Page 1 of 1
#1 Poor CD recordings
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:34 am
by Si
I have just looked back over my last thread here and realised how little I listen to the music I love the most. Choral and Brass traditionals have to be amongst my favourites (Mormon Tabernacle Choir and Grimethorpe Colliery Band) but due to the poor quality of the recordings as is nearly always the case I just dont put them on as much, I guess this is a perfect example of listening fatigue, the hiss and interfearance puts me off. Does anyone else have the same problem and what to do about it? Even with the best equipement if the CD recordings are poor there must be precious little to do. Is this the case?
Si
#2
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:50 pm
by Dave the bass
I dunno about the 'cd recording' being poor Si, it might be the actual recording done at source or even the mix. There's a few good examples out there would bare that out, not your cuppa tea problee but Metallica's '...and justice for all' LP is awfully mixed/recorded IMHO. It's like someones done a 5th generation casstte copy of it and somehow routed the signal via the 'loudness button' everytime, all boom and tizz. No mids.
Other LP's from the mid 80's sound horribly thin to me, makes me not want to listen to them which is a pity 'cos there's some brill songs on some of 'em. 'Dyers Eye' off the Metallica LP/cd being a good example.
DTB
#3
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:47 am
by The Stratmangler
The first Metallica album I could tolerate listening to was "The Black" eponymous album.
'Twas the first time that they used the proper sound of this guitar with that amp - prior to that it was "Bee in a jam jar" - no tone, just a fizzy noise being made.
And it was the first time that musical parts were properly arranged.
That is not to say that the earlier material was bad, it just sounded so goddamn awful that I personally was turned completely off. To say that earlier material sounded like it came off a fifth generation cassette copy is being kind.
All IMHO, of course.
Chris
#4
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:47 am
by Dave the bass
Yup Chris, and now with 'St Anger', what bloomin' heck's going there.
Raw or what.
Still think they have their moments though.
RRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! (Heavy metal voice).
DTB
#5
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:23 pm
by The Stratmangler
Hi Dave
I have to admit that I lost touch with what they did after the Black Album.
I've listened to some snippets of "St Anger", and I am wondering what the heck is going on. They should get a decent producer in to help them channel their efforts better (Bob Rock maybe ?).
Raw it is, directed it is not (at least from what I heard).
They seem to be one of those bands that need a producer with the balls to stand up to them and tell them when something does not come up to scratch, whether it's in the song writing or performance departments.
Chris
#6 Re: Poor CD recordings
Posted: Sun May 24, 2020 10:09 pm
by majex45
Back to the OPs point.
A lot of CDs were released in a hurry when CDs first made their appearance to cash in on the artist's back catalogue. They were poorly mixed or straight transcription from mixed source.
Two examples from one of my favourite bands: King Crimson.
Islands - this is compressed and one at least one track the snare sounds as if it has gravel on the skin. When they released the "definitive edition" they cleaned it up a lot however they deleted the final track!
Lizard is another example, poorly mixed and highly compressed. I haven't got the "definitive edition" yet but I hope it is better (it would be hard to be worse).
Some CDs seem to be mixed for use in a car - no dynamic range so it can always be heard above the road noise. Others eliminate all the bass - I don't know why. I suppose most CDs are not listened to on HiFi but WiFi speakers or portable CD players.
Yet some CDs can be brilliant especially those released in the last few years.
Does anyone know how good the original RCA releases of the Bowie back catalogue were? They disappeared very quickly and are now on EMI (I think).
#7 Re: Poor CD recordings
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:40 pm
by The Stratmangler
majex45 wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 10:09 pm
Back to the OPs point.
A lot of CDs were released in a hurry when CDs first made their appearance to cash in on the artist's back catalogue. They were poorly mixed or straight transcription from mixed source.
Two examples from one of my favourite bands: King Crimson.
Islands - this is compressed and one at least one track the snare sounds as if it has gravel on the skin. When they released the "definitive edition" they cleaned it up a lot however they deleted the final track!
Lizard is another example, poorly mixed and highly compressed. I haven't got the "definitive edition" yet but I hope it is better (it would be hard to be worse).
Some CDs seem to be mixed for use in a car - no dynamic range so it can always be heard above the road noise. Others eliminate all the bass - I don't know why. I suppose most CDs are not listened to on HiFi but WiFi speakers or portable CD players.
Yet some CDs can be brilliant especially those released in the last few years.
Does anyone know how good the original RCA releases of the Bowie back catalogue were? They disappeared very quickly and are now on EMI (I think).
Do you wish to be known as Burke or Hare?
Resurrectionists be they both.
This thread was 12 years dead.
Congratulations
