The real reason why music quality has gone down?
#31
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #31
Lives for gear
 
loujudson's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Buckley View Post
Maybe its the lake between us but I have no idea what you`re talking about.
Lake? I thought it was only a pond. '=)

But speaking of which, who besides us music freaks bought the Beatles remasters? Does anyone have sales stats for them? And are the iTunes versions close behind, or just a trickle?

Guess I'll have to ask that know-it-all Bob Lefsetz if he knows.

L
#32
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #32
Lives for gear
 
Ernest Buckley's Avatar
You know what...?

I remember being 16-17 years old and swapping bootlegs with friends in HS.

The sound quality was horrendous!!!!! I mean we are talking about someone holding up a tape recorder at a concert! and then making copies on a cassette tape!!! Yikes.

But you know what, as much as the sound quality bothered me (and it really did), it was more important that I was able to hear my favorite bands live. When you`re a 16 year old kid, rocking out to your favorite band is all that matters, and sound quality meant nothing while jumping up and down in my room playing air guitar.

So I have to throw kids today a bone. Wherever they are listening, its most likely sounding better than those TDK/Maxell cassette tapes (even though I did prefer TDKII at the time).
#33
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #33
Gear addict
I believe it all started when the guys in suits took over the act of finding talent. The A&R guys were great and the guys in suits only knew how to crunch numbers so they tried to figure out how to make the art of finding talent something they could understand more. By turning it into a money focus they ruined the entire business. MTV did not help either.

As a result, kids today have no idea what a good recording versus a bad recording sounds like. They also have so much formulaic and homogenized product that they have no comparison to quality so they have to accept what they are fed.

I spent the last year plus of the Fillmore East seeing great shows. I stopped going to shows shortly after Bill Graham closed the Fillmores. The concerts I do go to know cannot hold a candle to the sound the Fillmore got. Why? Well huge venues sound like crap no matter how good the equipment and sound man. Also, no one cares because the audience does not care - or if they do, they still shell out the hundreds to go sit in the nose bleed section where there is no way to assure the folks on stage are actually the ones you came to see and here.

Also, today, it is about seeing not hearing. Then you can tell people who you saw and be cool for it. When I went to the Fillmore, I was a 13/14 year old having the time of my life and seeing some of the best talent the industry has ever had the pleasure to host.

It is sad. It is not just the music industry. Movies, Television and of course Music have all gone down hill. The talent and the tunes are all still out there but the men in suits want hits so they use formulas.

Nashville has the best of the best yet most everything all sounds the same. The songs being selected are generally all of the same ilk. The players, engineers and producers are all the same so everything sounds the same.

I hope the suits go away and allow the rest of the talent to re-immerge.

A fine example of this is one of my best friends is one of Nashvilles best writers - he has 11 number ones already. He had to leave Sony because they wanted him to start writing Taylor Swift type material. Rather than refuse and get fired, he saw the writing on the wall and left on his own free will. I have heard his recent stuff. It is the best work he has done and he has enough great songs to cover a full CD - maybe two. If the right artist came along he/she would probably be a smash doing just his material. It is that good - well in my opinion anyway.

The point is, the industry is run by guys who understand number crunching, not talent. And yes, an under exposed public that is given nothing of quality, or so little of it, has nothing to compare to so they accept what they have available.

I guess I am nearing the curmudgeon threshold, but I do not go to sporting events any more, nor do I go to music events unless invited as a guest by the artist or friends of the artist. I just got tired of lousy sound in lousy venues and lousy talent and lousy material.

And to be fair, maybe some of the material is good but it gets produced with the formula so any life of its own gets lost.

Just my opinion mind you and I am an opinionated guy. ;-)
#34
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #34
Lives for gear
 
Salty James's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Buckley View Post
You know what...?

I remember being 16-17 years old and swapping bootlegs with friends in HS.

The sound quality was horrendous!!!!! I mean we are talking about someone holding up a tape recorder at a concert! and then making copies on a cassette tape!!! Yikes.

But you know what, as much as the sound quality bothered me (and it really did), it was more important that I was able to hear my favorite bands live. When you`re a 16 year old kid, rocking out to your favorite band is all that matters, and sound quality meant nothing while jumping up and down in my room playing air guitar.

So I have to throw kids today a bone. Wherever they are listening, its most likely sounding better than those TDK/Maxell cassette tapes (even though I did prefer TDKII at the time).
Ditto
#35
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #35
Lives for gear
 
doubledecker's Avatar
 

First of all, "people" don't listen to the sound, they listen to the music.
And they don't care if it's coming out of Genelecs or laptop speakers as long as it's loud.
Loud is good.
I have seen kids listening to music on their mobile phone speakers and really enjoying themselves.
They couldn't care less about quality of sound just like most of people.
They only care if it's Rihanna or Usher.
Finally , music is just not as important as it used to be.
Kids just have so much other stuff.
Facebook, youtube, reality shows,computer games, DVD's,.
We didn't have any of that when i was growing up.
We only had music.
The more people lose interest, less money is being made and less attention to quality and detail is being payed.
I expect this to only get worse
#36
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #36
Gear nut
 
DavidFury's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spark View Post
Scratched up vinyl...
Chewed up 8-tracks...
cassettes...
Shitty ghetto blasters...
Walkman headphones...
Plastic speaker enclosures...

The list goes on and on. People have been listening to compromised playback for ages.
BINGO! A big +1

I never really put that much thought into it but your absolutely correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by doubledecker View Post
music is just not as important as it used to be/Kids just have so much other stuff...I expect this to only get worse
This is very true.
#37
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #37
Gear addict
 

I have two reactions to this information:

1.) A good song/performance is more important than production or format quality. A good song will still stand out even in a less-than-ideal format. I can appreciate this - I like a lot of early recordings that aren't great but the music is excellent.

OR

2.) These kids who don't care about sound quality ALSO don't care about (or know) a good song/performance - so they're listening to music that is disposable from the source, both artistically and production-wise. This is a catch-22 because the bands and singers that rise to the top are rewarded for filling a low-brow demand (assembly line teen pop manufactured product). Meanwhile decent artists and bands struggle every step of the way - and often can't achieve their full potential because they're struggling to get just one album finished and then touring for several years to pay for it. They won't have the longevity of Led Zeppelin or the Rolling Stones, because they can't afford to make an album every year or two and build up a catalog of classic albums.
#38
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #38
Gear Head
 
Mr Darcy's Avatar
 

I have never understood the oft-heard complaint that music is getting worse. Well, of course you'll get that impression if you're only listening to mainstream pop music - music that is more often that not produced as a product, to appeal to the lowest common denominator and shift as many units as possible.

You may argue that pop music never used to be this bad, citing (through rose-tinted glasses) the various songs and artists that have endured to this day. However, this ignores the volumes of utter garbage that have also been released over the decades, now rightly discarded and forgotten.

So yes, if you base your judgements of music on the mainstream, then you will probably conclude that music is getting worse. However, if you dig a bit beyond the mainstream, or beyond genres labelled "Top 40", you'll find all sorts of gems. Thanks to radio stations such as FBi here in Sydney, I hear all sorts of fantastic new music all the time, plenty of them just local acts that have dropped a demo into the station.

I will agree that most people don't care about the sound quality, only the music. Hell, I don't usually care about it when I'm listening to music (i.e. when not working in the studio) - I'll often load up a Youtube copy of a song if I can't be bothered pulling a dusty CD off the shelf. I think we tend to lose perspective and forget just how little the average person cares about the things that we do on this forum.

But that shouldn't stop us for striving for the sound quality that we do when recording and mixing, if only for ourselves and the few people that do care.
#39
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #39
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teleharmonium View Post
Out of morbid curiosity, how would one define 'intrinsically awesome' songwriting from the point of view of the person that doesn't care about audio quality ?

More to the point, if they don't care about audio quality (as defined in a musician/producer point of view), isn't it at least somewhat logical to conclude that they also don't care about music quality (a defined in a musician/producer point of view) ?

I don't see the proof for the "if it's not the sound, than it must be the music itself" argument. There are other possibilities. Maybe, as far as what is going to break through to a certain segment of the population, the reason is a lot dumber, less related to past music, and more arbitrary than we would prefer to believe.
Im saying its ALL about music quality, as in chord progressions melody, harmony etc. I'm just trying to learn this lesson too bro, that to get too hung up on hardware used to make music instead of magic music time is bananas in a way.

I get a tech head on sometimes, bye bye music.
#40
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #40
Regardless of listening to the same exact song in CD quality vs. MP3, if the song was recorded, mixed, and mastered with a lot of attention to sonic quality, thus delivering an outstanding sounding end result, people will end up gravitating towards that music even if it isn't great stuff.

There is something that happens in the human subconscious when listening to well produced music. We tend to like things that sound pleasing. I can pretty much guarantee you that if you do an absolutely terrible recording of the best song in the world, with bad frequencies all over the place, no separation of instruments, and an overall "I recorded this in 5 minutes in my garage" sound quality, no one will stand up and take notice. On the other hand if you take a mediocre song, do an amazing recording/mix, and as soon as the music comes on people go "wow", the overall quality of the songwriting doesn't matter as much as how we as a species perceive an auditory signal. Sad but true.

I would also argue that if you do an amazing production and take great care in what the end result sounds like, the difference between a 320k MP3 and a full 44.1 CD quality track will be minimal at best on most consumer speakers. As that MP3 resolution gets lower the track with the better sonic quality will scale down and sound better in the long run.

This is why no matter what happens with audio quality on the web or via iTunes, I always try to make the original end result as sonically pleasing as possible, with great attention to the songwriting as well as the production. I can't control what's done to the music after it's out of my hands, but I can at least try to ensure that no matter what happens, it's presentation is what I (or the artist I'm working with) heard in my/our head.
#41
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #41
Lives for gear
 
initialsBB's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllAboutTone View Post
I wonder if they would noticed if there TV was in black and white and had snow mixed in with it ?
Yeah, but they don't notice when the projector is out of focus in the movie theater, when the color balance on their TV is totally screwed up, or when the 4:3 signal is stretched out to fit their 16:9 TV and everyone's face looks too wide. It's the same thing really. People just want to be entertained.
#42
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #42
Lives for gear
does it matter, the point still stands...people making art with the tools around them is an important part of the evolution of expression.

Maybe I'm just used to it because I am younger and was so influenced by the DIY movement.
#43
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #43
Lives for gear
 

I wouldn't be so quick to presume that kids don't often respect sound quality. I remember being an 8 year old, in the 60s, trying to figure out how to get my record player sounding better, as the typical physical limitations of the of a stylus and vinyl were ruining my listening experience. I knew it clearly at 8 years old. So, I would buy needle after needle, and sucker my folks into buying me new turntables until I could hear more into the music than I was. I was really grooming myself for what I do today, which is make recordings sound better.

I think there are likely lots of kids that do the same thing today, and will someday follow our tradition of respecting the sonic experience.
#44
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #44
Gear Head
 
Vathan's Avatar
I recently finished up a mastering project for an artist who recorded himself using garageband, cheap mics and a cheap interface. When I first met with him, the mixes needed some work (including a few volume tweaks and a lot less reverb on everything), but all in all, his ears and performance minded effort produced as great a recording as many of the "pros" I work with. Did my ears and monitors and fancy equipment help make it shine just a little brighter? Sure. Did he have a good product to start with? Absolutely. Honestly, I was thrilled he wanted to go to CD with it, instead of online distribution only.

Audio recording is becoming a consumer activity. Listening is as much a matter of convenience as anything else these days, and medium of delivery needs to be as convenient as looking up directions on your smart phone. The industry should and hopefully will always have people who praise quality and fidelity, but likewise, we all have to be ready to be scoffed at by the masses when we do.
#45
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #45
Lives for gear
 
djanthonyw's Avatar
 

I have a residency playing top 40 music in Boston for the sheep. If someone requests something and I don't have it this is always how the conversation goes:

Sheeple: Hey, do you have that song that I only like because it's on the radio and I'm a mindless sheep?

Me: Which one?

Sheeple: You know, the one that goes like this; "dumb dumb dumb, da, dumb dumb dumb". I can't dance to anything I don't know the words to, so I need to hear it at 200 times before I'm able to dance to it.

Me: Oh, that one.... no I don't have that.

Sheeple: How can you not have that? You are the worst DJ ever!

Me: I can't have everything.

Sheeple: Can't you just look it up and play it from Youtube?

Me:


#46
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #46
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kittonian View Post
Regardless of listening to the same exact song in CD quality vs. MP3, if the song was recorded, mixed, and mastered with a lot of attention to sonic quality, thus delivering an outstanding sounding end result, people will end up gravitating towards that music even if it isn't great stuff.

There is something that happens in the human subconscious when listening to well produced music. We tend to like things that sound pleasing. I can pretty much guarantee you that if you do an absolutely terrible recording of the best song in the world, with bad frequencies all over the place, no separation of instruments, and an overall "I recorded this in 5 minutes in my garage" sound quality, no one will stand up and take notice. On the other hand if you take a mediocre song, do an amazing recording/mix, and as soon as the music comes on people go "wow", the overall quality of the songwriting doesn't matter as much as how we as a species perceive an auditory signal. Sad but true.

I would also argue that if you do an amazing production and take great care in what the end result sounds like, the difference between a 320k MP3 and a full 44.1 CD quality track will be minimal at best on most consumer speakers. As that MP3 resolution gets lower the track with the better sonic quality will scale down and sound better in the long run.

This is why no matter what happens with audio quality on the web or via iTunes, I always try to make the original end result as sonically pleasing as possible, with great attention to the songwriting as well as the production. I can't control what's done to the music after it's out of my hands, but I can at least try to ensure that no matter what happens, it's presentation is what I (or the artist I'm working with) heard in my/our head.

Yeah pretty dam true.
#47
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #47
One of the most important ages of popular music was probably mostly listened to on tiny, mono AM radios with an earbud, or crappy mono car radios. Most folks never cared that much about audio quality. Only music geeks did for the most part.

Maybe there was a period there in the 70s or something when hi-fi first became a buzz word and sealed speakers and such became widely available where it was more common? And of course music was vastly more important to youth culturally. But even then, not that much so I don't think. And owning a really nice stereo was probably more likely to make you a bourgeois enemy of the revolution than anything else then, eh?
D K
#48
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #48
D K
Lives for gear
 
D K's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett View Post
In many ways I agree.

The music and the performance is of prime importance.

But listening to a great performance on MP3 is like looking at a black & white photo of the Mona Lisa. Or, as someone said earlier, like watching a B&W TV with transmission distortion.

Yuk.

While all of us in here by nature have the utmost concern for fidelity and quality of sound/production value in our recordings... I would strongly disagree with this analogy and here is why...my 6 year old daughter and her friends..

For them the song is all that matters and if it gets them shaking their little booties..that's all they care about

The problem for me with your analogy is ..they have never seen a black and white t.v....muchless with transmission distortion... That is not a point of reference for them or the older kids today..

They have however heard CDs (although much less these days) .....and of course they have heard MP3s...so..their points of reference are between those two and in my opinion that gap (for them...not us) is much narrower..

I would make the analogy of the difference between broadcast quality and HD quality t.v...still significant for sure...but not nearly as wide as b.w. and todays standards

imo...
#49
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #49
Gear maniac
 
ZFire's Avatar
 

On the PLUS side of the ledger, the audio quality of even a relatively inexpensive TV 5.1 system is mind-blowingly better than the old 4" mono speaker. I think most people want quality when they sit down to be entertained by a movie or a game - it adds to the immersive experience.

They just don't care all that much about fidelity when it comes to iPods, smart phones, etc. - the realm of downloadable pop music.
#50
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #50
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kittonian View Post
Regardless of listening to the same exact song in CD quality vs. MP3, if the song was recorded, mixed, and mastered with a lot of attention to sonic quality, thus delivering an outstanding sounding end result, people will end up gravitating towards that music even if it isn't great stuff.

...

I would also argue that if you do an amazing production and take great care in what the end result sounds like, the difference between a 320k MP3 and a full 44.1 CD quality track will be minimal at best on most consumer speakers. As that MP3 resolution gets lower the track with the better sonic quality will scale down and sound better in the long run.

This is why no matter what happens with audio quality on the web or via iTunes, I always try to make the original end result as sonically pleasing as possible, with great attention to the songwriting as well as the production. I can't control what's done to the music after it's out of my hands, but I can at least try to ensure that no matter what happens, it's presentation is what I (or the artist I'm working with) heard in my/our head.
I agree with this. Just because music is being listened to in lower quality formats, that definitely does not mean that production quality should diminish - in fact, just the opposite! If we know that the resolution is going to get stripped down for distribution, we need to make sure the source (master) is as great as possible - to better withstand the degradation of quality.

As far as the difference between a 320k MP3 and a 44.1 CD - I can't blame someone (the average listener) for not caring about the difference or even noticing the difference. But when you get down to 128k - and I have found tracks online even lower than that (like 96k), there's just no excuse. Sure, it saves space on a hard drive or mobile device, but it's a waste of the space that it does use.
#51
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #51
Lives for gear
 
jrakarl's Avatar
The mind plays a role

Quote:
Originally Posted by TornadoTed View Post
Music has always been accepted even when the standard of audio quality is crap. I couldn't believe the guys on the building site I worked on 20 years ago couldn't tell the difference between CD and Medium Wave mono radio with added fuzz! I would guess the same would be true of radio in the 50's compared to a nice valve amp, speakers and a good turntable. It may be more prevelant today but the masses have never cared that much about audio quality have they?
For those of us who have heard a song before on CD, or in person, often the mind fills in the crappy signal.. and we kind of play along in our heads with what we're familiar with already. This would go for any song which is familiar to us.

The problem comes when new music comes out.. and really your imprinting a crappy quality recording into the memory of the listener. Putting groove and performance differences aside.. let's talk about the production.

The production standard can have a large bearing on the listening experience. Take Queen's 'The Prophet's Song' now that multi-layering of guitars is huge.. but if you're not presenting it with a decent lossless format, you're losing some of the energy from that recording. You're also introducing digital artifacts that take away from the intended product.. in this case an awesome song, carefully crafted and beatifully executed.

Vinyl and cassette tape (for the first the first hundred-odd plays) and CD (which, do we remember, was considered something of a compromise when it came out!!!!) are designed to deliver full audible range audio. MP3, is not.. it's designed for voice recording of spoken material.

When our listener, friends, clients, fans, or legions of fans, want to hear what we intended to put out there.. then they'll care enough to demand the best audio format.
And I guess this is where I move to my second psychological reference, most people who listen to music are not exploring a new experience.. (like a true fan) they're absorbing what the masses tell them is a good thing.. and if they want to blend in.. they should listen to this too....
Sad thing is about a disposable, youth oriented music industry .. as that while youth may be king, they still don't know what's good and bad until they're told. Most youngsters don't consider the benefit of CDs, because they've hardly heard any... Nobody's sat them down and told them.. no shown them that cymbols are missing in this recording.. because of the way it's encoded.

Another quick point while I ramble on.. some folks won't notice because of hearing damage. Headphone use , especially on public transport!

A lot of hurdles to overcome on this issue.
#52
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #52
Lives for gear
 
jrakarl's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZFire View Post
On the PLUS side of the ledger, the audio quality of even a relatively inexpensive TV 5.1 system is mind-blowingly better than the old 4" mono speaker. I think most people want quality when they sit down to be entertained by a movie or a game - it adds to the immersive experience.

They just don't care all that much about fidelity when it comes to iPods, smart phones, etc. - the realm of downloadable pop music.
A great point. A lot of people will start to hear more music downloaded through the computers and presented via wireless network, or LAN cable, into their TV/sound system> Now, to make sure they can be presented with decent quality audio over the web!
Or write music for television
#53
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #53
Lives for gear
 
Bender412's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Kelly View Post
I wouldn't be so quick to presume that kids don't often respect sound quality. I remember being an 8 year old, in the 60s, trying to figure out how to get my record player sounding better, as the typical physical limitations of the of a stylus and vinyl were ruining my listening experience. I knew it clearly at 8 years old. So, I would buy needle after needle, and sucker my folks into buying me new turntables until I could hear more into the music than I was. I was really grooming myself for what I do today, which is make recordings sound better.

I think there are likely lots of kids that do the same thing today, and will someday follow our tradition of respecting the sonic experience.

I have to disagree. I think you and other future audiophiles/engineers (like myself) are the exception, not the norm. I have a 15 year old, an 11 year old and a 7 year old, and I have NEVER ONCE heard them or any of their friends even make a REMOTE reference to sound quality. And they are HUGE music fans who listen to a lot of crappy mp3s.
#54
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #54
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender412 View Post
I have to disagree. I think you and other future audiophiles/engineers (like myself) are the exception, not the norm. I have a 15 year old, an 11 year old and a 7 year old, and I have NEVER ONCE heard them or any of their friends even make a REMOTE reference to sound quality. And they are HUGE music fans who listen to a lot of crappy mp3s.
I know a girl that records songs off the radio or television with her cell phone. It sounds like the YouTube videos of concerts recorded with a cell phone - mostly garbled noise. And she transfers the songs to her friends' phones and computers. They can't figure out that something is horribly wrong with the sound quality, but they can figure out how to share it with 25 or 30 people instantly.

I once offered to acquire a legit (and decent quality) version of a song for her, and she didn't want it - she said she already had her recording of it and that was good enough.
#55
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #55
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
Music is something much different than audio quality. Music is what is important, even to me. The main thing I want is the music, in whatever form it takes. If it sounds better, that's all the more icing on the cake. But a great tune, a great arrangement, a great composition or performance is worth WAY more to me than whether it's an MP3, CD of 96 or 192k. And I would think the uneducated masses feel the same.
I agree, but it is still amazing how so many of us on this forum search for new 'hi-fi' gear, almost religiously while at the same time espousing the virtues of a great song, arrangement, composition, etc. !

We all know that a thread like this can almost be like confessing to a priest, where we all say those noble words "It's all about the music", knowing that as soon as we press "Submit Reply", we're on our way over to Vintage King, Sweetwater, Mercenary, etc. to see what they've got happening over there ! It's as if we need a thread like this to 'purge ourselves' or 'cleanse our consciences' of the fact that we, to some extent are part of the reason why the industry has taken a 'dip'.

Oh, we say "It's All About the composition, music, etc.", but often our actions belie that claim miserably, especially when we get so 'caught up' (And I do mean, caught up almost rapturously) in the differences between a ULN-8 and an Orpheus, A Vox Box and a AD2022 !

Most of us always seem to want to be on the bleeding-edge of music tech, when we know that the variance in difference between one piece of gear to the next can be so minor that even to ourselves and especially to the masses, the differences are truly negligible ! The Industry has really done a job on us, and we've seemingly have got ourselves 'caught up' in returning the favor.

The days of 'Pleasing the Majors' with a competitive mix; should not those outside the 'inner circle' of the industry realize the fleeting nature of that pursuit at this time when the Majors are just as confused as everyone else ? Shouldn't it be apparent at this point that trying to please a major distributor with a 'competitive mix' is at best a psychological tool that convinces the decision makers at that level that the song allegedly has the right stuff to be a 'hit' while in truth the mix may have very little impact on whether the public consumes it or not ? Kids today listen to You Tube songs on a regular basis, without flinching at the audio streaming quality or recorded quality of the song. Yet we still participate in the 'old school' cyclical method 'brain-washing' the Majors into believing that our gear and the consequent mixes that come out of such gear are really what the public wants. No wonder the industry is in some sense, going through a 'bad way' !

I know some will argue, "well if the sonic quality of the music was not as high as it is, then a lot of the You Tube stuff would sound worse". In this they are deferring to the old "frame of reference" argument, which is in some respects a valid one, but it get's 'shot down' when the people who love hearing records from the 50's and 60's who just like that 'old vinyl' sound get thrown into the debate, or when we think of the addictive curiosity and hunger about analog gear, tape, harmonic distortion comes into play. Just Think: Technology has advanced significantly over the last decade, yet both Hardware developers and VI/SoftSynth developers as a whole have spent the larger part of the last decade going 'backwards' so to speak in an attempt to 'recapture' that 'sound' from older, vintage, less technically polished gear !

I only say these things to remind us that from a business standpoint and otherwise, when we are overly caught up in the acquisition of gear in effect, we have shifted the financial 'center of gravity' from the 'music making industry' to the 'gear acquisition industry/VI buying industry' and contributed to the devaluation of musical compositions as a whole.

Just for the record (No pun intended), I'm not against competition. In fact, I love it and have made industry money doing it ! The question I propose to us is: What should our competition really be about and to what extent do we share responsibility for where the industry is today ? Tech is a good thing, but are we really at the point that every year we need to refresh our gear because of the latest tech ? I don't know, but it's something to consider.

It is in these respects that sometimes I wonder what makes us (And I do include myself in this) in this forum any different than politicians who play the 'I know what the people want' game only to be so often wrong because we are so blinded by the "sonic politics" of the game.

- KS
#56
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #56
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender412 View Post
I have to disagree. I think you and other future audiophiles/engineers (like myself) are the exception, not the norm. I have a 15 year old, an 11 year old and a 7 year old, and I have NEVER ONCE heard them or any of their friends even make a REMOTE reference to sound quality. And they are HUGE music fans who listen to a lot of crappy mp3s.
Understood, but as most that have posted on here have agreed... we must not lower our expectations of sonic excellence because the masses don't care. We can still be motivated by the small group of us that will always care, and be inspired by an awesome recording!
#57
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Bender412's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Kelly View Post
Understood, but as most that have posted on here have agreed... we must not lower our expectations of sonic excellence because the masses don't care. We can still be motivated by the small group of us that will always care, and be inspired by an awesome recording!
Agree!
#58
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #58
Lives for gear
 
vernier's Avatar
Low and high quality seem to coexist.
.
.
#59
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #59
Lives for gear
 
Colonel Blues's Avatar
 

35 years ago, I was listening every night, while working as a student, to a marvelous wonderful SW/MW/LW sugarbox sized radio, with its telescopic antenna, go figureā€¦ and it was just delicious !

Could I hear the same today ? Of course not !

But, may be it's the flavour of youth, who knows ?

Could you drive the same car as your first one, that ugly dustbin that felt like a F1 to you, years ago ?
#60
13th December 2010
Old 13th December 2010
  #60
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
I think the real trap is the mindset of "good enough."

I'll never forget the music director who said to a room full of aspiring young artists "If you obviously didn't care enough to have your new record well recorded and mastered, why should I care enough to give you a chance?"

Sure lots of stuff makes it in spite of bad sound quality but there's also no question that great sound quality can really give you an edge.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
hitmaker / So much gear, so little time!
88

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.