Jump to content


Photo

Distortion of Sound


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 300 icky piranhas blues

300 icky piranhas blues

    Icky Thump

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 343 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 02:04 PM

Truth, IMHO....

 

Trailer

 

Movie



 



#2 J.C.

J.C.

    Elephant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,183 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 02:40 PM

I agree with the contents of the trailer, but I admit that I've been listening to stuff on my "shitty laptop speakers" because I don't have a way to connect it to a better sound system right now.

 

But yeah, iPods...you're only getting a small percentage of the actual intended sound range.



#3 macwacky

macwacky

    The White Stripes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,244 posts

Posted 11 July 2014 - 03:46 PM

I'm curious enough to watch the film, if I remember to. I am currently listening to crappy compressed digital files through very crappy plastic speakers. I am at work, and that's about what I'm allowed to do. I will listen in the best manner I can afford when I am able. It's not so much convenience as necessity. convenience would mean that I am too lazy to put a record on and couldn't care less about the difference in sound quality. which ain't true.

#4 JellyRoll Baker

JellyRoll Baker

    De Stijl

  • Little Room Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,828 posts

Posted 12 July 2014 - 05:13 PM

Lots of wanky snobbery there.  I love my music and I love the audio setup at home but the belief that we now listen to music with less fidelity in the past is, to be honest, bullshit.  Your MP3 may be compressed but the previous generation had their cassettes and they were still inspired.  AM radio through car speakers is seriously shitty quality but that's the sound that gave us rock and roll (and clever producers like Phil Spector optimised their music to sound good through that means of transmission).  Jukeboxes have historically been an important means for people hearing recordings but they're sure not known  for being high fidelity systems - but the sound that do give us is unique and special and magical.  It's not always what the artist intended but any artist who can't handle his output changing with the context isn't worthy of the name.  Jamaica is the birthplace of so much in modern music yet the primary forms of listening to music there are huge, booming sound systems which are all bottoms and tops with no middle to speak of.  My favourite format, the 7-inch 45rpm record, makes serious compromises with audio quality compared with the long playing format and yet using it the music got out.

 

The reality is that there's no "gold standard" of audio quality.  Sound gets shaped by the format, the playback and the environment we listen to it in.  There's never been a golden age of audio quality and while the format may be lossy now it was in the past as well but if the music's good enough then that's all that matters.


Edited by JellyRoll Baker, 13 July 2014 - 06:52 AM.


#5 mittensonfire

mittensonfire

    Little Room Lunatic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,394 posts

Posted 12 July 2014 - 08:10 PM


I'm curious enough to watch the film, if I remember to. I am currently listening to crappy compressed digital files through very crappy plastic speakers. I am at work, and that's about what I'm allowed to do. I will listen in the best manner I can afford when I am able. It's not so much convenience as necessity. convenience would mean that I am too lazy to put a record on and couldn't care less about the difference in sound quality. which ain't true.


100% concur.

#6 macwacky

macwacky

    The White Stripes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,244 posts

Posted 13 July 2014 - 03:15 AM

Lots of wanky snobbery there.  I love my music and I love the audio setup at home but the belief that we now listen to music with less fidelity in the past is, to be honest, bullshit.  Your MP3 may be compressed but the previous generation had their cassettes and they were still inspired.  AM radio through car speakers is seriously shitty quality but that's the sound that gave us rock and roll (and clever producers like Phil Spector optimised their music to sound good through that means of transmission).  Jukeboxes have historically been an important means for people hearing recordings but they're sure not known  for being high fidelity systems - but the sound that do give us is unique and special and magical.  It's not always what the artist intended but any artist who can't handle his output changing with the context isn't worthy of the name.  Jamaica is the birthplace of so much in modern music yet the primary forms of listening to music therew are highe, booming sound systems which are all bottoms and tops with no middle to speak of.  My favourite format, the 7-inch 45rpm record, makes serious compromises with audio quality compared with the long playing format and yet using it the music got out.
 
The reality is that there's no "gold standard" of audio quality.  Sound gets shaped but the format, the playback and the environment we listen to it in.  There's never been a golden age of audio quality and while the format may be lossy now it was in the past as well but if the music's good enough then that's all that matters.


insightful. I was inspired listening to crappy AM radio and TV. And Phil Spector's wall of sound! Sounding majestic and insurmountable in the old Chevy, but thin and fragile on those Philles 45s.

#7 m&m's

m&m's

    Icky Thump

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 16 July 2014 - 11:27 AM

I also do not agree with the whole loss of quality thing, I am much more worried about the compression that STUDIOS put on their records to make them sound louder (and better on the radio too). The downside of the MP3 in my opinion is that it is so easily accessible and transferrable, which (and they spoke about it in the film too) makes it also easily disposable. 

I mean, people listen to music more than they ever did, with their iPods always in the pocket. Sooner or later they start to treat it as a background noise and just shuffle through songs. 

 

I almost always listen to music on CD or lossless, using not-so-bad headphones or my stereo, and it is a conscious choice, I just find it more enjoyable (how much of that is autosuggestion I don't know, but who cares as long as it works). For example - Lazaretto. The iTunes First Listen which was available a week before the initial release sounded really bad, on the title track Jack's voice was terribly muffled. Then I got it in FLAC (bought it online, I have yet to wait until I can buy it where I live for a reasonable price on CD, less say LP), and it was so-much-better.

 

But when you're jogging, you'll never notice that. It's just an aesthetic preference, I can't listen to music while jogging, it just takes away from the experience.

 

I don't really know how to sum up this rather lengthy post, I guess whatever floats your boat is fine, just keep your 128-bit files (and 96-bit streams) away from me.

 

I have yet to experience the magic of vinyl on myself (I can't afford it at the moment and there are a lot of practical reasons I can't have a record player just now). The times I could see it at friends', it was quite fun to see it spin and feel the graphics of it, but it's awfully impractical nevertheless. But yes, it did seem like the best way to listen to music.


Edited by m&m's, 16 July 2014 - 11:27 AM.


#8 JellyRoll Baker

JellyRoll Baker

    De Stijl

  • Little Room Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,828 posts

Posted 16 July 2014 - 05:28 PM

Studio compression (the loudness wars and all that crap) is a completely different thing though.  You can have records treated to sound louder even though there's high quality audio and vice versa.

 

Doesn't bother me that much because it's a thing that mostly impacts music I don't listen to so it's all good.



#9 m&m's

m&m's

    Icky Thump

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 17 July 2014 - 04:01 AM

Studio compression (the loudness wars and all that crap) is a completely different thing though.  You can have records treated to sound louder even though there's high quality audio and vice versa.

 

I know, maybe I didn't put myself too clear. What I meant to say is that some studios don't care as much about the quality of music they put out as has been suggested. It might be high quality in terms of the amount of information content, but low quality in terms of well... the way it sounds.

 

But yeah, it also hardly ever touches me personally.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users