You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
While this is true, there's something people are missing. But I'll save some of you time with the TL;DR version: MP3s and digital audio production killed CDs.
For years, record companies and recording artists have forgotten how to produce a proper record. The art of mastering a record album is becoming a lost art. We have Autotune and digital software that help producers create what is known as "music" these days. "Music" being sold off for cheap. What. $0.99/track? I bet record companies are still making a killing off of it.
If you're old enough to, or have access to, pick out a CD from the 90s and compare it to something recent, like an iTunes file or a 320kbps MP3 file.
It is very likely the CD will have much better audio quality than the MP3 file. Why? Because back then, record companies and artists gave a shit about how their album sounded. They played real instruments and were capable of actually singing. Audio engineers knew how to master the recordings onto a disc capable of reproducing some phenomenal sound and talent. This process costs a lot of money. But record companies are about profits because after all, they're a business, right? (Think RIAA and their affiliates.)
Nowadays? Plug in your Macbook Pro, open up Garage Band, enable Autotune and throw on your Beats headphones and you're a recording artist. Nevermind the hipster on Main Street who just picked up a Roland drum machine and a 303 out of a dumpster. You already beat 'em to it while they waste away, lounging around Gene Coffee Bar for hours sipping on a large cappuccino and freeloading their WiFi.
Advertisement
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badhobz
Yeah. Typical Mainlander Barbie doll.
Her car even smelled nice. Like a mixture of luxury perfume and a hint of….. vag ? Fish sauce ? Something a bit dank
Kids should listen to a vinyl record produced in the 70s or 80s to hear what real music sounds like. I feel sorry for kids these days - all they know is compressed and loud (ie. Limited dynamic range) music. Posted via RS Mobile
I still buy the odd CD. Why? Because some music is hard to find, and if I like the album, $5-10 for 12-14 songs isn't a bad deal at all. And then I can choose my audio rip quality later when I'm home.
__________________ Classifieds Head Moderator Automotive Service Technician
I don't have an anger problem. I have an idiot problem.
While this is true, there's something people are missing. But I'll save some of you time with the TL;DR version: MP3s and digital audio production killed CDs.
For years, record companies and recording artists have forgotten how to produce a proper record. The art of mastering a record album is becoming a lost art. We have Autotune and digital software that help producers create what is known as "music" these days. "Music" being sold off for cheap. What. $0.99/track? I bet record companies are still making a killing off of it.
If you're old enough to, or have access to, pick out a CD from the 90s and compare it to something recent, like an iTunes file or a 320kbps MP3 file.
It is very likely the CD will have much better audio quality than the MP3 file. Why? Because back then, record companies and artists gave a shit about how their album sounded. They played real instruments and were capable of actually singing. Audio engineers knew how to master the recordings onto a disc capable of reproducing some phenomenal sound and talent. This process costs a lot of money. But record companies are about profits because after all, they're a business, right? (Think RIAA and their affiliates.)
Nowadays? Plug in your Macbook Pro, open up Garage Band, enable Autotune and throw on your Beats headphones and you're a recording artist. Nevermind the hipster on Main Street who just picked up a Roland drum machine and a 303 out of a dumpster. You already beat 'em to it while they waste away, lounging around Gene Coffee Bar for hours sipping on a large cappuccino and freeloading their WiFi.
What? lol.. have you ever heard of .flac files? Creating an album is still art music is still music the only way its changed is how we make it. Sound engineers still exist and still master recordings in a studio. Autotune has been around since the late 90's. Artists also make more money from concerts than albums. You can EASILY tell when a song is made by a pro or an amature. Seriously what is with peoples misinformed way of thinking when it comes to the music industry?
__________________
There's times in life where I want a relationship, but then I cum.
Quote:
[23-08, 13:17] nabs i've gripped ice boy's shaft before
Quote:
[26-08, 13:50] Jesusjuice is this a sports car forum? why are there so many hondas?
Kids should listen to a vinyl record produced in the 70s or 80s to hear what real music sounds like. I feel sorry for kids these days - all they know is compressed and loud (ie. Limited dynamic range) music. Posted via RS Mobile
What makes you think a vinyl has better sound than a pure digital sample? It comes from it.
Vinyl records are physical imprints of sound, they give you the false impression of "warm" and quality because of it's characteristics. It will degrade every time the vinyl is played, any sort of interference will destroy the "true" quality, and by that time your next birthday comes, you'll hear more pops, low noise and skipped audio than the actual song itself.
If you want to argue that the vinyl when fresh will create a higher sound quality than CD's/DVD's, yes they will, but the human ear cannot interpret the difference in audible range, no matter what anal audiophile tells you.
The misconception that modern music sounds shittier than 90's CD's or old vinyl is hillarious. If you take a vinyl recorded now, you're simply putting on the mp3 copy onto the vinyl, this doesn't do anything, you're being a fucking hipster. REAL vinyl are pressed from the master vinyl, which is recorded from a DAT (Digital audio tape), not etched on with Skrillex.
Sound quality in the new age is higher, allowing for better bitrate, more channels and lower/higher freq than your N'Sync CD. I'm not talking about your MP3, or iTunes file, I'm talking about a legit loseless codec sample of whatever the hell you like that weighs in at a hefty 150mb/song if done right, so 100 songs will bring in about 13GB's~ instead of a dinky 100mb. Only reason why it's so big is because it is a direct copy of what you have, with little to no compression to the quality depending on what you choose.
Music nowadays is garbage, with synthesized sounds, and even your vocal (auto-tune), the only reason why you would think CD's from 2012 is shit compared to the 90's is because music itself is shit, the quality is not, it's higher than ever.
The quality of headphones/speakers in general are lower than what it used to be, yet they are abundantly available at every corner of the eye. Nearly everything is packaged with headphones/speakers, they are of low-mid quality and don't do your ears any justice. Do yourself a favour, find a sound card (internal/external) for your laptop or computer, find a headphone amp for your music player or phone, find a proper analog/digital amp for your Hi-Fi speakers, find quality headphone/speakers and listen to your favourite track, regardless of it being a CD/Vinyl/Mp3/FLAC, the difference is noticeable as opposed to your apple ear buds
----------------------------------------------
The digital download era has killed CD's, and I don't feel sorry for it, we are slowly moving out of the pioneering MP3 phase and moving into a higher standard of quality of digital downloads with our storage drives nearly 100x bigger than the 90's. The main reason MP3 was introduced was because audio files were deemed too large, and needed to be cut down for the puny storage space we had. This isn't a reason any more, as we approach affordable 3TB/4TB hard drives, even 200GB flash drives.
The audio engineers and masters have not faltered, they simply do what the artist desires and go from there. Artists give what the people want, and they want bass bumping repetitive songs. Not everyone wants to dance to Adele and Beethoven.
Last edited by belaud; 01-16-2013 at 10:02 AM.
Reason: grammar
Take a pop or rap song and differentiate the audio qualities between 320kbps MP3 and FLAC. When the source of the track sucks, it sucks. Period. Lossless or not. The discussion ends here.
I can assure you there is none other than audio size and that FLAC won't work on your iPod. Save yourself the embarrassment and just stop here because you're making a bigger ass out of yourself.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badhobz
Yeah. Typical Mainlander Barbie doll.
Her car even smelled nice. Like a mixture of luxury perfume and a hint of….. vag ? Fish sauce ? Something a bit dank
Kids should listen to a vinyl record produced in the 70s or 80s to hear what real music sounds like. I feel sorry for kids these days - all they know is compressed and loud (ie. Limited dynamic range) music. Posted via RS Mobile
What makes you think a vinyl has better sound than a pure digital sample? It comes from it.
Vinyl records are physical imprints of sound, they give you the false impression of "warm" and quality because of it's characteristics. It will degrade every time the vinyl is played, any sort of interference will destroy the "true" quality, and by that time your next birthday comes, you'll hear more pops, low noise and skipped audio than the actual song itself.
Spoiler!
If you want to argue that the vinyl when fresh will create a higher sound quality than CD's/DVD's, yes they will, but the human ear cannot interpret the difference in audible range, no matter what anal audiophile tells you.
The misconception that modern music sounds shittier than 90's CD's or old vinyl is hillarious. If you take a vinyl recorded now, you're simply putting on the mp3 copy onto the vinyl, this doesn't do anything, you're being a fucking hipster. REAL vinyl are pressed from the master vinyl, which is recorded from a DAT (Digital audio tape), not etched on with Skrillex.
Sound quality in the new age is higher, allowing for better bitrate, more channels and lower/higher freq than your N'Sync CD. I'm not talking about your MP3, or iTunes file, I'm talking about a legit loseless codec sample of whatever the hell you like that weighs in at a hefty 150mb/song if done right, so 100 songs will bring in about 13GB's~ instead of a dinky 100mb. Only reason why it's so big is because it is a direct copy of what you have, with little to no compression to the quality depending on what you choose.
Music nowadays is garbage, with synthesized sounds, and even your vocal (auto-tune), the only reason why you would think CD's from 2012 is shit compared to the 90's is because music itself is shit, the quality is not, it's higher than ever.
The quality of headphones/speakers in general are lower than what it used to be, yet they are abundantly available at every corner of the eye. Nearly everything is packaged with headphones/speakers, they are of low-mid quality and don't do your ears any justice. Do yourself a favour, find a sound card (internal/external) for your laptop or computer, find a headphone amp for your music player or phone, find a proper analog/digital amp for your Hi-Fi speakers, find quality headphone/speakers and listen to your favourite track, regardless of it being a CD/Vinyl/Mp3/FLAC, the difference is noticeable as opposed to your apple ear buds
----------------------------------------------
The digital download era has killed CD's, and I don't feel sorry for it, we are slowly moving out of the pioneering MP3 phase and moving into a higher standard of quality of digital downloads with our storage drives nearly 100x bigger than the 90's. The main reason MP3 was introduced was because audio files were deemed too large, and needed to be cut down for the puny storage space we had. This isn't a reason any more, as we approach affordable 3TB/4TB hard drives, even 200GB flash drives.
The audio engineers and masters have not faltered, they simply do what the artist desires and go from there. Artists give what the people want, and they want bass bumping repetitive songs. Not everyone wants to dance to Adele and Beethoven.
Great post, but a few points. Tapioca was talking about how the record was produced and mastered, not the medium that it was stamped on.
Most new vinyl are stamped from the same digital masters as the CD, however there ARE some that are analog through and through (White Stripes' Icky Thump) and some that are stamped from a different (but still digital) master and sound much better (RHCP Stadium Arcadium).
Which goes into how the mastering of the album greatly affects sound 'quality', not just the medium it's on. Most music nowadays are compressed at maximum volume at all times. There are no dynamics in the sound, it is just LOUD LOUD LOUD. The quiet parts are as loud as the loud parts.
Example below are two masters of the same song:
When you compress (the waveform not the file) the song, everything becomes flat (both figurativelly and literally). There is no changing dynamicto the sound. The soft soulful whispers in one song sound the same as the loud angry screams in another. It becomes lifeless. It no longer becomes music, rather its merely sound (or noise).
Below is tl;dr Xanga (lol) post I wrote back in '06 about this that got to the top of DIGG (lol) about this topic:
Spoiler!
So why is music today, is merely noise? It is because of this:
Allow me to explain (you may want to put on your NERD hats right about now).
The image you see above is what is called a 'Wave form'. Basically, it is the loudness (amplitude) of sound represented graphically. The higher the peaks, the louder the sound.
The picture above is a comparison of the waveforms of two songs (two tracks per song, Left and Right, thus four waveforms in total). However, they are the same song.
Confused? Both the top two and the bottom two waveforms are of a song off the latest Red Hot Chili Peppers album STADIUM ARCADIUM. The top is of the upcoming vinyl version, and the bottom is of the CD version that you can currently buy in stores. The difference is not in the medium (Vinyl Vs. CD), but rather the MASTERING. I repeat, the difference is not in the medium, but rather the mastering.
---
You see, when an album is produced, first it is recorded, then it is edited, then it is mastered.
Recording is simply what the name implies; recording the song.
Editing, again, is fairly straightforward; it is to make changes to the song, cutting it up, mixing the CONTENT of the song (not the actual sound).
Mastering deals with the sound engineer adjusting the sound into its final form; making the "master" copy.
As you can see, the top tracks (which is from the upcoming Vinyl) and the bottom tracks (from the current CD) are drastically different from one another. From what I said earlier, you can see that the CD version is much louder throughout the entire song. This results in BAD SOUND QUALITY (in most cases).
---
This may surprise you. "But, I thought louder is GOOD?" Well the problem is in the way they have made it louder. To make the sound louder, they "Compress" the sound.
What is compression, and why do they compress it, you ask?
First the WHAT: In the mastering process, the engineers receive tracks that come out of editing that looks and sounds pretty much like the top two tracks. They then COMPRESS it, and the final product results in tracks that sound/look like the bottom two tracks. Basically they take the sound, and they squish it, so that all the peaks (loud) you see in the top tracks are compressed down to the same volume as the quiet parts. So after compression, a quiet acoustic guitar solo will be just as loud as the distorted electric guitar chorus with the drums and the bass, etc.
WHY is compression used? Well, they do this because if somebody is listening to the song in a car, or in a record store, they will not have to adjust the volume up during the quiet parts, and down during the loud parts; it all has the same volume, so they do not have to keep adjusting it.
---
Almost all new CDs you buy will look/sound like the bottom two waveforms. Also, pretty much everything coming out of the radio will be compressed like that as well (understandable, since most people listen to the radio in cars).
Sounds like a good idea, right? Actually, no. There are two main problems with this.
1. Clipping: Clipping occurs when a sound is increased in volume SO MUCH that it exceeds the limit. What happens is the top of the peak is cut off, or "clipped" at the limit (0dB). When it is clipped, the nice pointy top of the wave becomes abruptly chopped off half-way into a flat peak. The result of this is a crackle/distortion in the audio. It no longer sounds smooth and warm, but rather hard and crackly. It is quite apparent in the guitar intro of SNOW (HEY, OH) on Stadium Arcadium.
2. Dynamics: Imagine that the waveforms above is a rollercoaster. Which do you think would be more exciting to ride on; the top tracks, with its drastically changing highs and lows, peaks and valleys? Or the bottom tracks?
You see, when you compress the song, everything becomes flat (both figurativelly and literally). There is no changing DYNAMIC to the sound. The soft soulful whispers in one song sound the same as the loud angry screams in another. It becomes lifeless. It no longer becomes music, rather its merely sound (or noise).
For example, check out the middle section of the song in the picture. In the first two tracks, you can see that the song graudally builds in volume, then drops, then builds up again. Compare that to the middle section of the bottom two. Nothing. Its all flat. All that buildup of anticipation and volume that the Chili Peppers originally intended to record is gone. You hear the sound of the recording, but you don't hear the MUSIC of the recording.
---
Why do record companies continue to do this? Because its a pissing-match for them, to see who can piss the farthest; who can have the loudest album. If there is 1dB to spare, they force the engineers to squeeze it out.
The reason that the master for the vinyl (top two tracks) is so drastically different than the CD master is because the engineer for the vinyl basically took the original edited tapes, and directly mastered it with minimal adjustment/molestation; ensuring the music sounds just as the Chili Peppers intended.
Well, I hope at least a few people have bothered to read this. I also hope that out of those who have read it, a few of them will keep it in mind next time they listen to a CD. Or if they were to become a famous musician one day, remember this and please tell your producer/sound engineer to NOT compressed to hell.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyxx
Sonick is a genius. I won't go into detail what's so great about his post. But it's damn good!
2010 Toyota Rav4 Limited V6 - Wifey's Daily Driver
2009 BMW 128i - Daily Driver
2007 Toyota Rav4 Sport V6 - Sold
1999 Mazda Miata - Sold
2003 Mazda Protege5 - Sold
1987 BMW 325is - Sold
1990 Mazda Miata - Sold
What in the fuck? Lazy because they don't goto a store and buy a physical copy? And last I checked you paid for itunes songs. What about concerts and theaters? Ignorance at its finest.
this is the digital era, some won't accept it, most will. I think the only thing id buy would be blu-ray.
is that hard for you to accept? not just when it comes to buying CD's lol but in most aspects of life convenience has taken over, and im talking not majority, not everyone of course so if you are the minority there is no reason to be so upset, go re read what i posted, i didnt say you dont pay for itunes songs, download for the same price or free..
who would rather go outside and warm up their car... rather then clicking a remote start button... look at this forum, most of us drive cars when it is more economical to drive... just less convenient., who would rather go to a store and buy a cd when they can click a button from their computer... yes of course there are some.. but most like to do things more conveniently
Like I said, modern music is more concerned about volume and bass drops, then it is for actual quality. Almost every single top 20 on the radio has some sort of stupid fucking bass "wubs" and drops, or bass so heavy you can't even hear what else is going on.
I would wait for new Codec and new compression software, I personally think we're at a turning point in the industry to convert out of MP3, it's already starting.
Disclaimer
I'm not one to be concerned about what's being played, but every single pop song has the same tempo, same rhythm, same sound, same repetition. I may not like it, but I sure as hell won't stuff some stupid indie band down your throat because I don't enjoy the radio.
Take a pop or rap song and differentiate the audio qualities between 320kbps MP3 and FLAC. When the source of the track sucks, it sucks. Period. Lossless or not. The discussion ends here.
I can assure you there is none other than audio size and that FLAC won't work on your iPod. Save yourself the embarrassment and just stop here because you're making a bigger ass out of yourself.
Well of course it wont, everything is being made for MP3 file types still. I agree with you on the source, but not everything is made like you make it out to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snails
is that hard for you to accept? not just when it comes to buying CD's lol but in most aspects of life convenience has taken over, and im talking not majority, not everyone of course so if you are the minority there is no reason to be so upset, go re read what i posted, i didnt say you dont pay for itunes songs, download for the same price or free..
who would rather go outside and warm up their car... rather then clicking a remote start button... look at this forum, most of us drive cars when it is more economical to drive... just less convenient., who would rather go to a store and buy a cd when they can click a button from their computer... yes of course there are some.. but most like to do things more conveniently
whats wrong with things being convenient? How can you associate convenience with laziness? If you really wanna go there, did you build your own house? did you pave the roads you travel on? Did you code all the programs you use on your computer? Such an ignorant view on "today's" generation.
Here's a quote from the man himself.
“I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it.”
― Bill Gates
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonick
Great post, but a few points. Tapioca was talking about how the record was produced and mastered, not the medium that it was stamped on.
Most new vinyl are stamped from the same digital masters as the CD, however there ARE some that are analog through and through (White Stripes' Icky Thump) and some that are stamped from a different (but still digital) master and sound much better (RHCP Stadium Arcadium).
Which goes into how the mastering of the album greatly affects sound 'quality', not just the medium it's on. Most music nowadays are compressed at maximum volume at all times. There are no dynamics in the sound, it is just LOUD LOUD LOUD. The quiet parts are as loud as the loud parts.
Example below are two masters of the same song:
When you compress (the waveform not the file) the song, everything becomes flat (both figurativelly and literally). There is no changing dynamicto the sound. The soft soulful whispers in one song sound the same as the loud angry screams in another. It becomes lifeless. It no longer becomes music, rather its merely sound (or noise).
Below is tl;dr Xanga (lol) post I wrote back in '06 about this that got to the top of DIGG (lol) about this topic:
Spoiler!
So why is music today, is merely noise? It is because of this:
Allow me to explain (you may want to put on your NERD hats right about now).
The image you see above is what is called a 'Wave form'. Basically, it is the loudness (amplitude) of sound represented graphically. The higher the peaks, the louder the sound.
The picture above is a comparison of the waveforms of two songs (two tracks per song, Left and Right, thus four waveforms in total). However, they are the same song.
Confused? Both the top two and the bottom two waveforms are of a song off the latest Red Hot Chili Peppers album STADIUM ARCADIUM. The top is of the upcoming vinyl version, and the bottom is of the CD version that you can currently buy in stores. The difference is not in the medium (Vinyl Vs. CD), but rather the MASTERING. I repeat, the difference is not in the medium, but rather the mastering.
---
You see, when an album is produced, first it is recorded, then it is edited, then it is mastered.
Recording is simply what the name implies; recording the song.
Editing, again, is fairly straightforward; it is to make changes to the song, cutting it up, mixing the CONTENT of the song (not the actual sound).
Mastering deals with the sound engineer adjusting the sound into its final form; making the "master" copy.
As you can see, the top tracks (which is from the upcoming Vinyl) and the bottom tracks (from the current CD) are drastically different from one another. From what I said earlier, you can see that the CD version is much louder throughout the entire song. This results in BAD SOUND QUALITY (in most cases).
---
This may surprise you. "But, I thought louder is GOOD?" Well the problem is in the way they have made it louder. To make the sound louder, they "Compress" the sound.
What is compression, and why do they compress it, you ask?
First the WHAT: In the mastering process, the engineers receive tracks that come out of editing that looks and sounds pretty much like the top two tracks. They then COMPRESS it, and the final product results in tracks that sound/look like the bottom two tracks. Basically they take the sound, and they squish it, so that all the peaks (loud) you see in the top tracks are compressed down to the same volume as the quiet parts. So after compression, a quiet acoustic guitar solo will be just as loud as the distorted electric guitar chorus with the drums and the bass, etc.
WHY is compression used? Well, they do this because if somebody is listening to the song in a car, or in a record store, they will not have to adjust the volume up during the quiet parts, and down during the loud parts; it all has the same volume, so they do not have to keep adjusting it.
---
Almost all new CDs you buy will look/sound like the bottom two waveforms. Also, pretty much everything coming out of the radio will be compressed like that as well (understandable, since most people listen to the radio in cars).
Sounds like a good idea, right? Actually, no. There are two main problems with this.
1. Clipping: Clipping occurs when a sound is increased in volume SO MUCH that it exceeds the limit. What happens is the top of the peak is cut off, or "clipped" at the limit (0dB). When it is clipped, the nice pointy top of the wave becomes abruptly chopped off half-way into a flat peak. The result of this is a crackle/distortion in the audio. It no longer sounds smooth and warm, but rather hard and crackly. It is quite apparent in the guitar intro of SNOW (HEY, OH) on Stadium Arcadium.
2. Dynamics: Imagine that the waveforms above is a rollercoaster. Which do you think would be more exciting to ride on; the top tracks, with its drastically changing highs and lows, peaks and valleys? Or the bottom tracks?
You see, when you compress the song, everything becomes flat (both figurativelly and literally). There is no changing DYNAMIC to the sound. The soft soulful whispers in one song sound the same as the loud angry screams in another. It becomes lifeless. It no longer becomes music, rather its merely sound (or noise).
For example, check out the middle section of the song in the picture. In the first two tracks, you can see that the song graudally builds in volume, then drops, then builds up again. Compare that to the middle section of the bottom two. Nothing. Its all flat. All that buildup of anticipation and volume that the Chili Peppers originally intended to record is gone. You hear the sound of the recording, but you don't hear the MUSIC of the recording.
---
Why do record companies continue to do this? Because its a pissing-match for them, to see who can piss the farthest; who can have the loudest album. If there is 1dB to spare, they force the engineers to squeeze it out.
The reason that the master for the vinyl (top two tracks) is so drastically different than the CD master is because the engineer for the vinyl basically took the original edited tapes, and directly mastered it with minimal adjustment/molestation; ensuring the music sounds just as the Chili Peppers intended.
Well, I hope at least a few people have bothered to read this. I also hope that out of those who have read it, a few of them will keep it in mind next time they listen to a CD. Or if they were to become a famous musician one day, remember this and please tell your producer/sound engineer to NOT compressed to hell.
Thanks sonick, learned a lot from both of those posts.
__________________
There's times in life where I want a relationship, but then I cum.
Quote:
[23-08, 13:17] nabs i've gripped ice boy's shaft before
Quote:
[26-08, 13:50] Jesusjuice is this a sports car forum? why are there so many hondas?
Well of course it wont, everything is being made for MP3 file types still. I agree with you on the source, but not everything is made like you make it out to be.
Most. Not all. There is a difference.
Find an old Toni Braxton CD from her earlier days and give it a try on any hi-fi system. I even dare you to compare it to one of Mariah Carey's latest CDs. I'm confident the mastering of the Toni Braxton's CD will blow your mind.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badhobz
Yeah. Typical Mainlander Barbie doll.
Her car even smelled nice. Like a mixture of luxury perfume and a hint of….. vag ? Fish sauce ? Something a bit dank
whats wrong with things being convenient? How can you associate convenience with laziness? If you really wanna go there, did you build your own house? did you pave the roads you travel on? Did you code all the programs you use on your computer? Such an ignorant view on "today's" generation.
Here's a quote from the man himself.
“I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it.”
― Bill Gates
“I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it.”
u said it urself.. i wasnt wrong was i? did i say anything was wrong with convenience.. the lazy will go the easy route.. easy route being convenient... see what i did there?
So what if a hardworking man finds an easy route, its more profitable and quicker. Does that make him lazy?
its like taking the highway to get somewhere rather than going through the city. Am I lazy because I am using the convenience of the highway over the city route?
Anyways this is getting way off topic lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcrdukes
Most. Not all. There is a difference.
Find an old Toni Braxton CD from her earlier days and give it a try on any hi-fi system. I even dare you to compare it to one of Mariah Carey's latest CDs. I'm confident the mastering of the Toni Braxton's CD will blow your mind.
Love your comparison from an old Toni Braxton CD to a newer Mariah Carey CD
__________________
There's times in life where I want a relationship, but then I cum.
Quote:
[23-08, 13:17] nabs i've gripped ice boy's shaft before
Quote:
[26-08, 13:50] Jesusjuice is this a sports car forum? why are there so many hondas?
Sonick is a genius. I won't go into detail what's so great about his post. But it's damn good!
2010 Toyota Rav4 Limited V6 - Wifey's Daily Driver
2009 BMW 128i - Daily Driver
2007 Toyota Rav4 Sport V6 - Sold
1999 Mazda Miata - Sold
2003 Mazda Protege5 - Sold
1987 BMW 325is - Sold
1990 Mazda Miata - Sold
I have 2-channel audiophile system with a Technics turntable from 1977 with a modern Shure MMC. I also have vinyl records that were pressed from analog masters. For example, I have a 1980s pressing of Thriller. Did Quincy Jones use DATs back then? I doubt it.
I also have a variety of .flac media. I can tell the difference between the digital and analog media, even with the scratches and dust on my records. Posted via RS Mobile
On one hand, good. Fuck old technology. I feel the thing keeping us from hoverboards and robots is everyone wanting to hold on to the old days and old technology. Everything has to be legacy compatible. Like when I bought my MBP, people were like "What are you going to do with no optical drive!?" Oh, I don't know...never use DVDs again like I've been doing for probably the last 5+ years?
On the other hand, well shit...there goes another part of my childhood. So much of my younger days were spent in HMV and such. Kids these days will have no idea what a Walkman was. It's like taking pictures on film, which I want to do a bit. Not because I want to be one of those "Oh, I only shoot film. Fuck digital soullessness." hipsters but because like the CD, this is something that will probably die in my lifetime and it might be the last chance I have to experience some nostalgia.
On one hand, good. Fuck old technology. I feel the thing keeping us from hoverboards and robots is everyone wanting to hold on to the old days and old technology. Everything has to be legacy compatible. Like when I bought my MBP, people were like "What are you going to do with no optical drive!?" Oh, I don't know...never use DVDs again like I've been doing for probably the last 5+ years?
On the other hand, well shit...there goes another part of my childhood. So much of my younger days were spent in HMV and such. Kids these days will have no idea what a Walkman was. It's like taking pictures on film, which I want to do a bit. Not because I want to be one of those "Oh, I only shoot film. Fuck digital soullessness." hipsters but because like the CD, this is something that will probably die in my lifetime and it might be the last chance I have to experience some nostalgia.
Makes you feel old when you realise that such a popular form of media storage (CD's) will go extinct not too far from now.
Anyway, I feel as though people are confusing shit music with loss of sound quality on modern media storage mediums. "Artists" have tons of electronic assists nowadays, what you hear is rarely what is actually recorded raw.
What you end up with is a song that is not as genuine, artists don't have to try as hard to make their creations sound good enough for sale. All of these electronic assists improve overall smoothness, but decrease the human element when you listen (sometimes it's easy to tell).
It's not the technology, it's the shitty music that people like to rape their ears with nowadays. It doesn't help that half of them can't actually sing that well, which forces the electronic assists to salvage some sort of song out of it.
While this is true, there's something people are missing. But I'll save some of you time with the TL;DR version: MP3s and digital audio production killed CDs.
For years, record companies and recording artists have forgotten how to produce a proper record. The art of mastering a record album is becoming a lost art. We have Autotune and digital software that help producers create what is known as "music" these days. "Music" being sold off for cheap. What. $0.99/track? I bet record companies are still making a killing off of it.
If you're old enough to, or have access to, pick out a CD from the 90s and compare it to something recent, like an iTunes file or a 320kbps MP3 file.
It is very likely the CD will have much better audio quality than the MP3 file. Why? Because back then, record companies and artists gave a shit about how their album sounded. They played real instruments and were capable of actually singing. Audio engineers knew how to master the recordings onto a disc capable of reproducing some phenomenal sound and talent. This process costs a lot of money. But record companies are about profits because after all, they're a business, right? (Think RIAA and their affiliates.)
Nowadays? Plug in your Macbook Pro, open up Garage Band, enable Autotune and throw on your Beats headphones and you're a recording artist. Nevermind the hipster on Main Street who just picked up a Roland drum machine and a 303 out of a dumpster. You already beat 'em to it while they waste away, lounging around Gene Coffee Bar for hours sipping on a large cappuccino and freeloading their WiFi.
See, I think you are completely, 100% batshit fucking wrong.
Wow, I should just start every post with that.
Anyway...dukes=wrong. Go.
You are looking at it like the industry is pushing digital, and I take it the exact opposite way. They were pushed/pulled/dragged into digital distribution and did not want to go there.
They sued, like everyone. It's been covered to death. Don't want to dwell there.
But here's my take.
In the 90's, relatively speaking, they had a bit of a heyday in their system. Big phat fucking studios cranking out music on CD's...a beautiful little system of being cheap as borsht to produce top quality results. MTV cranking out a generation of kids that lived this shit like no other. It wasn't "buy the new Elvis record" it was "buy Backstreet boys AND No doubt AND N*sync AND spice girls" Even better..the parents that got THEIR parents the jobs at EMI are still buying. Plus concerts.
Great time to be alive.
So why would someone change it? They were gods in their own demain. Fuck, once a year they even get on tv and celebrate how fucking awesome they are.
So Napster/metallica/internet/riaa/kazaa/ happens. I just summed up 7 years of entertainment news in one sentence.
Do you think they are now going to say, "oh gee. You were right. We were unfair. Let's all play nice now"
Hell no.
Music for the masses now has the staying power of a television commercial. It's white noise. Sure, some make it to the top, but think about the 1 hit wonder. It's now so common, its unreal. No one really cares. Push out a bunch of shit and see what sticks.
Some go up and become bigger, but a lot just fizz out.
We have AI and X Factor pumping out 2 new singers a year, plus a couple out of the finalists branch on their own.
So the game now is cheap out. Why create an album of b-sides? Just release a track, and if it goes somewhere, release some more.
I think eventually it will turn around, much like grunge was an answer to 80's hair bands, there will be a new spin on the whole thing that will hopefully be based on quality.
(I'm talking mainstream music here...I know you can name 50 bands that are 'tite' and all, but I'm talking the masses of music consumers...teenage girls, mid-20's type buyers)
And if my case hasn't been made... will.i.am and the black eyed peas. Perfect example of mass marketed fuzz.
I think its a pretty established fact that they were not pushing digital. They aren't happy to give apple 30% of their money. I think its pretty logical to assume that they are going to be changing something to keep their money coming in. This is labels. The merchants of physical distribution are on their own.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
