[atlantaprog] Re: different standards

well, there's two elements at work here, imo.  one is pretty
objective -  digital distorition sounds like crap.  there's no denying
it.  if it's not obvious with a cursory listen - which it probably should
be on all but the most low-end stereos- a cursory examination of the
waveforms on the cd reveals that this cd is _loaded_ with digital 
overs.  these aren't being used as an element of artistic expression,
they are just plain mistakes in the recording process, or the mixing
process, or the mastering process, or any combination of the three - 
probably every step of the way, imo.

then there's the subjective element - the song quality, the performances,
etc.  i agree that vapor trails is an awesome effort on this point, but the 
objective examination of the recording quality and the evidence of my
own ears leaves me not able to really enjoy the recording on anything but
a car system, and even there i cringe sometimes when i'm listening to it.

it's a shame, ultimately, that a band that utilized dynamics to such great
effect throughout its career would settle, or allow, for such a terrible 
representation of their art to become available.  i can't help but blame 
the band itself for it - they are at a stage in their career when they should
not be trying to "outgun" the young guns, but rather render their art with
the same integrity and sincerity that has been their hallmark since the
beginning of their career.   there's no reason to make this cd this loud
except for some misplaced attempt to compete with what's currently
popular and trendy.  i'm disappointed in them as a band for probably
the first time since i started liking them, when permanent waves came 
out.


___________________
john turner

http://lordonly.net

"What is a poet? An unhappy person who 
conceals profound anguish in his heart but 
whose lips are so formed that as sighs and 
cries pass over them they sound like 
beautiful music." - Soren Kierkegaard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Veronica Hughes" <upkat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <atlantaprog@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:58 AM
Subject: [atlantaprog] different standards


> Isn't it all (Rush's Vaport Trails, etc.) subject to the listener's
> discretion? Why should Vapor Trails "suck" or be "unlistenable" when it's
> the exact opposite for many if not all the people who bought it and liked
> it?  We've been discussing how different eras of recording used different
> equipment and all have different standards of what is "commercially"
> acceptable.  Talking about level peaks, it's interesting that listening
> fatigue happens differently for different people.  Males hear low end much
> more efficiently than females, while females hear high end much more
> efficiently.  This is a biological factoid I've read at least a couple of
> times.  High frequencies will hurt my ears way before they hurt Daniel's,
> and he hears cars with subwoofers way over in the next neighborhood while I
> hear nothing.  Take those variables, and then add in the natural variables
> between different people's physical ears/brains, and you have standards for
> sound that is highly subjective to individual interpretation.  The 80s era
> Rush albums were mostly way too shrill for me to enjoy for long, especially
> through headphones.  Plus, the song ideas were not near as good, I thought.
>  The warmer recordings I like much, much better, which is why I prefer
> Vapor Trails over Hold Your Fire or some such.  Plus the songs are superior
> too. I can listen to something, for a while, that doesn't "sound good" to
> me if the songs ideas are strong, but I will get fatigued by it.  I can
> listen to something that isn't "written well" for a while if it sounds
> good, because I just like to hear certain sounds, but I'll get fatigued by
> that too.  So, IMHO, there are very few "perfect" recordings. :-)
> 
> At 02:16 PM 08/17/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >From: "Jeff Blanks" <jblanks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Brian King pointed out:
> >>
> >>
> >>http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/8A133F52D0FD71AB86256C2E
> >005D
> >> >AF1C
> >>
> >> I've seen it, thanks, and really, I know what he's talking about.  But I
> >> can't help but think this is another instance of confusing technical flaws
> >> with esthetics.  Maybe some people just don't like the production--I don't
> >> know.
> >
> >Perhaps.  It would only be an esthetic decision if the band and/or engineers
> >_intended_ to squash the dynamics down to almost nothing and introduce >100
> >sheared-off transients into the mix, but maybe they did.  It was only a few
> >decades ago that distorted guitar was considered desirable, after all.  When
> >we were having our cd mastered the engineer (Jay Frigoletto, ex-Atlantan now
> >in LA, who I'd HIGHLY recommend to anyone) made different versions for us to
> >consider, one through old analog equipment (Tektronics, Drawmer, Urei, etc),
> >and a couple of Sonic Solutions versions with different degrees of peak
> >limiting.  The more extreme one was very fatiguing-- louder but with less
> >punch-- and even it was nowhere close to what they did with Vapor Trails.
> >
> >Brian
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>

Other related posts: