HELP Modernizing Your Catalog.

13»

Comments

  • Dinosaur David BDinosaur David B Posts: 17,783
    jebbudda said:
    I'm looking forward to checking out Dino Dave's set up .

    My issue is disposing of the physical Cd . I'm not against transferring EVERYTHING to a better format .

    I'm still hesitant to dispose of any Cd . I can see getting rid of some burned copies but not anything else .

    The real issue is Cds cluttering the living space .
    If you get rid of the cases and put them in 3-ring binders, you might fit them on ONE shelf in your new place. I'll give you another tip for smaller space living, too.  BED RISERS. Put your bed(s) on bed risers, and you get a lot more space under the beds for storage. 
    In the midst of the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.
  • eduardoritoseduardoritos Posts: 3,614
    edited July 2017
    I can't read the whole thing, and, I suposse, all point of view are explained.

    That's mine:

    Let outside the romantic think. Do it the traslation to mp3 and enjoy the easy life.
    Yes, I love, REALLY love the LP, the vinyl on the turnable, reading lyrics and watching photos while listening to the album, in a quiet  (apart of my music) room etc, etc.

    That's not the real life anymore. I use wireless earphones and I can listen to my computers music while doing the house things (cooking, cleaning, etc). You can mix video music, music, radio, all from the same audio source.

    And, just in case, grab the original format in a closet.

    The more used you are with usefullness of that format, the more lazyness develops about more analog way of life.
    Post edited by eduardoritos on
  • HaffnerHaffner Posts: 7,895
    I can't read the whole thing, and, I suposse, all point of view are explained.

    That's mine:

    Let outside the romantic think. Do it the traslation to mp3 and enjoy the easy life.
    Yes, I love, REALLY love the LP, the vinyl on the turnable, reading lyrics and watching photos while listening to the album, in a quiet  (apart of my music) room etc, etc.

    That's not the real life anymore. I use wireless earphones and I can listen to my computers music while doing the house things (cooking, cleaning, etc). You can mix video music, music, radio, all from the same audio source.

    And, just in case, grab the original format in a closet.

    The more used you are with usefullness of that format, the more lazyness develops about more analog way of life.

    That's not real life for me, and certainly not the best. I've never gotten used to the mp3 to the point where I can embrace it fully, it's simply more convenient. Real (and best) life for me is breaking out the vinyl or cd and being transported to a place in time that's away from the bloodless overcompression of the mp3.

    The mp3, youtube audio, etc. are all simple convenience, and that's all imo. However, I can understand where folks whom aren't particular audiophiles (i.e. less concerned about dynamic range and, say, production subtleties) would embrace them. And that isn't a condescension toward such folks in the slightest, more power to everyone's individual tastes.

    If I had my way, and didn't have to sometimes have audio on demand, I'd have the biggest library of vinyl and cd...beyond the Jeb zone :)

  • Seven MoonsSeven Moons Posts: 8,783
    edited July 2017
    Haffner said:
    I can't read the whole thing, and, I suposse, all point of view are explained.

    That's mine:

    Let outside the romantic think. Do it the traslation to mp3 and enjoy the easy life.
    Yes, I love, REALLY love the LP, the vinyl on the turnable, reading lyrics and watching photos while listening to the album, in a quiet  (apart of my music) room etc, etc.

    That's not the real life anymore. I use wireless earphones and I can listen to my computers music while doing the house things (cooking, cleaning, etc). You can mix video music, music, radio, all from the same audio source.

    And, just in case, grab the original format in a closet.

    The more used you are with usefullness of that format, the more lazyness develops about more analog way of life.

    That's not real life for me, and certainly not the best. I've never gotten used to the mp3 to the point where I can embrace it fully, it's simply more convenient. Real (and best) life for me is breaking out the vinyl or cd and being transported to a place in time that's away from the bloodless overcompression of the mp3.

    The mp3, youtube audio, etc. are all simple convenience, and that's all imo. However, I can understand where folks whom aren't particular audiophiles (i.e. less concerned about dynamic range and, say, production subtleties) would embrace them. And that isn't a condescension toward such folks in the slightest, more power to everyone's individual tastes.

    In theory mp3 encoding won't change much the dynamic range of a recording. It works by data compression, not signal compression. So what you'll get is a less detailed output (because some data are lost: it's rouglhly the same phenomenon as with aliasing on digital images), and you'll also get random artefacts from the signal processing algorithm itself. It won't be a big issue with slowly varying signals, but will definitely affect transients like snare hits, cymbals... this is where people with a trained ear can easily spot low bitrate mp3s (not so much the high bitrate ones).  
    The lack of dynamic range is another story, it comes from signal compression, and is mostly a deliberate (unfortunate) production choice. From what I've gathered, vinyls often have a different (quieter) master, which may explain why people often think vinyl is inherently more dynamic. 

    Post edited by Seven Moons on
  • HaffnerHaffner Posts: 7,895
    edited July 2017

    Vinyl is as much that incomparable warm sound as much as the nostalgia for me.

    As far as the processing, please hold that thought and try Beethoven's 9th on mp3 vs. wav/cd. On mp3 it's terrible mush, and I can see why young people get scared away by it. You could even try this experiment with an old recording, like the 60's Karajan, and the difference is still very obvious.

    But again, Rock/Pop/Metal ain't (and doesn't try to be) that wide-ranging dynamically, so mp3s are often fine. If we compare the vast majority of Occidental music to the 9th in terms of overall dynamics, all the rest will suffer.

    Post edited by Haffner on
  • Seven MoonsSeven Moons Posts: 8,783
    Haffner said:

    As far as the processing, please hold that thought and try Beethoven's 9th on mp3 vs. wav/cd. On mp3 it's terrible mush, and I can see why young people get scared away by it. You could even try this experiment with an old recording, like the 60's Karajan, and the difference is still very obvious.

    I'm not surprised, but do you think it's a dynamic range issue?  I'd wager on the lossy format and how the reconstruction algorithm handles complex signals made of many details - like a symphony orchestra. 
  • HaffnerHaffner Posts: 7,895
    Haffner said:

    As far as the processing, please hold that thought and try Beethoven's 9th on mp3 vs. wav/cd. On mp3 it's terrible mush, and I can see why young people get scared away by it. You could even try this experiment with an old recording, like the 60's Karajan, and the difference is still very obvious.

    I'm not surprised, but do you think it's a dynamic range issue?  I'd wager on the lossy format and how the reconstruction algorithm handles complex signals made of many details - like a symphony orchestra. 


    I'm at a loss when it comes to lossless lol! I'm mostly going by what my ears tell me. That is a very interesting analogy though.


  • HaffnerHaffner Posts: 7,895

    I'm messing around this morning, played the third movement of the 9th (as recently conducted by Daniel Barenboim) on Jasmine's mp3 player and now CD...it's practically like night and day. The mp3 is a whistling mush of meh, the CD provides more than adequate instrument separation, a far crisper and pleasantly brighter sound overall.

    Of course, that's just one recording, but the test works with the classic Karajan as well.

    All this further proves to me my wisdom in keeping every last art music cd I own. Naturally, things like my Rhino "Paranoid" and Deluxe "Black Sabbath" cds ain't going anywhere either :) They're fun!

  • Dinosaur David BDinosaur David B Posts: 17,783
    edited July 2017
    The difference in sonics between vinyl and digital -- stylus noise aside -- is often a matter of how well or poorly the original content was mastered -- AND for what format.  Older releases -- music released in the analog age was (obviously) mastered for vinyl. To make those recordings shine in digital format requires RE mastering by someone who both understands mastering for digital output AND actually CARES about the result. 

    For example, Jimmy Page claims when CDs first came out, his record company simply ran the Zep original recordings through some kind of "auto mastering" process for CD format to get CD versions on the shelves ASAP. He claimed the first Zep CDs that hit the market sounded terrible.  In 1990, JP released the whole catalog and put out the box sets he personally remastered (with a mastering engineer).  I had BOTH the originals, AND the JP remasters, the remasters sounded WAY better (and not just louder).  IMO, they also sounded better than the vinyl versions, but I'm admittedly not a vinyl super fan. 

    So mentally project this idea to other music music with less obvious sales potential than a Zep catalog. Think of Andy's classical recordings on vinyl.  If the original performance came from the pre digital era, it may have been mastered nicely for vinyl.  But did the record company feel the re mastering for digital warranted a painstaking approach? Or did they just run it through a machine to save time and money? 

    In addition to the approach taken, the other major difference in outputting in analog vs digital is the natural compression factor.  When I first started producing my own music as a true novice, it was a real eye-opening surprise to me that if I sent the SAME EXACT MIX out of my board -- AT THE SAME TIME -- to both a CD burner AND to an analog cassette deck, the cassette mix invariably sounded warmer and better.  Why? Natural tape compression. When you send a mix onto that little 1/4 cassette, the excess frequency range compresses in a warm, pleasing analog way. The more your output meters are in the red, the more it compresses, and to a degree, the better it may even sound. For purists who still record on 2" tape, this is exactly why they do it.  But the Digital format gives you a lot more headroom. That same mix may not compress AT ALL in digital format, and if your peaks go into the red, the digital glitching sounds terrible.  (Side note, these days, you can achieve much of the tape compression effect using DAW-based digital tape-emulating plug-ins in both the mixing and mastering stages. The effect is quite noticeable). 

    I'm pretty sure that natural analog compression is also a factor when cutting vinyl, as is how tightly the grooves are cut. The less music you put on a side of vinyl, the wider the grooves are, and the better the recording sounds. 

    So again, the final result of what something sounds like -- particularly in digital -- depends on what format the original recording was mastered for, and how much the record company actually cared about the results. 


    Post edited by Dinosaur David B on
    In the midst of the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.
  • HaffnerHaffner Posts: 7,895
    The difference in sonics between vinyl and digital -- stylus noise aside -- is often a matter of how well or poorly the original content was mastered -- AND for what format.  Older releases -- music released in the analog age was (obviously) mastered for vinyl. To make those recordings shine in digital format requires RE mastering by someone who both understands mastering for digital output AND actually CARES about the result. 

    For example, Jimmy Page claims when CDs first came out, his record company simply ran the Zep original recordings through some kind of "auto mastering" process for CD format to get CD versions on the shelves ASAP. He claimed the first Zep CDs that hit the market sounded terrible.  In 1990, JP released the whole catalog and put out the box sets he personally remastered (with a mastering engineer).  I had BOTH the originals, AND the JP remasters, the remasters sounded WAY better (and not just louder).  IMO, they also sounded better than the vinyl versions, but I'm admittedly not a vinyl super fan. 

    So mentally project this idea to other music music with less obvious sales potential than a Zep catalog. Think of Andy's classical recordings on vinyl.  If the original performance came from the pre digital era, it may have been mastered nicely for vinyl.  But did the record company feel the re mastering for digital warranted a painstaking approach? Or did they just run it through a machine to save time and money? 

    In addition to the approach taken, the other major difference in outputting in analog vs digital is the natural compression factor.  When I first started producing my own music as a true novice, it was a real eye-opening surprise to me that if I sent the SAME EXACT MIX out of my board -- AT THE SAME TIME -- to both a CD burner AND to an analog cassette deck, the cassette mix invariably sounded warmer and better.  Why? Natural tape compression. When you send a mix onto that little 1/4 cassette, the excess frequency range compresses in a warm, pleasing analog way. The more your output meters are in the red, the more it compresses, and to a degree, the better it may even sound. For purists who still record on 2" tape, this is exactly why they do it.  But the Digital format gives you a lot more headroom. That same mix may not compress AT ALL in digital format, and if your peaks go into the red, the digital glitching sounds terrible.  (Side note, these days, you can achieve much of the tape compression effect using DAW-based digital tape-emulating plug-ins in both the mixing and mastering stages. The effect is quite noticeable). 

    I'm pretty sure that natural analog compression is also a factor when cutting vinyl, as is how tightly the grooves are cut. The less music you put on a side of vinyl, the wider the grooves are, and the better the recording sounds. 

    So again, the final result of what something sounds like -- particularly in digital -- depends on what format the original recording was mastered for, and how much the record company actually cared about the results. 



    This gives us plenty more context, a very informative post.
  • EugenicScumEugenicScum Posts: 5,323
    CDs sounded best from the late 80s and the 90s till before the loudness war kicked in. I think the albums during this period were primarily mastered for the format, and the remasters were done for this format from the original tapes. I've had CDs from the old times which not only sound bad, but also have almost nothing in terms of booklet either.
    Check out my band: Bevar Sea
  • HaffnerHaffner Posts: 7,895
    CDs sounded best from the late 80s and the 90s till before the loudness war kicked in. I think the albums during this period were primarily mastered for the format, and the remasters were done for this format from the original tapes. I've had CDs from the old times which not only sound bad, but also have almost nothing in terms of booklet either.
    I think it's the widespread use of the limiter on the bus. I had to ask my co-producer on the first album to cool out on that and the compression because it was smoothing things out to much. He told me it was SOP, but he did scale it back. Not that it did much good lol!
  • yngwie666yngwie666 Posts: 6,557
    Be aware that not all Bluetooth devices are equal in terms of quality (I'm talking only about the wireless signal here).
    For geeks only:
    https://www.lifewire.com/what-to-know-about-bluetooth-3134591



  • M11M11 Posts: 841
    Venomboy said:
    I have ripped 90% of my CD collection and have all the music stores in iTunes in the Cloud. I use my Apple TV hooked up to my stereo to listen to music in my living room. Pretty easy.
    I have this setup. Before Apple came out with their streaming service to rival Spotify, they had the iTunes Match service, which matched your ripped catalog with the one in the iTunes Store and made all your music available in the cloud to stream to any Apple device (iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, etc). It was great because it would stream the stuff from the iTunes catalog that was mastered for iTunes and if it was some CD I had that was not available on iTunes it would stream with the quality I ripped it.
    After Apple Music came along, the service was changed to "iCloud Music Library" or something, and it has worked for me pretty fine, except, that sometimes, I think out of the system's laziness, it would confuse song versions. For example, I ripped Toto's Live in Amsterdam and have it on my iCloud Music Library, but when I go to Apple Musi and want to listen to the studio version of Goodbye Elenore from Turn Back it would instead play the live version from Live in Amsterdam. Really annoying.
Sign In or Register to comment.