Jump to content
semente

What's wrong with commercial recordings

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

This week I was zapping through the radio stations on my way home and this band was playing live from the BBC studios.

The vocals could do with a bit reverb but it sounds much more "lively" than most commercial recordings, crisper, better balanced, like being in a club:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05xjkzm

 

Why don't most commercial recordings sound as good as this?

Who's to blame, the producers?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Loudness Wars are a bit silly and with some present indie bands they even make fun of it by doing it so LoFi and non-polished it's gotten critic's attention. Electric Studio's Forum (Steve Albini's Studio) has some hilarious but valid pro's and con's. Unless you're listening to "most" music from a reputable label, Production/Recording/Engineering staff it is what it is. It's hard to enjoy music if you know what goes behind it, or you're not hearing a tone stretch out due to it being cut off on the note to ether. That sucks. I hate it. But I also grew up on indie bands on labels that recorded like Pavement's original release of Slanted and Enchanted. I hated Nirvana's Nevermind because it was not the band's sound. It was more glossy than Appetite For Destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt its the loudness wars to blame, more likely the AAC 320 the bbc use to stream just sounds better than flac/wav. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, diecaster said:

Sure, lossy AAC 320 sounds sounds better than lossless FLAC/WAV. Not in any reality I am aware of is that the case.....

Sound quality is subjective isn't it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rexp said:

Sound quality is subjective isn't it? 

Sure. Please explain how a FLAC that would be a source of an AAC320 file would sound wise than the AAC320 file. I am really looking forward to how you explain that having less bits with a lower sample rate could sound better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, diecaster said:

Sure. Please explain how a FLAC that would be a source of an AAC320 file would sound wise than the AAC320 file. I am really looking forward to how you explain that having less bits with a lower sample rate could sound better.

The AAC seems to filter out the objectional noise (bit like vinyl) that I hear in the original FLAC. Of course AAC aint perfect but I find it preferable. I am analog guy that thinks most digital playback sucks. Useful feedback anyone? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×