"The recording was too clean..."

[kerrywins]

"it wasn't warm sounding like the analog version". This was one of complaints with Brian Wilson's new SMiLE album. Now, I'm not gonna comment on the music on that album...but whats wrong with people today?
These are probably the same people who use the term "sell out"...
Its too clean??? When did that become a bad thing? Oh crap...now I can hear the fine detail of the sound....dang...that sucks!

[aden_nak]

1. Tell them to buy a shittier stereo.

[BigMcLargehuge]

2. yeah... the same people who prefer listening to the "warm"

analog sound of old vinyl records so the can experience of the pure aural beauty of hearing music through a haze of snap-crackle-pop as if the sound engineer was eating Rice Crispies in the booth during the recording session...

[Magrittes Pipe]

5. ARGH!!!

If you take care of your records, keep them clean and free from damage, and use a good turntable and stylus; you won't have that problem, dammit! :o

[BigMcLargehuge]

10. what's that? I couldn't make it out through the static?

seriously though - POP - I have a nice coll - CRACKLESKIP - ecords and sometimes - POP - listen to them on my - CRACKLE POP SNAP SKIP. I can't aff - SNAP - ord an ex - SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS (lifts stylus and blows off dirt and dust) expensive - POP CRACKLE SNAP - turntable - POP SKIP - have to use a - SNAP - cheap - SNAP - cheap -SNAP -- SNAP - cheap - SNAP - cheap -SNAP -- SNAP - cheap - SNAP - cheap -SNAP - (nudges arm) - stereo.

[Magrittes Pipe]

15. Aw, dude... not you, too!

edit: You're just fanning the flames of a digital/analog war! :cry:

[BigMcLargehuge]

17. just having a little fun with you is all

when I was a radio DJ I learned to stop worrying and love CDs. Like I said, I have a record collection and I take them out on special occasions. But I can't afford a 500 dollar turntable, 500 dollar receiver, grand worth of speakers etc...

I can afford a 200 dollar stereo with a CD player in it that sounds better than my turntable.

[Magrittes Pipe]

19. I can't afford the whole audiophile setup, either.

If I could, I'd go $5000 turntable and SACD all the way. ;)

As it stands, I've got my $250 Stanton and my Phillips CD recorder thingy (gotta make CDs for the car -- I tried installing a turntable, but we won't ever speak of that again).

I don't have anything against CDs -- you can treat 'em rougher than records, they can travel anywhere with you, etc. But whereas I don't HATE CDs, I LOVE my records. And that's what makes all the difference. :)

[BigMcLargehuge]

20. I don't hate records either

in fact, I am going to try and clean up and encode some of my wife's ancient kids story records as MP3s so my son can have instant access to them. I have the input stuff I need... now I just need to set aside the time and office space to get the turntable up here and powered and connected.

[Magrittes Pipe]

21. Ah, yes. Time and space.

I think we all need a little more of that. ;)

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

35. I have been downloading mp3s from various libraries in the state for my

future childrens benefit - have 36000 songs for them!

[NashVegas]

38. Just Because Some Don't Place An Emphasis On It

Doesn't mean the audiophile purists don't have a point.

I don't know what kind of station you were at, but I was at an AOR when Greg Allman made his 1980s comeback, right about the same time CDs were starting to, but not completely, becoming the thing. We had both the CD and vinyl versions for play and the vinyl version had unmistakeably superior sound - like being at a concert with the world's most anal-retentive engineers ever employed at the knobs. And those were just the standard Technics.

I've sold all but about 200 of my vinyl collection, btw. Moving. Ugh. Ugh. The bruises.

[asthmaticeog]

9. Yes, vinyl DOES sound bad

if you use your records as dishes. If you take care of your rock, there are no popping sounds. Just lovely, lovely music. Or loud, toxic hate-noise, whatever floats your boat.

[AverageJoe]

3. SMiLE is awsome

The CD is great and Brian and his band do a fantastic job with it in concert. I saw the show in Atlanta on Saturday and am still walking on clouds.

[Magrittes Pipe]

4. We hear in analog.

I generally prefer analog recording (i.e. tape) and storage (i.e. records), as that ensures the least loss of dynamics from performance to listening.

That said, I did not find fault with the recording of SMiLE. Well, other than the fact that Wilson opted for a keyboard with a trem effect rather than an actual theremin on "Good Vibrations" -- that was bloody well annoying -- but in nearly every other respect, this album is superior to any bootleg I've heard of the original sessions.

[kerrywins]

6. "that ensures the least loss of dynamics from performance to listening"

can I have some of your crack?

[Magrittes Pipe]

7. You'd prefer to have the sound fundamentally altered?

Eh, whatever floats your boat.

[kerrywins]

8. again...can I have some of your crack?

...

[Magrittes Pipe]

11. Apparently, as you unable to engage in rational discourse...

...I shall have to say "pttthhhhhh" to you. Perhaps that is something you can understand.

For other people who may read this (those with an ability to comprehend the English language), I prefer listening to records. That said, SACD technology is awesome, and I'd get me some of that if I had the $$$.

But there's only one thing more annoying than a vinyl snob -- and that's a CD snob.

[kerrywins]

22. liking digital technology doesn't

mean I'm a cd snob...i'm just accepting the facts that it is superior to analog quality.

[Magrittes Pipe]

25. Well, as those aren't facts....

You're accepting an illusion.

There are elements of digital that are better. There are elements of analog that are better. What analog brings to the table is what I want. If you want what digital brings? Hey, that's fine. I'm not gonna say you're on crack or anything. :P

[XNASA]

29. I'd be interested in reading about those facts.

What facts would those be?

[MadHound]

12. You obviously don't know much about how anaog and digital music

Is recorded. Digital recordings have white noise in them, as they go from the top to the bottom of our hearing range, whereas analog recordings are smooth, without white noise.

People are so stuck on digital as the be all and end all of musical recording, and don't understand what they're missing. Yes, analog recordings done on vinyl can sound bad due to damage to the vinyl itself. But the actual analog recording is a work of art, warm, smooth, devoid of the white noise that plagues CDs.

By the by, did you know that there is a movement back to the analog sound. Some of the best top end receivers, amplifiers, etc, are going back to vacumn tubes in order to preserve the smooth analog sound? Things to make you go Hmmm.

[Magrittes Pipe]

13. You just wasted a lot of time.

She's just gonna ask you for some crack. :eyes:

[MadHound]

14. LOL! Damn, and I'm fresh out!

All I've got are some stale cigs. Oh well.

[kerrywins]

23. "Digital recordings have white noise in them"

yeah...I've never heard hiss in an analog recording....

[Magrittes Pipe]

30. He's not talking about the hiss....

Remember, sound is a wave. Analog recording technology operates on this same principle -- that is, every point along the wave is captured. Digital recording, on the other hand, changes the wave into a sequence of ones and zeroes. The technology is advancing, and digital media are getting better every day at approximating "true" sound. Some SACD can play music that is indistinguishable (to the human ear) from its analog counterparts.

But when one changes the wave to a binary sequence, there will ALWAYS be data loss. Even if we can't perceive it. Of course, if we can't perceive it, there's no point to quibble. :P

[aeolian]

53. Technically speaking,

there will be information loss any time a recording is transfered in any way.

Entropy, thermodynamics, and all that.

but, never mind, carry on.

[Redleg]

62. Who let the physicist in here?

LOL

[kerrywins]

24. "Some of the best top end receivers, amplifiers, etc, are going back to va

that has nothing to do with storage. noones going to analog storage. sacd is the future.

[kick-ass-bob]

26. actually, analog is the future.

Analog has a higher ceiling than does digital - we just didn't know how to use it. We still don't yet, but it will come.
Ironically, digital will die and be replaced again with analog.

[Magrittes Pipe]

27. SACD is great.

The old CDs that were made in the first 10 years of CD technology are crap (and I have several hundred old CDs, so I must be some sort of coprophile).

[aeolian]

52. It's NOT White Noise

It's actually a resonant pattern, more akin to comb filtering. It has to do with the digital edges in the signal, and their fourier transforms.

But, whatever, any decent digital-to-analog converter (i.e. CD player) will have lo-pass filters to wipe that stuff out.

[ProfessorGAC]

28. Pretty Crappy Science There, Al

The music is still generated analog. That's how speakers work. They're not digital. Only the encoding is.

Fact is that there isn't a form of tape of vinyl that can, with equal time allottment, provide the dynamic range or flat frequency response as digital.

An LP can provide about 75dB of dynamic range at signal to noise of a little less, and a frequency range of 25hz to 15.5kHz. A CD, sans compression of any sort, provide 96dB dynamic range, equal S/N, and a FLAT frequency range of 5Hz to 20.2kHz. Casette tapes are worse than vinyl

You PREFER the vinyl or tape. The less pronounced high end, which was THERE when the artists recorded it, and is on the master tape, even if in analog (30IPS on 2" tape), is now gone. That lack of high end definition and brightness is your preference. That's fine. But, the digital version is actually closer to what went down in the studio.

Your preference is your preference. That's understandable. But, vinyl is NOT a more accurate representation of the music.
The Professor

[XNASA]

31. Science has nothing to do with it.

Just because one technology is inherently superior to another in one way or another does not in fact ensure that an application of that technology is superior.

[ProfessorGAC]

36. Sorry. It Has Everything To Do With It

The comaparison had to do with the superior product of vinyl, because digital representation changed the sound. It does not change it in as great a way as does transfer to vinyl.

Your statement is sound if comparing one album to another. Say, the first Foghat album to Sgt. Pepper. Both the same technology, but one obviously sounds better than the other. Then, the application of the technology is superior, not the tech itself. I'd rather listen to Sgt. Pepper on 8 track, than Foghat on CD. No matter the format, the former's going to sound better.

But, Hedges was saying that a CD changed the sound into something different. So does any analog recording, but the facts are the facts. Digital representations are inherently less colored by the medium than analog presentations.

Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
The Professor

[XNASA]

42. If you insist. In that case, analog still reigns supreme over CD audio.

All CD audio is full of horrible distortion over 15K. A 44.1K Hz sampling rate will only get you 3 samples per cycle at 15K.

On the other hand, you can record a dog whistle to an LP without any distortion. You might not be able to hear it, but the LP can handle it. Does that mean analog is better?

:shrug:

I dunno, but science doesn't bear it out.

[ProfessorGAC]

45. Nah!

An LP won't be picked up on vinyl. There's no capturing of that frequency on vinyl, unless the needle point is less than 5 microns. Besides, the vinyl would never accept a groove that narrow. Vinyl has too many flow properties. The grooves would be unstable, even if the master could be cut that precisely.

And, you forgot wow and flutter, which all turntables, tonearms and styli have.

No matter how you slice it, it's not a matter of the vinyl being superior. It's strictly a matter of how one's ears hear it. If you like vinyl better, so be it. I don't. Strictly a matter of taste.
The Professor

[Magrittes Pipe]

32. You do know of course, as a musician, that what goes on in the studio...

...is performed with an ear toward the finished product. That's what the whole mixing and mastering process (not to mention effects that are introduced after the mic) is about. Today's recording engineer has to capture a different sound than the engineer of the '60s.

Full disclosure: I record digitally. I have found it to be FAR less expensive to get acceptable sound quality digitally than using analog equipment. But if I had a couple dozen grand? Oh, yeah.

[ProfessorGAC]

37. Not Me.

Besides, i've done lots of studio work too. And i've NEVER met an engineer that was trying to reproduce inferior sound quality. Every one i ever worked with made every effort for the master to as closely match the live performance he or she just heard as possible.

Sure, there's sweetening after the fact. That's more convention now than anything else. (Reverb being used to create spaciousness, for example. A good performance might still be good, perfectly dry. But, the reverb and "size" is just something listeners have come to expect.)

And, you sort of strengthened my point with your "capture a different sound" comment. The different sound is because of two basic things: 1) The primary recording medium is superior, so drums can be made to sound big and thundering, and guitars can bite and ring on the multitrack and master.
2) The finished media allows these details to be heard by the listener and not just by a producer listening to 30IPS tape through $75,000 speakers in a perfect room.

So, the transition of technology has required a different recording process because the digital format allows those details to be heard. No?
The Professor

[Magrittes Pipe]

39. So how's that all-tube Boogie treating you, Prof?

Don't you think you should upgrade to a digital modeling amp? I hear Line 6 is doing great things.... :evilgrin:

[ProfessorGAC]

40. Apples & Oranges

You'll have to do better than that.
The Professor

[Magrittes Pipe]

41. But a Line 6 can sound EXACTLY like a Boogie, as the Boogie voicing...

...is digitally encoded on a chip therein.

It can also PRECISELY replicate the British tube sound, whether you're partial to Vox, Orange, or Marshall. And I've never heard anything sound so much like a pre-CBS Fender. Not even my friend's '64 Twin.

Ah, the miracles of technology. :D

True, it's a different thing -- but not so much apples to oranges as apples to pears. It's a slippery slope, buddy. :tinfoilhat:

[ProfessorGAC]

43. It's Apples & Oranges!

The point of the recording medium is to reproduce the original sound source as accurately as possible, with a minimum of change.

The point of the guitar amp IS to change the sound source. I don't want my guitar amp to accurately reproduce the sound of the vibrating string. Rather, i want it to COLOR the tone to one i find appropriate. It's not an attempt to accurately reflect the sound of the string but to CHANGE the sound of the string. That's the whole point.

Additionally, the difference between the Line 6 Boogie model and a Boogie is one of features. The Line 6 costs more than my Boogie.

I've messed around with a Line 6. Lots of sounds, to be sure. But, 95% of the sounds in the Line 6 are either less interesting than the Boogie sound i like, or are interesting but not terribly useful. The technology then, would be, as XNASA mentioned, not applicable or badly applied.

Yeah, i could get 500 sounds, but i wouldn't care to use many of them, because the tone colors wouldn't be to my ear. So, to pay for a multitude of features i wouldn't use would be a waste of money. Yes?

So, it is apples and organges. It's not the same as a CD v. an LP. One is intended to faithfully reproduce. The other is intended to do the opposite.
The Professor

[kick-ass-bob]

44. I prefer bananas.

Oranges are a pain to eat - just too darned messy, and apple peels make my throat hurt (slight allergy?).

I love bananas...

:7

[ProfessorGAC]

46. Bananas For Everyone!

On me. Send me the bill.
The Professor

[kick-ass-bob]

47. Everyone is bananas! Already!

:D

[XNASA]

48. CD's don't come as close as new vinyl......

does to faithfully reproducing audio. Nobody has ever proven that. 16 bit, 44.1K Hz just doesn't do it. 20 bit is close. 24/96KHz kicks ass. But that's not what a CD is.

CD's last longer, are more convenient, etc...

But they don't replicate audio as well as vinyl does.

[Magrittes Pipe]

49. Just so you know, I'd rather have a Boogie that 10 Line 6s.

Okay, I'd rather have the 10 Line 6s. So I could sell them and buy amps I would prefer. ;)

[ProfessorGAC]

60. That Would Be My Path As Well

Take the 10 6's, dump 'em, buy a Triple Rectifier and a Matchless, and a couple new guitars.
The Professor

[Magrittes Pipe]

61. Oooh... a Matchless.

Finally, we agree! :D

[aeolian]

51. A technical answer!

Look! it even uses decibels!

Perhaps there is some sanity here.

[redqueen]

54. You're not that new, but...

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[aeolian]

56. Thanks!

:)

[BigMcLargehuge]

16. a little ditty for our vinyl fetishists courtesy of Ice-T

Fried Chicken (from the OG Album)

Off to the studio late night
Time to cut another track
It's gotta be hype
Got my rhyme book in hand
A blue loose leaf
Anybody move on that
They get loose teeth
Evil's got the funky beat
A stupid dope loop
But the record's kind of old!
(What we gonna do troop?)
We gotta clean it up
Cause it's so dope
Tried the rubbing alcohol
Even the Ivory soap
But no matter what we do
The record keeps clickin'
FUCK IT!
Evil E, give me some of that
Damn fried chicken!

[TroubleMan]

65. I had that tape

I probably still got it somewhere.

[XNASA]

18. I've been in the music/sound/recording biz for a long time.

And I prefer analog recordings. The sound is more full, more pleasing to my ears. Noise is a relative term. I don't like when recordings sound too clean, too sterile.

Music is created and listened to in an analog environment. There's no getting around that, unless you have a port installed in your head.

But, I don't know where Brian Wilson is coming from. The original recordings WERE analog. I suspect that the original tapes were dumped to ProTools and then mixed in digital and then of course, distributed in digital. Besides, Brian is deaf in one ear.

When you look at a CD, it has and explanation of how it was recorded, mixed and distributed. Look for 3 letters, usually something like ADD, or DDD, or AAD. A is for Analog, and D is for Digital. The first letter is how it was recorded, the second letter is how it was mixed, the third letter (just about always a 'D' nowadays) is how it is distributed.

Even so, producers go out of their way to distress, or dirty up digital mixes to make them sound more analog. It's true.

My favorite recordings are AAD, BTW.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

33. Yeah you lose the mid tones on CD

but now SMILE was excellent regardless..was listening to it last night :-)

[johnnie]

55. I had them make our fist CD DAD (not too many of them out there)

We ran the DAT thru a 1/2" tape during mastering. It was a pseudo analog sound but to me it did the job.
We introduced some "noise" to the final mixes, but it wasn't too bad. I haven't done it to anything else I recorded..it was just to try to get some of the "warmth" back.
I have to say that now I go all digital because I have that setup and don't want to go thru the hassles of getting a reel to reel. Even if it is recorded on tape these days somewhere along the line it will probably end up digital.

[flamingyouth]

34. I actually really appreciate music recorded in analog

As a fan of music from the '60s and '70s I can completely understand what Brian is saying here.

Having said that, I've also heard a lot of stuff lately that was recorded digitally that sounds just as rough as if it were done on an old four-track.

[aeolian]

50. Analog recordings will always, by definition, be cleaner

assuming that everything is within the linear range of the equipment. The question is one of cost/benefit. Digital is cheaper, and really easy to maintain. If the needle slips out of your hand, that piece of vinyl is toast. Not to mention the fact that playing a record involves physical contact, so each time you play it, you wear the grooves out just a tiny bit. Oop! There goes the high-frequency content in that old recording. New vinyl does, however, sound awesome.

But, that being said, the new 24-bit, 96 kHz digital formats are pretty damn good!

[Ellen Forradalom]

57. Brian was a master in the studio

I'm sure it did sound clean.

[johnnie]

58. Strange

I really liked how he produced the Smile album. I was amazed how warm he did make this recording. I know he brought in some tube consoles for the voices and I'm sure that a lot of Brian's mind still records with the analog process in mind.
I think one of the big problems we have with digital recordings is that many of the engineers and producers got lazy with digital.
It took me a while to get a CD player when they came out, but eventually I did and I have no problem with them. I have heard digital recording sound fantastic and some that sound like shit. I have also heard some analog that sounded fantastic and some sound like shit.
I honestly don't believe that it is as much the media that's being used, it has a hell of a lot to do with many other factors. From the musicians to the equipment they use, the engineer, the producer, the mics, the rooms they use..it goes on and on. It all is what each person likes to hear and that will never be black and white.
I also think that too many people have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the technical aspects of audio, but they have a lot of opinions. (Not geared toward anyone here specifically).

[BiggJawn]

59. I have 47-y-o ears, pummeled by a life of...

Un-muffled Harley Davidsons and Pratt & Whitneys, Working on pipe organs, working in a factory, and listening to Wagner VERY LOUD.

No, I DON'T "Believe I can hear a difference"

AudioPhools are SO much fun. Why, between the $500 "Oxygen-Free Copper" power cables and the sticky-backed lead sheeting that you cut and stick to your IC chips "to quiet spurious resonances in the circuits" and Speaker Oil, those marroons are a laff-a-minute...

Behold! A $575 "Soundstring" power cable!

[Redleg]

63. This beats the hell out of some of the Pro-Kerry vs. Anti-Kerry fights

I have seen here.

[mr blur]

64. Digital sound sucks

It just does. If you can't tell the difference then your brain certainly can.

[NightTrain]

66. I've been buying CDs for close to 15 years now.

Having been exposed to digital sound for that long, I wouldn't return to vinyl for anything! Compared to CDs, 45s and albums sound flat and lifeless. Not only that, but records become scratchy and get skips in them, no matter how careful you are to take of the damned things.

I have to wonder how many people complained that 45s and LPs were too "clean-sounding" compared to 78s? :eyes: