Great explanation and “inside baseball” look at studio processes. Would like to link to this post in my regular Friday post on Michael Acoustic. We’ve been discussing some of these issues and you’ve explained much of them better than I ever could! Would that be okay with you? Thanks!!
You speak the truth about ears. Cleaning one's ears is a tweak that people ignore. I have heard people say to me that a certain track sounds great on their sound system and I agreed. I said that even though the sound was muddy or shrill. Shit, the buses on the island of Guadeloupe had better sound than most systems in people's home here in the USA.
You build upon so many strawmen, I do not know where to start and clearly you know very little about the Mo-Fi controversy, but it was entertaining to read your "speculation". Alan D. is good friend of mine BTW.
The quest for audio perfection, while laudable, reminds me of one of my favourite Jeff Tweedy lines–'When the Devil came he was not red, he was chrome...'.
You missed out on perhaps the most important step in analog delivery to album, and that is the lacquer. What happens during this process determines how each album sounds to unprecedented degree.
In the end there are even more complexities when listening to music derived from either a fully digital medium, full analog production, or any blend of the two. This includes condition of the output device, humidity, hours of use on that device, (burn-in), state of mind of the listener, and the list just continues almost ad infinitum.
Having worked in many of the stages producing 'professional sound' I feel it is more than fair to state that music is in the ear of the beholder. Which is to say, stop fretting about descriptions of music and begin to learn how to really appreciate what you are listening to in a way that is affordable to you.
The original idea behind PONO is a wonderful one and would have made a HUGE difference to the end user experience, but sadly, that level of willingness is not a part of the current music production paradigm...just too many vested interests, equipment variables etc. etc. Perhaps the day will come when everyone can listen to music to the standard it was originally made, but it's likely a distant reality for most listeners today.
This is interesting and troubling. Are there any streaming services that aren't so ruthless towards the musicians? I'd like to listen to music more ethically conscious of the folks making it, if possible.
Good article. But the not the bit about streaming lossy compression always being worse, an observation which kind of defeats the argument. Lossy files played through a good system in a good room could very well beat uncompressed audio played through a terrible system in a lousy listening environment. Unless the comment was ironic and I didn’t get it.
Excellent observation!
Great explanation and “inside baseball” look at studio processes. Would like to link to this post in my regular Friday post on Michael Acoustic. We’ve been discussing some of these issues and you’ve explained much of them better than I ever could! Would that be okay with you? Thanks!!
Michael Acoustic
You speak the truth about ears. Cleaning one's ears is a tweak that people ignore. I have heard people say to me that a certain track sounds great on their sound system and I agreed. I said that even though the sound was muddy or shrill. Shit, the buses on the island of Guadeloupe had better sound than most systems in people's home here in the USA.
Congratulations on the record!
And on eating corn the same day it was picked - the only way to eat it! (I prefer grilling it in the husk tho..)
You build upon so many strawmen, I do not know where to start and clearly you know very little about the Mo-Fi controversy, but it was entertaining to read your "speculation". Alan D. is good friend of mine BTW.
The quest for audio perfection, while laudable, reminds me of one of my favourite Jeff Tweedy lines–'When the Devil came he was not red, he was chrome...'.
You missed out on perhaps the most important step in analog delivery to album, and that is the lacquer. What happens during this process determines how each album sounds to unprecedented degree.
In the end there are even more complexities when listening to music derived from either a fully digital medium, full analog production, or any blend of the two. This includes condition of the output device, humidity, hours of use on that device, (burn-in), state of mind of the listener, and the list just continues almost ad infinitum.
Having worked in many of the stages producing 'professional sound' I feel it is more than fair to state that music is in the ear of the beholder. Which is to say, stop fretting about descriptions of music and begin to learn how to really appreciate what you are listening to in a way that is affordable to you.
The original idea behind PONO is a wonderful one and would have made a HUGE difference to the end user experience, but sadly, that level of willingness is not a part of the current music production paradigm...just too many vested interests, equipment variables etc. etc. Perhaps the day will come when everyone can listen to music to the standard it was originally made, but it's likely a distant reality for most listeners today.
Support your local artists playing live!
Let's set something up soon!
This is interesting and troubling. Are there any streaming services that aren't so ruthless towards the musicians? I'd like to listen to music more ethically conscious of the folks making it, if possible.
Good article. But the not the bit about streaming lossy compression always being worse, an observation which kind of defeats the argument. Lossy files played through a good system in a good room could very well beat uncompressed audio played through a terrible system in a lousy listening environment. Unless the comment was ironic and I didn’t get it.