I really laughed at this, not because I thought it was bad advice, but because it's really true. The MATRIX stuff is about as cool as it gets for pop tracks. There some things going on in the Duff material that is just wonderful. Great guitars, drums, and great vocal mixes. Sometimes there's 3 part harmony backings that you can just about only feel they are down so low during the choruses. Someone else would have shoved them down your throat.
And it's true, a lot of high end audio dealers expect you to buy gear that is truly better than the geår the records were made*on. Pretty funny.
TH
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kestral If you listen to old Sinatra/Elvis/Beatles tracks, they also sound smaller and restricted. That's what makes them work so well over radio, and that's why people like them, becuase that's what sounds pleasant to normal average people.
I am so sick of this elitist "if it's compressed in any way it's no good" snobbery. Save it for the gay classical/jazz snobs and those idiot audiophiles that spend a thousand bucks for a foot of cable and use gear even more "hi-fi" than the gear used to record the damn music in the first place 
F--k dynamics. Too much if it makes things sound scattered, flat, dull. Recordings sound limited and restricted because that is the SOUND of recordings that over the course of time since recording has been invented, people have deemed them pleasant sounding.
And no more belly aching about Green Day's American Idiot. It sounds f'ing brilliant on the stereo, on the radio, on an iPod, on little crappy radio speakers. It's compressed as hell and I love it.
Sorry but the Michael Penn stuff sounds like flat boring amateur recordings compared to the Matrix tracks. The fact that none of the Penn stuff made it to radio only confirms it. |