Favorite Musical Decade

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Broken Record, May 1, 2009.

?

What is your favorite musical era?

  1. Current (2000s)

    4 vote(s)
    9.8%
  2. 1990s

    10 vote(s)
    24.4%
  3. 1980s

    8 vote(s)
    19.5%
  4. 1970s

    10 vote(s)
    24.4%
  5. 1960s

    7 vote(s)
    17.1%
  6. 1950s

    1 vote(s)
    2.4%
  7. Ancient

    1 vote(s)
    2.4%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Deuce Wayne

    Deuce Wayne Damnit, I cant find my driving moccasins anywhere!

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    28,238
    I'm not confusing any of that. I'm simply stating that today's typical home studio owned by a 17 yr old kid can put out better SOUND quality than anything in the 70s.

    And maybe youtube is the wrong place to get your vid from, but that video proves the point. The music sounds flat. The snares don't pop, there's static, the vocals aren't clear.

    The actual art of the production, engineering, etc may have been technically better. But the clarity of the sound is bad. Again, this could be the video quality more than the actual sound quality.

    But there is also a reason why audio from that time are taken and remastered with today's equipment, and re-released.

    on a related note:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdai...atles-remastered-albums-due-september-9-2009/

    Beatles remastered tracks due in September.
  2. Deuce Wayne

    Deuce Wayne Damnit, I cant find my driving moccasins anywhere!

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    28,238
    Word. Shouldn't have said editing. But technically you do edit the vocals (all I mess with is the backing track and vocals). Limiting, then normalizing, etc.
    And I can master for vocals + beat. Nothing I enjoy doing, but I do from time to time when kids are being raped with studio fees for average quality. Nothing I enjoy doing though, even as simple as I've kept it.
  3. Tuckfro42

    Tuckfro42 Frozen Donkey Wheel

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,910
    Gloat, I'd stop if I were you. You're clearly outclassed by Avvie and Cruds when it comes to this subject. They know what they are talking about, you are only guessing.

    As for your clarity/sound quality arguments. Have you ever thought that it's your speakers that make 70's music sound so bad? Here's what I mean; much of today's music is mixed to the lowest common denominator. They take a look at what people will be listening to the music on and mix accordingly. So many songs are mixed to be listed to on MP3 players, factory car stereos, and tiny computer speakers. The music gets compressed so that it will sound good on speakers that can't play full range.
    This benefits the average consumer who doesn't care about dynamic range, but hurts those of us who do care about hearing what is supposed to be there.
    Most 70's music was mixed to sound true to life, so it covered its full frequency range. When you play well recorded music on your cheap speakers, you get distortion because the speakers can't handle the full range or certain frequencies are unnaturally enhanced or diminished. However, when that same song is played on a capable system, it sounds sweet. The opposite is true for modern recordings. I have a hard time listening to a lot of recently recorded material because it sounds so thin and compressed on my system, whereas older recordings sound wonderful.
  4. Deuce Wayne

    Deuce Wayne Damnit, I cant find my driving moccasins anywhere!

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    28,238
    My speakers are THX certified. Let's stop making excuses and find examples of good 70s sound clarity.

    Cheap speakers. lol Yeah! Damned that crystal clear sound! Won't allow me to hear distortion and terribly dubbed vocals to their true strengths!

    I have zero doubt that avvie and CC both know more about music production than me. But until you or anyone else can explain why music (produced by major labels) is being remastered today, or find examples of clear music from that era... I'm pretty dead on with this one.
    Has nothing to do with knowing music. Just hearing sound quality.
  5. CRUDS

    CRUDS El Diablo Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    15,483
    The #1 reason they are re-mastering old music: Money
    Making the public buy the same music they already own.
    The music industry is falling onto hard times in the digital age - so they turn back to the mega-sellers of yore knowing people will pay again.

    Another reason is compatibility with today's X.0 surround/sub THX audio environment. Records of the past (especially Rock records) were meant to be played on systems of the past - not today's mid-less boom factories. London Calling and Bollocks (2 fine examples if you want em) sound like God's hand on an old Marantz and a pair of monsterous Sansui 3 way speakers but not so good with earbuds or surround/sub and visa versa with today's scooped music..

    And yet another reason is because so many early CD transfers of old records sounded so much worse than the vinyl did. It took the technology folk some time to figure this sh*t out.

    The bottom line though it not a given is that re-mastered versions of ye-olde records sound any better. They often do not... They're just louder. I prefer original versions of about 60% of the old stuff that's been remastered. That last Zep collection sound infinitely worse than even the very first transfers to CD.

    As Avvie said before - there is no "better" in a subjective case like this - only preference. I happen to think the sounds of the 70's are far superior to the sounds of today's music. It was the realm of the analog (true sound) as opposed to today's digital snapshots of true sound.
  6. CRUDS

    CRUDS El Diablo Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    15,483
    *clip of song plays*

    Dick: So, uh, that's just a, you know, a rough mix of some of the stuff you've been working on...

    *dethklok sighs dejectedly*

    Skwisgaar: it's not, uh... terriblies, uh, wonderful is it? No?

    Murderface: No, no, it's not, it's... it's lacking...

    Nathan: Yeah, its like, it's like it's... does it sound too confined?
    *general agreement*

    Pickles: Too digital!
    *more general agreement*

    Pickes: It, it lacks warmth.

    Murderface: Sorry if we have very learned, sensitive, musical ears

    Skwisgaar: Yeah, Toki is right, sorry if we gots very good ears.

    Murderface: uh, Murderface. That's.. I'm Murderface, that's my voice.

    Toki: It sounds like microchips

    Pickles: ANYway, we've been working on some new technology. To get back to analogue

    Dethklok incorporates the technology of a Hydro Electric Audio Recordinational Device which records the band directly to water
  7. avvie

    avvie Ke ali'i o na okole Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2003
    Messages:
    8,643
    You aren't hearing sound quality at all, d'wayne.

    Yes, there is. if you were paying attention to any of what is being presented to you instead of just using this forum for a pissing contest, you would have already found the explanation for that.

    The music form "that era" was mixed perfectly, and it's perfectly clear... especially the example I presented to you. No, you can't judge it from a YouTube... in fact, you can't judge anything from the internet unless it's downloaded in .wav format. Your THX certified speakers don't mean **** when what you're listening to is overcompressed garbage.... and that's exactly what you're hearing. LOUDER is not CLEARER. Never has been, never will be, no matter how many loser rapper wiggers want it to be.

    Man, you are the most superficial and plastic humanoid I've ever had the pleasure of berating. "I have THX certified speakers... so your music must suck". What a DA. :rolleyes: But of course I shouldn't let it bug me, because you're a nobody. Perhaps you'd like to take your expertise to where the sound experts hang out and present them with your clarity and insight... if you can convince them, then I'll recant.
  8. Tuckfro42

    Tuckfro42 Frozen Donkey Wheel

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,910
    Oh! You have THX certified speakers?! Well woop-ti-do! All that means is that company paid to have them labeled THX certified. Its like a great man once said, "Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer's sake, for your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product."

    Speakers do make a huge difference in whether or not you're hearing what was actually recorded. Look at the frequency chart of your speakers (if it is published). Is it flat, or is it curved like a smiley face or a frown? If it's flat, then chances are you are hearing exactly what the artist and sound engineer intended. Anything else, and you're getting a coloured sound.

    Bottom line, you cannot judge sound quality of a recording using speakers that don't have a flat frequency response.
  9. CRUDS

    CRUDS El Diablo Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    15,483
    and mixing without said flat response monitors is a recipe for disaster..
  10. Broken Record

    Broken Record Biscuit Eater Staff

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2002
    Messages:
    4,291
    I likes to mix with earbud headphones that have practically no ability to convey bass. I have found the best of these to be the ones that ship with light on the wallet mp3 players made in Syrian sweatshops. That way, once it hits somebody's boom box with the super bass button on it... watch out.
    • High Five High Five x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.