I've really grown weary of the majority of music listeners using their laptop speakers, or cell phone/iPad and earbuds as their primary way of listening to music.
With all the advancements in technology, high res video, audio, amazing advancements in communications ... when it comes to listening to music, we've actually regressed.
I was thinking a few days ago, that when I was a kid, I had a Woolco AM transistor radio that I would hang on the handlebars of my bicycle, and at night it would hang from my bedpost, and that cheap $4 transistor radio, in all of its 1968 monophonic glory - LOL - actually sounded better than any cell phone or laptop speaker I've ever heard.
And I have to be honest here...there have been times when mixing, that I've actually thought to myself, "why even bother with the fine details, those little things that make a good mix become a great mix, when 95% of the people who will listen to this will do so through their cellphone speaker, or cheap Dollar Store earbuds? Why even bother?"
Well, I suppose it's because I'm mixing for that 5% of people who still appreciate fidelity. And even though I have thought about the above "justification", I can't bring myself to not care.
I refuse to mix to the "lowest common denominator".
Will the majority of listeners ever hear those small nuances, the esoteric details...would they ever know? And even if you pointed those little things out to them to listen for, would they even care?
Probably not. But in the end, I'll know, and I still care.
So I'm gonna keep sweating over the small stuff. I'm guess I'm mixing for that one listener who still cares about fidelity as well as great music.
Here endeth my rant. Thank you for allowing me to blow off some steam.
We now return you to your regular programming. ;)
-donny
Comments
When I was a teenager it was the day of the all in one rack syst
When I was a teenager it was the day of the all in one rack systems, which were made for looks over sound. People, usually young people, would place speakers so the imaging couldn't possibly come out right no matter where you sat. Car systems sounded awful with crappy 6x9s on the rear deck. Lots of us who couldn't afford a stereo system listened on a clock radio. The Walkman era came in with portable cassette and cheap lightweight headphones, then the first earbuds. Lots of things in those days sounded pretty bad, so it's nothing new.
But I take solace that a good mix will hold up in adverse listening circumstances.
bouldersound, post: 453674, member: 38959 wrote: When I was a te
bouldersound, post: 453674, member: 38959 wrote: When I was a teenager it was the day of the all in one rack systems, which were made for looks over sound. People, usually young people, would place speakers so the imaging couldn't possibly come out right no matter where you sat. Car systems sounded awful with crappy 6x9s on the rear deck. Lots of us who couldn't afford a stereo system listened on a clock radio. The Walkman era came in with portable cassette and cheap lightweight headphones, then the first earbuds. Lots of things in those days sounded pretty bad, so it's nothing new.
But I take solace that a good mix will hold up in adverse listening circumstances.
you aren't taking into account that the source material is compromised now unless you are listening to wave files and who does that? at least am radio (mono ) thru a dinky speaker was an honest analog 200hZ to 6k. loss compression is a big culprit. i've heard Doors recordings on MP3 where the guitar sounded like a banjo
CDs late 80’s-mid 90’s was the only time period where we ever he
CDs late 80’s-mid 90’s was the only time period where we ever heard the actual master recording. Beyond that the format was almost always a degraded format or bit rate.
One upside is car stereo systems have improved quite a bit. An average stock radio sounds pretty good these days.
To play devils advocate, I think MP3 rounds out some of the mistakes in mediocre recordings. And I good mix converted to a good MP3 usually sounds pretty close. Usually lacking depth of field and detail.
I haven’t heard music on a good system in over two years, so I’m one of those scabs you speak of D!! Lol. One upside is I have a much much better perspective of the end delivery these days. Before this point, I was listening only on good sounding stuff, and really was out of touch.
That said. It’s dumb that audio is still less than cd quality, an over 30 year old standard!! I listen to wavs on my Dropbox, and it’s only a couple seconds for a song to load up.
Eventually I’m going to upload all my full quality songs to my website for streaming. And hopefully more people will catch on to NAS drives and personal clouds. It’s tough to blame the kids since they really were born into low quality data compression therefore think that’s just how things sound, cuz in their life, it is.
I think using good mastering techniques and codecs can help a little.
Well, there will always be engineets who win grammies for best e
Well, there will always be engineets who win grammies for best engineered albums of the year no matter how many people listen with inadequate gear. Im sure those grammy winners vent a little bit too, but then the fire burns inside them to create the best possible sounding songs they can.
I say vent a little and then refocus back on your natural recording and engineering talents. Afterall, you can't stop the fire to be your absolute best once its burning inside you.
kmetal, post: 453680, member: 37533 wrote: To play devils advoca
kmetal, post: 453680, member: 37533 wrote: To play devils advocate, I think MP3 rounds out some of the mistakes in mediocre recordings. And I good mix converted to a good MP3 usually sounds pretty close. Usually lacking depth of field and detail.
It doesn't matter how much Vaseline you put on the lens, if she's ugly... she's ugly, with or without the warts.
dvdhawk, post: 453682, member: 36047 wrote: It doesn't matter ho
dvdhawk, post: 453682, member: 36047 wrote: It doesn't matter how much Vaseline you put on the lens, if she's ugly... she's ugly, with or without the warts.
Yeah ... I'm gonna have to disagree with Kyle on this one. If you count MP3's lossy nature and compressed data codec as being good because it "smooths out the edges", or that as being an advantage, I don't agree. If you've got "edges" that need "smoothing" then thats something you take care of in the mix. If the format is "hiding" bad things, then you can be assured that it's hiding good things, too.
Basically what we're talking about here is degradation of the fidelity... pure and simple. I don't look at this as an advantage. I'm not looking for a format that degrades fidelity; I want people to hear what I hear when I mix.
I know you're just playing devil's advocate, Kyle. Did any of y
I know you're just playing devil's advocate, Kyle.
Did any of you explore the full fidelity Pono platform that Neil Young was pushing? I know I didn't, and apparently it died on the vine due to lack of any big groundswell of interest.
Car stereos have certainly improved over the last couple decades, but cars haven't. Unless you're in a high-end luxury vehicle, road noise is still the biggest detriment. My work truck has a nice aftermarket stereo with the stock speakers. And although I do listen to mixes on it while driving to jobs, it's because of familiarity, not fidelity.
Smashh, post: 453693, member: 45856 wrote: I only heard of that
Smashh, post: 453693, member: 45856 wrote: I only heard of that platform while trying to read his auto biography , never heard of it again .
My stereo in the van is getting upgraded this week ( getting the back drive shaft bearings replaced... )
His Pono player used FLAC files ... which are data compressed for storage only. When you opened a song file, it uncompressed to 44.1 wav.
I think the main thing that killed it was its physical design. It looked like a Toblerone chocolate bar, triangular in shape and as big as a banana. Not what most would consider to be a "portable" listening device. But the audio technology itself was interesting.
DonnyThompson, post: 453690, member: 46114 wrote: Yeah ... I'm g
DonnyThompson, post: 453690, member: 46114 wrote: Yeah ... I'm gonna have to disagree with Kyle on this one. If you count MP3's lossy nature and compressed data codec as being good because it "smooths out the edges", or that as being an advantage, I don't agree. If you've got "edges" that need "smoothing" then thats something you take care of in the mix. If the format is "hiding" bad things, then you can be assured that it's hiding good things, too.
Basically what we're talking about here is degradation of the fidelity... pure and simple. I don't look at this as an advantage. I'm not looking for a format that degrades fidelity; I want people to hear what I hear when I mix.
Yeah man I agree. It’s funny I’ve had to actually try and dirty up some otherwise decent mixes for a client before. He was doing hip hop, and was very used to MP3 tendencies in general. Being into heavy metal, rock and punk over the years, I understand high gain and distortion decently, but it was odd to try and lower the fidelity of a mix. Many of the heavy rock stuff is pretty clear recordings of high gain stuff. Black Sabbath’s new album is a great example of high gain guitar tone. It’s not a low fidelity recording.
dvdhawk, post: 453692, member: 36047 wrote: I know you're just playing devil's advocate, Kyle.Did any of you explore the full fidelity Pono platform that Neil Young was pushing? I know I didn't, and apparently it died on the vine due to lack of any big groundswell of interest.
Car stereos have certainly improved over the last couple decades, but cars haven't. Unless you're in a high-end luxury vehicle, road noise is still the biggest detriment. My work truck has a nice aftermarket stereo with the stock speakers. And although I do listen to mixes on it while driving to jobs, it's because of familiarity, not fidelity.
Ya know Dave, I missed that thing completely. I didn’t even hear about it. I was very cut off from the world during that time, between studio, live, performing, and partying, a few kings passed me right by.
When I looked into Hi quality playback last year, it seems Jay-Z had some sort of subscription service, that’s supposed to be superior quality. I don’t seem to recall if it was 44.1 wav, or not.
I don’t know how the licensing works, but it would be great to be able to broadcast from a website in full quality. I’m not sure if the licensing is different than a typical night club would need. I’m sure it’s technical.
I subscribe to pandora which with the entry level sub I have, eliminates commercials and has a ‘higher quality’ option. I still think it’s somewhere around a 320kbs MP3, but adaquate for my uses for now. I find some electronic based (down tempo) stuff sounds pretty a darn good. Very clean.
Lol cars. My sisters 9 series BMW had issues at year 5. Like leaky sunroof, front end work. She’s a good driver too, better than me. I just bought a used ‘07 Chevy Malibu to upgrade from my bicycle for the winter. Love my bike but not the cold. Coming off a Toyota, and a civic which I bought new and rode for 12 years, I’m keeping fingers crossed I don’t have a lemon.
I agree about familiarity of car systems. That’s one reason they’re so reliable. I spend a lot of hours just listening for fun on any of the studio rigs I use.
I usually put in some subs in my cars but I’ve never gone super HIFI, just mid level. I want my car to somewhat realistic to the rest fond the world. Just more entertaining.
I like having subs, because I set them to sound good on my store bought music, just a bit on the loud side. That way if my bass in my mixes is even a little too loud, it’s gross in the car. If I have to err, I think it’s better to err bass light. The bose wave radio is also great for judging bass, since it will fart of your even a little to heavy.
Anyway sorry to ramble off topic. I certainly aim for the best quality possible on mixes. I think cleaner mixes generally stand the test of time better. Pink Floyd for example.
I spent substantial cash on the Sonnox mastering bundle (on sale of course), a big part because it included the Fraunhofer codec pluggin. So I’ve invested what I can into preserving the quality of my mixes throughout the various formats.
I'm sure we are many in the same situation. We realise quality i
I'm sure we are many in the same situation. We realise quality isn't a priority for the majority and it is less flatering for our ego, if we work hours on giving something that won't be acknowledge.
But the thing is, some are listening with good quality systems. Maybe many more than we think.
With all the expensive headphones sold 200 -500$. I'm sure some owners care for quality. If not the Beat brand would be dead don't you think ?
You might say that the source material is the problem since they all listen to MP3s... That's true.
But I'm sure a quality recording mixing and mastering will sound better than a cheap production even on mp3 format.
There is a drop of hope, vinyl is comming back! Many new big productions start to produce records on vinyl and this is encouraging.
I'm hoping the lowfi trend is a phase and we will get out of it eventually.
Just hope old folks like me will still be around then ;)