cusebassman
Freakin' sweet
Anything I've ever listened to that the Raspberries recorded. Love their songs, but thanks to outrageously excessive compression, the material is nearly unlistenable.
Worst sounding Cd's ever
- Thread starter dodgeaspen
- Start date
GuitardedMark
New member
What does -4 RMS mean?
Seafroggys
Well-known member
-3 is louder than -4.
Average volume on digital scale. The closer it is to 0, the louder everything is and the smaller the dynamic range is. In essence, everything sounds squashed.
Chibi Nappa
New member
I spent my entire adult life thinking the same thing. Then in a fit of "blaaaaaargh modern recordings sound so bad!" I went out and got high-end turntable with a nice moving magnet cartridge and preamp so I could own the best versions of 70's and 80's stuff (I heard rumors that early CDs were often sourced from the wrong tapes). For kicks I bought the newest Muse album on vinyl along with some 90's stuff that I already owned on CD and held in high regard sonically (Nevermind, Mazzy Star).
It took one listen. The vinyl was better. It makes zero sense that a format that old is actually better. Logic kept telling me the entire fuss was manufactured by hipsters and nostalgia freaks. But there it was right in front of me. It really sounds better...if you spend some $$$. Sadly with analog the dropoff is huge when you deal with the "regular consumer" stuff.
undrgrnd studio
New member
I may get flak for this but I think Blizzard of Ozz sounds like total ass. It sounds like worn out tape to me. Where is the EQ on that one? Plus the bass is flat and muddy. Yuck! Go ahead and pull out Crazy Train and tell me I'm wrong.
dodgeaspen
New member
It's been a while since I've listened to BOO but I think Crazy Train sounds OK for the most part but muddy at the same time. They could have done better.
Seafroggys
Well-known member
Yeah that's why I say overrated (emphasis in bold). And yeah, maybe you're right with the high end turntable and playback gear. But that's looooads of money right there. I wonder if you got similar results with CD's if you got really high end CD players or SACD players with really good D/A converters?
Chibi Nappa
New member
SACD...I couldn't tell you. But there's no point in wondering because 99.9% of anything you'd want to hear is on vinyl. SACD...good luck finding an album you give a damn about. Comparing the latest Muse release on vinyl to an empty disc tray on SACD, the vinyl wins pretty easily.
I have heard great CD players however. Vinyl still smokes 'em. To be honest, CD sound doesn't really get that much better no matter what the playback device is. D/A conversion is not that tricky, and all players read every last bit of data on the disc.
So, yeah. Analog is more expensive. And I guess that's what happened. Digital gets great sound for cheap and is damn near indestructible. And I really do mean great sound for cheap. I'm not going to lie and say there is no great digital sound.
Vinyl leaves a ton of detail stuck behind on the disk and introduces all kinds of noise if you just grab the first convenient affordable turntable off the shelf at Target. Then the records themselves are frighteningly delicate. Touch pizza, grab your record the wrong way, and you've added a click/pop to the song forever.
But...Put in the time and money and analog "great" is better than digital "great".
Seafroggys
Well-known member
Okay I will agree with you there. I've heard some really nice virgin record rips on FLAC, probably sounds even better straight off the needle.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
I guess you and I are about the only fans on earth of that album.
It always sounded to me like it was recorded off the mixing board with crowd noises dubbed in later, but Buck Dharma's guitar playing made all the shitty sound irrelevant to me.
I remember getting "Spectres" not long after and being ever so disappointed though "Godzilla" is a meisterwork (despite one terrible piece of editing ~ either that or it's the most wonderful piece of timing !) as is "Death valley nights". On your feet does sound like the crowd sounds were dubbed in. The band, according to the NME encyclopedia of rock, hated the album. Still, the artist is not necesarilly the best judge of their work ! I can still recall the monday afternoon sometime in the summer of 1980 when I noticed, really noticed, the guitar on 'The subhuman'.
As a guy that's black, I often wondered about the inner cover with all the KKK guys in the audience in their hoods but BOC were often somewhat surrealistic at that time.
In a way, albums with poor sonic quality yet blindingly good music have always pushed me in the direction of song quality first. Which is not to say that one should not strive to make good recordings, just that there is lots of damn good stuff out there that isn't particularly well recorded, and it's noticeable, but, at least for me, has never dimmed the enjoyment of said piece.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
Curse this war !
I remember back in March of '83 when I was watching "News at 10" and their last item was this new thing called the compact disc (I remember when tapes were called 'compact cassettes') that Phillips was touting as the next big thing. The newsreader wondered if it meant the end of vinyl ! But they said one of it's definite advantages was that it never scratched and therefore jumps were a thing of the past. So you can imagine my surprize while playing pool at a mate's one night and listening to Seal's second album "Seal" (confusingly his first two LPs are called that) and when "A kiss from a rose" came on, the thing was jumping all over the gaff ! We cleaned it and everything but it jumped and jumped. That was the point at which I thought 'I'm not getting involved in this war ! All the mediums have their pros and cons'.
But CDs have greatly improved since 1995. there are good ones and crummy ones ~ just like vinyl before it.
When I first bought CDs that I had had on vinyl, back in the 90s, I have to say that I thought the sound was, what I used to call "brittle". It was thin and weedy and I could see why the digital/analogue debates raged. Funnilly, I never really engaged in the debates because whatever I've had, be it vinyl, CD or pre recorded cassette, I've always put them onto cassette and listened to that. Still do.
I remember back in March of '83 when I was watching "News at 10" and their last item was this new thing called the compact disc (I remember when tapes were called 'compact cassettes') that Phillips was touting as the next big thing. The newsreader wondered if it meant the end of vinyl ! But they said one of it's definite advantages was that it never scratched and therefore jumps were a thing of the past. So you can imagine my surprize while playing pool at a mate's one night and listening to Seal's second album "Seal" (confusingly his first two LPs are called that) and when "A kiss from a rose" came on, the thing was jumping all over the gaff ! We cleaned it and everything but it jumped and jumped. That was the point at which I thought 'I'm not getting involved in this war ! All the mediums have their pros and cons'.
But CDs have greatly improved since 1995. there are good ones and crummy ones ~ just like vinyl before it.
BedeDazzle
New member
Scritti Polliti's Cupid and Psyche '85. The Keyboardist from Cleaners from Venus Raved about it, but it sounds like it could be playing from a hallmark greeting card with a shound chip.
Lance Lawson
New member
So much of this thread seems to be analog vs digital which is fine with me. IMO there are hordes of worst sounding CD's. I recently got a copy of the first Heather Nova CD because I like the song London Rain. However hearing it on my Sony Walkman CD player had it sounding unbearably harsh with all kinds of distortion etc. Hearing it on my PC coming out of my Delta 66 through my Sennheiser HD 280's did little to change the sonic mess. I don't believe that there is a quantum leap difference in digital sound reproduction devices. Every piece of digital playing equipment I have all pretty much sounds the same. Its easy to suggest that better AD/DA converters will make it all better but what do you tell the person who already is hearing the stuff through "better" converters and it still sounds like crap?
I'm not a huge fan of vinyl as I believe because vinyl relies in part on a mechanical energy transfer into electrical energy and the potential for what can get lost in the translation seems big to me. However analog tape is an entirely different thing and anyone who remembers first class analog tape (read reel to reel) will know that with regards to CD sound the emperor still isn't wearing any clothes and we were sold a bill of goods for which excuses have been made since day one. If CD really did deliver the sonic goods the debate would be over by now instead of being hotter than ever. Think of it this way when jet air liners replaced piston engined airliners the jet was the clear winner and that industry never looked back. So worst sounding CD's? Take your pick!
I'm not a huge fan of vinyl as I believe because vinyl relies in part on a mechanical energy transfer into electrical energy and the potential for what can get lost in the translation seems big to me. However analog tape is an entirely different thing and anyone who remembers first class analog tape (read reel to reel) will know that with regards to CD sound the emperor still isn't wearing any clothes and we were sold a bill of goods for which excuses have been made since day one. If CD really did deliver the sonic goods the debate would be over by now instead of being hotter than ever. Think of it this way when jet air liners replaced piston engined airliners the jet was the clear winner and that industry never looked back. So worst sounding CD's? Take your pick!
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
....except how something "sounds" is a subjective aesthetic decision, while how quickly a jet can get from point A to point B is pretty objective. Add to that a lot of placebo effect sort of retro-minded snobbery (and probably a fair amount of technophile snobbery as well, to be fair), and the waters become VERY cloudy.
I can see it both ways - a worthy anecdote is the introduction of solid state amps in the guitar world, which offered a far more efficient, transparent reproduction of the sound of an electric guitar, vs tubes which had all these inefficiencies that were coloring the frequency and dynamic response. Solid state diodes were the theoretically "correct" answer... except everyone quickly realized that everything imperfect about a tube amplifier was exactly what made it sound so awesome. At the same time, I like CDs, think a well recorded CD can sound awesome, think digital recording is making a lot of things possible that were never dreamed of before, and think that a good engineer matters way more than vinyl vs CD.
I mean, look at it this way - you say that if CDs really were superior to vinyl then the debate would be over instead of still raging. The flip side however is also true - if vinyl really was superior to CD, then no one would be buying CDs anymore and everyone would be buying vinyl. Clearly, it's a very subjective question and the verdict's still out, but CD has at least proven itself good enough to compete.
Chibi Nappa
New member
By "in part" I hope you mean "entirely"! Ain't nothin' else goin' on aside from needle wiggles gettin' turned into electricity.
These days the only place to even hear real tape is in a studio... I mean, even if you own a player, what are you going to play on it? But the scant few times I have heard it...yeah, it is amazing.
Chibi Nappa
New member
CD has everything on vinyl EXCEPT the sound. CD sells because it is physically lighter and smaller (ever try to move a record collection?), much more durable, plays in your car/on the beach/in your office, can be backed up, can rip to a play list, can be automated to play in any order, can operate from a remote control, and can display track length/time remaining. Sound has nothing to do with it.I mean, look at it this way - you say that if CDs really were superior to vinyl then the debate would be over instead of still raging. The flip side however is also true - if vinyl really was superior to CD, then no one would be buying CDs anymore and everyone would be buying vinyl. Clearly, it's a very subjective question and the verdict's still out, but CD has at least proven itself good enough to compete.
Look at the format currently killing CD. MP3's are so physically light and small that a literal lifetime of music can fit in your hand. They can be shuttled all over the world along the internet, and you can arrange them into playlists based on embedded metadata. And without any debate, they sound worse than CDs.
Sound quality is why vinyl remains. Sound quality has nothing to do with CDs' dominance over analog or mp3's dominance over CD.
Lance Lawson
New member
Well I'm someone who does have something great to play reel to reel tapes on and I have a pretty solid collection of reel to reel recordings. Some of these are things I did in the studio and some are purchased and others are recorded from vinyl. In addition I have a brand new quantity of fresh reel to reel tape and my RTR is hardly idle these days especially with a digital to analog to digital remastering project I'm doing. My decision to analog remaster a great many of my newer all digital personal recordings stems not from a casual desire to do the exercise but directly from my dissatisfaction with digital sound in general. When you consider that there are a great many analog/tape emulator plugings for digital recordist you need to stop and consider why there is a market for this stuff. Analog emulators do in fact help the digital sound but in my case I realized that I could actually analog enhance my digital recordings with honest to god analog equipment. My ears are a lot happier for it too.
Lance Lawson
New member
....except how something "sounds" is a subjective aesthetic decision, while how quickly a jet can get from point A to point B is pretty objective. Add to that a lot of placebo effect sort of retro-minded snobbery (and probably a fair amount of technophile snobbery as well, to be fair), and the waters become VERY cloudy.
I can see it both ways - a worthy anecdote is the introduction of solid state amps in the guitar world, which offered a far more efficient, transparent reproduction of the sound of an electric guitar, vs tubes which had all these inefficiencies that were coloring the frequency and dynamic response. Solid state diodes were the theoretically "correct" answer... except everyone quickly realized that everything imperfect about a tube amplifier was exactly what made it sound so awesome. At the same time, I like CDs, think a well recorded CD can sound awesome, think digital recording is making a lot of things possible that were never dreamed of before, and think that a good engineer matters way more than vinyl vs CD.
I mean, look at it this way - you say that if CDs really were superior to vinyl then the debate would be over instead of still raging. The flip side however is also true - if vinyl really was superior to CD, then no one would be buying CDs anymore and everyone would be buying vinyl. Clearly, it's a very subjective question and the verdict's still out, but CD has at least proven itself good enough to compete.
I can see things both ways because I've lived to not only see some things both ways but to have lived the experience of knowing both ends of the way. For instance you mention solid state guitar amplifiers. The new ones are pretty good but as a lifelong guitarist I was there to see the first offerings of solid state guitar amps in the mid 1960's. Those things were DREADFUL sounding. Talk about tinny, cold and flat sounding they had that in spades. Let's not even get into transistor hiss which was horrendous. We as guitarists rejected those pieces of junk because they sounded bad not because we were hooked on tube amps. Tube amps are a pain. The eat tubes, they get hot, they can overheat. But there's still nothing better to process an electric guitar signal through and that's why tube guitar amps never went away.
Personally I welcomed and embraced the CD when it came out. I believed the positive press of the day. However my opinion of CD didn't change until I began buying CD copies of records I had in vinyl so I could play them on my portable CD player when working. Little by little I began to realize that what I was hearing in the CD versions was less than what I knew those very same albums to sound like on tape and vinyl. The clincher came when I set up the Columbia pre recorded RTR version of Dylan's Blonde On Blonde. This tape has been played perhaps a dozen times since 1966 and is in essentially pristine condition. The "presence" that the RTR tape possesses was enough to sway me well and truly out of the CD camp once and for all. This is of course not to say that digital will ever give way to analog again, it won't. But it sure confirms that CD is hardly the last word in sound quality and something of a step away from sound quality.
This said I do in fact have a fully functioning digital home studio and fully tracking in analog is not something I anticipate ever doing again. However I am well aware when working in my studio and enjoying it that I some things have been lost along the line that many will never know. But I'm glad for having known them and even gladder that I can still hear some of what's been lost to most.
That argument might be valid with top, top, top end gear but in most practical situations is the difference between the two formats (at their best) so noticeable as to transcend subjectivity?
Also, I don't think any discussion of this topic would be complete without at least mentioning the possibility that nostalgia and "cool" are part of what fuel the vestigal demand for vinyl. I mean hell, I recently paid $90 for an Atari 2600 and it certainly wasn't for the graphics or technical superiority of the system over what is available today. An extreme example, I know, but still...
It's worth mentioning--especially in the context of your Dylan example--that the Dylan recording comes originally from analog. Not all CD versions of albums released in the pre-digital era are equal--the engineer doing the transfer is leaving his fingerprints all over the project (for better or for worse). This is probably why all those old albums that originated in the analog days have the disclaimer on the back of the CD that says something about "revealing limitations of the source tape" or whatever.
But what about modern albums that are recorded by skilled people who know at the time of recording that the product is destined for CD?
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
That must have been a damned cool experience, hearing the reel to reel of that album.
Part of it too is that CD isn't even really cutting edge for digital audio anymore - I mean, you own a digital home studio. Do YOU still record in 16-bit, 44.1? I generally track in 24, 88.2 with the intention of eventually having it mastered down to 16/44.1, but given the opportunity a switch to better bitrates and sampling depths could conceivably narrow that gap.