Quote:
Originally Posted by jamie10  squeeze on Kid a??????? thats a dyamnic and subtle record is it not????
very spacious...3d...breathy...... not overly slammed.....oh you mean the subtle squeeze of kid a? |
lol, this stuff is all relative but to my ears the squeeze on Kid A is not remotely subtle. It is well done and tasteful imo, but subtle it is not.
Bear in mind that I listen to vinyl and can be spotted grooving to Ravi Shankar circa 1964, or Nat King Cole circa 1955, or the Bee Gees circa 1977. Those albums are very open, 3d, and uncompressed, you can almost step into the room they were recorded in and walk around.
But Kid A? Massive compression, heavy limiting. The VU meters technically move, but with nowhere near as wide an arc or fast a dance as the old stuff; the RMS is way hotter.
Doesn't mean there aren't still big dynamics in terms of the moods and spaces and energy in the arrangements of the songs, because there are. But the physical recording itself does not represent or give back these radical swings nearly as much as it would have had they made the record 30 years ago.
And again, I'm not saying it would make the record better or more enjoyable. As with salt, once you master the use of it in your own concoctions, you can easily taste where and how other chefs are using salt in their own dishes, and you like some dishes with just a dash, and some come to life with a liberal sprinkling.
Clearly I'm not a compression luudite, seeing as I designed my compressor to be able to go to Radiohead-ish extremes and still sound good.
Gregory Scott - ubk
.