Comments
Sounds like the author of this web page should watch dead poets society.
Modern recording does lack dynamic range, but that just means you don't need to keep adjusting the volume on your record player.
He should try and be objective about the dynamic range of the song, rather than just picking songs he doesn't like and bagging on them.
Modern recording does lack dynamic range, but that just means you don't need to keep adjusting the volume on your record player.
He should try and be objective about the dynamic range of the song, rather than just picking songs he doesn't like and bagging on them.
Uh, not quite I don't think. He's talking about the dynamic range over the course of a few bars, so he's actually referring to the difference between the level of strong notes being played and the background or off-notes, not between say, this part and that part.
Basically he's measuring compression (he also seems to focus heaps on the tone of the kick drum) - and it doesn't get much more objective than using a spectrograph for that.
Basically he's measuring compression (he also seems to focus heaps on the tone of the kick drum) - and it doesn't get much more objective than using a spectrograph for that.
Oh, and Van Halen gets the thumbs up.
I think the guy just sounds like a crock .
Okay, so this is his argument.
1) My criteria for a successful record are biased towards older records.
2) Older records aren't compressed as pluck.
3) Newer records are compressed as pluck.
4) Therefore, according to my criteria, records that are compressed as pluck cannot be successful.
1) My criteria for a successful record are biased towards older records.
2) Older records aren't compressed as pluck.
3) Newer records are compressed as pluck.
4) Therefore, according to my criteria, records that are compressed as pluck cannot be successful.
You've totally reversed the causal flow
P1) Older records aren't compressed as pluck.
P2) Newer records are compressed as pluck.
P3) Records that are compressed as pluck cannot be successful.
----------------
C) My criteria for a successful record are biased towards older records.
But notice that he never actually makes a case for or against a 'successful' record - all he's doing is pointing out cases where the mastering is particularly good or bad. He'd be the first one to admit that P3 in the above argument is a load of crock - Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Eminiem, etc. are obviously successful. That's a fact. I think his 'argument' is more along these lines:
P1) Most successful older records show good or innovative mastering.
P2) Most successful newer records show shockingly loud mastering - the extent to which this affects the music varies - in an attempt to make recordings sound louder than others (Gain is also boosted and more compression applied in-station. Thus, The Edge sounds louder)
P3) Being obviously interested in mastering techniques in general, I like records that have good mastering and dislike records that have bad mastering, more-or-less regardless of any artistic merit the songs have
-----------
C) Therefore, I like mostly older records and dislike most newer ones.
See the difference. He's not saying a song has bad mastering because he doesn't like it. He IS saying he doesn't like a song because it has bad mastering.
And if mastering were everything, that might mean something to the rest of us.
P1) Older records aren't compressed as pluck.
P2) Newer records are compressed as pluck.
P3) Records that are compressed as pluck cannot be successful.
----------------
C) My criteria for a successful record are biased towards older records.
But notice that he never actually makes a case for or against a 'successful' record - all he's doing is pointing out cases where the mastering is particularly good or bad. He'd be the first one to admit that P3 in the above argument is a load of crock - Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Eminiem, etc. are obviously successful. That's a fact. I think his 'argument' is more along these lines:
P1) Most successful older records show good or innovative mastering.
P2) Most successful newer records show shockingly loud mastering - the extent to which this affects the music varies - in an attempt to make recordings sound louder than others (Gain is also boosted and more compression applied in-station. Thus, The Edge sounds louder)
P3) Being obviously interested in mastering techniques in general, I like records that have good mastering and dislike records that have bad mastering, more-or-less regardless of any artistic merit the songs have
-----------
C) Therefore, I like mostly older records and dislike most newer ones.
See the difference. He's not saying a song has bad mastering because he doesn't like it. He IS saying he doesn't like a song because it has bad mastering.
And if mastering were everything, that might mean something to the rest of us.