps, and usually AAC format. I HATE the compression sound of MP3s.

What do you guy think about this?

 

[Jasonic]

I have actually never heard anything on vinyl. Sad, I know.

You mean you have never held KISS - ALIVE II in your hands?

 

[NvmbrsDoom5]

There's actually a slight difference between preferring the sound of a certain album on vinyl as opposed to a cd, than preferring a low quality mp3 to a cd.

In many cases, especially with alot of the old recordings that were pressed on cd without any sort of remixing/remastering done, alot of audio quality was actually lost when released on cd as opposed to the original vinyl copies. And as our friend Mr. Kernon once pointed out, those older recordings were mixed and mastered with the intent of them being played on vinyl, and as such might not sound quite right to certain listeners when transferred over to cd. It also doesn't help that alot of those cds weren't even created from the original master tapes, many times the labels would be really cheap about it and use a 2nd generation copy of the material from which they made the cd masters. By and large they've rectified alot of this by releasing remastered versions on cd now. But I still think an old Deep Purple or KISS album sounds better to my ears when played on a mint vinyl copy on a good turntable and system. But that very well could have to do with the "familiarity" factor that Paul mentioned as I did grow up hearing those albums that way (though I also heard them on 8-track quite a bit but we won't get into that lol).

I think today people want quantity over quality. People will happily take a lesser quality recording, as long as they can get it free or for next to nothing. While there are still new audiophiles coming up every day I'm sure, by and large it seems like music is a bit of an afterthought, expendable thing to many kids today. Something that is there merely to be background music for their Grand Theft Auto game or for them to play Rock Band along to. And for alot of adults now, they want things to be cheap and convenient, so a bunch of lower-quality mp3s on an iPod they can take to the gym or to the office suits them just fine.

There will always be people who will want the best audio quality they can get, I'm sure. I don't regret putting in the time and effort on our end to make our albums sound good, because a.) I want them to sound good to MY ears first and foremost, and b.) the shittier the recording, then the shittier it's gonna sound in a low-quality mp3. It does suck that so many people might not ever hear our stuff in the manner in which it was intended due to only having low-quality downloads of it, though.

 

[NvmbrsDoom5]

You mean you have never held KISS - ALIVE II in your hands?

I can clearly and happily remember buying that on vinyl back in the late 1970s, when it came with the rub-on tattoos and 8 page color insert. It was so much fun going record shopping back then!

It's funny to think that there's people who might have Alive II on cd and never heard it on vinyl and didn't grow up with it that way, and have no clue what I mean when I say, "Dude, the studio songs on side four of 'Alive II' are fucking awesome!" They're like "Side four??? Wtf??"

 

[NvmbrsDoom5]

Or how about this one, Jason, I know you can relate to this-

The excitement of finding a rare 7 inch record of The Misfits, that has songs you've never heard before because they weren't included on any of the full length LPs! Back in the 1980s, you couldn't get songs like "Last Caress" or "Attitude" easily, because they were only available on those seven inch records. Later they finally released them on the Collection compilations. But I can remember myself and a couple of friends who would hunt high and low for those records, even the reprints, just to hear those songs. This was long before you could just do an online search and hear the song you're looking for in 30 seconds. Not that I'm knocking the convenience of that, because it's a cool thing to have now.

 

[OPETH_DT]

LOL people who have never heard ANY album on vinyl are the ones I feel sorry for. There's a unique sound altogether in listening to it. The needle, the grooves.. you can't get that on cd! Rock And Roll Over on vinyl > cd ANY day! I wish I didn't waste so much money on cds and cassettes 15-20 years ago, when technology has vastly improved since then. Listening to alot of remastered cds over the last few years is probably the next best thing to vinyl as far as preserving certain qualities of the songs recorded back then. I still have a couple of 8 tracks somewhere, including Gene's solo album. I will have to look. 8 tracks were a waste, especially when the songs were not in the same/ correct order as on the album itself, and the fade out/ fade in crap with some of them royally pissed me off. I never understood the purpose of them in the first place.

 

[NvmbrsDoom5]

8-tracks were cool for the time, because they allowed you to take your music "on the go" with portable players and car stereos. Even though cassettes were around since the start of the 1970s they didn't catch on really until the start of the 1980s, and we're too expensive for most people until then. 8-tracks were notoriously bad for breaking and getting eaten by the player (much worse than cassettes), that was the only real problem I had with them.

Certain albums I grew up with having on 8-track, and I am still used to those albums having the screwed up song order from them! Because an 8-track tape had to be separated into four different chapters or tracks, they each had a specific limited time available (I think it was about 15 minutes or so), and as such it was really tricky getting the songs to fit neatly into each chapter. So that required some songs to be split into "part one" and "part two" with a fade out/in, or it would require songs to be shifted around from their original sequence in order to fit evenly. Otherwise you'd wind up with alot of dead space at the end of certain chapters/tracks and so forth. To say that the format was considerably flawed is an understatement! But again, I can remember being pretty happy back in 1978 that I could carry my little red Panasonic 8-track player wherever I went and listen to my "Double Plantinum" tapes!

And I can still clearly remember exactly where the fade-outs/ins were on a bunch of those songs too.

 

[OPETH_DT]

It's sick how we can sit here and remember this shit. I never owned a portable 8-track player. I can remember buying a Billy Joel 8 track for my sister, and feeling that I got ripped off because of the fade out/ fade in thing. It's funny you mention that.. once I started buying cds I would program the order of the songs, album vs 8 track, so to speak, so I could see which order I liked better. Is the new album set up the same way as the last two with that Side A/ Side B feel?

 

[General Zod]

I rip most stuff at 192Kbps (sometimes higher, never below). If it's a poorly recorded disc, I'll rip at 320Kbps, just because I don't want to diminish the quality of the sound even further. I'd be surprised to learn that most people can tell the difference between 192 and 320. Would I be surprised if Larry and Paul could? No... not at all. But I expect professional musicians hear things a bit differently than most of us. Than again, if blind tested, I wouldn't be shocked if they couldn't.

Zod

 

[Novembers Paul]

I rip most stuff at 192Kbps (sometimes higher, never below). If it's a poorly recorded disc, I'll rip at 320Kbps, just because I don't want to diminish the quality of the sound even further. I'd be surprised to learn that most people can tell the difference between 192 and 320. Would I be surprised if Larry and Paul could? No... not at all. But I expect professional musicians hear things a bit differently than most of us. Than again, if blind tested, I wouldn't be shocked if they couldn't.

Zod

I can tell you where I would notice the difference INSTANTLY, and that's in the cymbals. They cut much quicker in the 192 range, and add that compressed flange in the cymbal bleed. That is a pet peeve of mine. The compression takes away tonal range, and where I can't hear the missing lower end as much, I ALWAYS point out the high end.

You would be amazed at the things we can hear in music now, just from putting so many of our own recordings under a microscope.

 

[General Zod]

I can tell you where I would notice the difference INSTANTLY, and that's in the cymbals. They cut much quicker in the 192 range, and add that compressed flange in the cymbal bleed. That is a pet peeve of mine. The compression takes away tonal range, and where I can't hear the missing lower end as much, I ALWAYS point out the high end.

Interesting.

You would be amazed at the things we can hear in music now, just from putting so many of our own recordings under a microscope.

Not surprising at all. Honestly, I suspect it can be more of a curse than a blessing. I'm friendly with a guy who I think is one of the top singers in Metal. He hears things in vocal performances, that I don't. And quite frankly, I'm glad I don't. It would diminish my enjoyment of the music.

Zod

 

[Jasonic]

Or how about this one, Jason, I know you can relate to this-

The excitement of finding a rare 7 inch record of The Misfits, that has songs you've never heard before because they weren't included on any of the full length LPs! Back in the 1980s, you couldn't get songs like "Last Caress" or "Attitude" easily, because they were only available on those seven inch records. Later they finally released them on the Collection compilations. But I can remember myself and a couple of friends who would hunt high and low for those records, even the reprints, just to hear those songs. This was long before you could just do an online search and hear the song you're looking for in 30 seconds. Not that I'm knocking the convenience of that, because it's a cool thing to have now.

Absolutely!
So many of the Bobby Steele era Misfits stuff I first heard by means of bootleg 7"s. Hell, when I think of most classic metal and punk stuff, I heard it for the first time by the sweet sound of the needle hitting the record!

In all honesty, I am not THAT discriminating when it comes to sound.
I have been away from listening to vinyl for a good 7 or 8 years now.

I only own a handful of 12"s and 7"s these days
(Sorry, but a young buck in need of paying off debt was able to do so thanks to eBay!)

Anyhow, as others have said, most young kids would rather take a free download which might be off lesser quality in favor of purchasing a CD. It's just simply too easy.

I can certainly understand band's frustrations on this matter.

 

[kleo706]

Some people find the size of my digital music library almost comical. What they generally fail to realize is it's accompanied by a room several square feet larger than my bedroom full of original media. MP3s, AACs, etc are for casual, background listening only. Dedicated, "getting lost in the music" type listening, IMO, requires original media. Honestly even if I'm just expecting to wait 15 minutes to pick someone up at the train station, then I'll grab that Zimmer's Hole that never leaves the IPod on CD as well. Backup's nice to have in case say your CD walks off with your spouse and the convenience of having a few dozen albums in my pocket for situations where I can't forcus on the music 100% (work, train, driving) is pretty nice but honestly... even my untrained ear gets frustrated sometimes.

 

[Rycher]

I will always buy cd's. I listen here at work, and have 2/3 of my collection ripped to the office computer at 192kbps, which does the job since it's just background music during the day.

I don't own an iPOD, since my car doesn't have an input, and I don't feel like spending the money on all of that stuff. I'm content with burning a CDR to bring in the car, plus I have Sirius Satellite radio, which I usually listen to when I'm driving.

Other than that, I'll listen to the cd at home. Maybe if I ever get a new computer, I'd rip my cd's to the hard drive, but I have zero interest in iTunes and downloading music.

What fun is collecting MP3's?

 

[General Zod]

What fun is collecting MP3's?

It's not "about" collecting MP3s. I buy no fewer CDs because of MP3s. Actually, I buy quite a few more.

MP3s are simply convenient. I can listen to every CD I own (plus some) while sitting at my home PC, at my work PC, at the gym, lying in bed, on an airplane, on the train, on vacation, etc., without ever reaching for a CD.

Zod

 

[beast from the east]

It's not "about" collecting MP3s. I buy no fewer CDs because of MP3s. Actually, I buy quite a few more.

MP3s are simply convenient. I can listen to every CD I own (plus some) while sitting at my home PC, at my work PC, at the gym, lying in bed, on an airplane, on the train, on vacation, etc., without ever reaching for a CD.

Zod

This pretty much sums it up for me as well. I still enjoy buying the actual CD, if it's not hard to find. MP3s are definitely way more convenient, and I take my IPod with me pretty much everywhere I go.

As for the difference in quality, I honestly can't tell much difference. MP3s sound fine to me! And I have listened to much vinyl over the years - never appealed to me.

 

[STEVE NICHOLSON]

Anyone remember Quadraphonic? It was a 4 channel stereo system and you had to buy the Quad Vinyl to use it. My brother had it and Dark Side of The Moon was incredible at that time. Sound zipping across the room, criss crossing and swirling. I remember Paranoid on Quad.

LOL, my sister had one of those Panasonic 8 tracks with the big t-handle plunger on top to change channels. She played Air Supply, REO, and Journey on it.

 

[Tenekaas]

Hmmm, gotta say that it's different per album/genre etc...
Just to reassure you guys, I like the superb production of your albums. It just fits to the music. I think doom bands have a sort of classy feel to them and that suits a good production.
But bands that play really dirty death metal or black metal, they can really profit from a not so sleek production.
And off course ther are bands that can profit from both. I think a band like Agalloch had a good production but not as clean as yours and their music profits from that. The riffbased sections are great with a cleaner productions, but the more folky and grainy parts are great with a bit less production effort.

And the vinyl feel is just something different. I think it had a bit warmer feel to it. But then again, it's really personal.

Personally I like both a, it depends on the music.

 

[FearSore]

Recently I started to replace all my cassettes and records with MP3's. I got the Atheist albums at 192 kbps from someone, and I became irritated quite quickly. The mix was entirely different, very compressed, and the bass came out very very thin. As well I got my megadeth collection in mp3's too from another place - again I am very upset. With this one the bass was quite a bit further up front, okay quality - but I noticed that someone had remastered the entire thing - probably trying to appeal to the popular music crowd today. Personally, I prefer the warm sounds from vinyl and cassette, Cd always seemed so crisp and lacking in all that made tapes and vinyls feel so good. I am torn as I love the convenience of Mp3's, but I feel they are just like CD's were to tapes - just different and lacking certain properties of those releases on other media. You have to be conscious of the Mp3's you get with the whole quality thing too - some of them just absolutely wreck recordings that were simply devastating in full quality and strip them of all that awe that you initially got off of them.

 

[beast from the east]

A buddy of mine and I used to cruise in his old beat up Javelin, listening to Aqualung and Hotel California on his 8-track (those were the only two albums he had). Ever since, it sounds funny to me to hear these albums with decent quality