TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Loud, Louder, Loudest: The Tradeoff of MP3s
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by thoughtlessjex Very few? How about no one? The reason 192 kbps is considered so widely acceptable is that it's damn near impossible then to hear the difference. 320 I indistinguishable to everyone except dogs and dolphins. But we're not making music for them, are we?

You're reading "Pointless l337 Sound Quality Thread" #3827.

Thank you for using TranceAddict.com for all your one-stop shopping needs.

...

Though Stevie, the article you posted was a pretty interesting read - I just wish people weren't capable of "replying" to it.

quote:

Originally posted by Derivative Also, that 'is the human race becoming deafer?' article is bollocks. Nobody exposes themselves to levels of sound comparable to that in a nightclub on a regular basis without destroying their ears completely. You do not adapt to this destruction to any meaningful degree as damage to the ear is a function of SPL in the ear canal and you can calculate pretty accurately the time it takes before damage occurs at any given SPL. Even if you did, it would simply take a little longer to have the same effect.

"Deafer" and "evolution" are the wrong way of talking about this, true. I don't think anyone's going deaf from the sounds of traffic or upbeat music that you have to talk over in restaurants. The effect is psychological rather than physiological, toward becoming less attentive to the same phenomena as they become more ubiquitous.

Of course, this has been going on with music at least since records and radio made their debut. Nothing new to this trend. Just a lot more of the same.

There's always this:

http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/news...cle-wxc-b9c-7hd

quote:

Music psychologists monitored 346 people over a two week period to evaluate how they related to music and came to the conclusion that people were now more passive than ever before in their consumption of music. This compares to earlier times, for example the 19th century, when the only music you could hear was live music -leading it to be more highly valued and prized than today. The composer took pride of place as the generator of the music while the performer was the 'middle man' who conveyed the music to the audience. But the development of the mass media in the twentieth century meant that music became much more widely and readily available, and so arguably lost its aura of automatic aesthetic value. It became viewed as a commodity that was produced, distributed and consumed just like any other. The study was carried out by Dr Adrian North, of the School of Psychology, University of Leicester, Prof David Hargreaves, Centre for International Research on Creativity and Learning in Education, University of Roehampton, and Jon Hargreaves, now a graduate of the University of York. ... "Music can now be seen as a resource rather than merely as a commodity. People might consciously and actively use it in different situations at different levels of engagement, such that listening contexts ultimately determine the value of the musical experience to the individual listener. "However the degree of accessibility and choice has arguably led to a rather passive attitude towards music heard in everyday life: The present results indicate that music was rarely the focus of participants' concerns and was instead something that seemed to be taken rather for granted, a product that was to be consumed during the achievement of other goals. In short, our relationship to music in everyday life may well be complex and sophisticated, but it is not necessarily characterised by deep emotional investment."

Which you are free to dismiss as a bunch of professorial hand-wringing, of course.

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog Nope, it's happening with a lot of dance music too.

Could you name any particular artists/labels that might be doing that?

quote:

Originally posted by RJT You're reading "Pointless l337 Sound Quality Thread" #3827. Thank you for using TranceAddict.com for all your one-stop shopping needs. ... Though Stevie, the article you posted was a pretty interesting read - I just wish people weren't capable of "replying" to it.

It is interesting. It also makes some very contentious statements that amount to misinformation and/or misdirection. As a forum for discussion I have to wonder why the idea of responding to an article is somehow bad?

I don't get this idea of the loudness war which strikes me as a phenomena which is almost tinfoil hat in the manner it is being propagated. It doesn't help that there is a real lack of credible evidence to even prove it exists seeing as there are no production standards and everyone makes and produces music the only way they know how.

quote:

Originally posted by Derivative Hardly. Production/post production are just steps in the song writing process and they are done using a bunch of fairly standard tools that manipulate the volume, frequency and phase of the appropriate sound. Do not fall into the trap of blaming the technology for the failure of the producer/songwriter to deliver the goods. The failure is always human.

The Beatles debut album was produced in 7 hours. One day. They went into the studio, recorded the parts, fini.

Find me a single record today by any band produced in anything less than a month.

I'm not blaming the technology at all. I'm blaming the people who over-rely on it to cover up for the fact that they are crap songwriters. There's an awful lot of them in the electronic music circuit.

quote:

Originally posted by Derivative One thing though. How on earth did you manage to figure that 80% of the film process is post production? Even in a massive CGI film, half the work is the script, screenplay, filming process, production process and editing. You can't stick CGI into a scene if you haven't filmed it yet or staged it with actors.

The average time it takes to film principle photography of any given blockbuster is around three to six weeks. Some will take longer, if they have a lot of location shots. Two months is a long time. Three months is pushing it--the studio starts getting nervous at that point.

Post-production of those same movies takes an average of eight months. Often longer. All three Lord of the Rings movies were filmed together in one incredible 18 month marathon epic shooting schedule. The post-production work for those same movies was seven years, and they were still being worked on long after the theatrical releases, to prepare them for the extended DVD cuts which added nearly 3 more hours of extra footage.

Post-production always takes longer than principle. And its getting longer and longer now with the accessibility of digital tools.

These figures are taken from several friends of mine who work in the film industry here in Vancouver, but it's not hard to look them up yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by Derivative Eugh. Wrong use of the term but you know exactly what is meant. Terms like 'warm' and 'rich' and 'fat' and 'tone' are truly meaningless descriptors because everyone has a different idea of these sound like.

Yes. They are metaphorical adjectives. "Warmth" is a description of temperature, and music does not have temperature. Except possibly "tone", although I don't see how "tone" is quantifiable.

quote:

Find me a single record today by any band produced in anything less than a month.

Bingo!

T'was done in a week. But then, ol' Young's always been unorthodox when it comes to recording music.

hah. I kind of left that there cuz I was hoping someone would say Human After All, which was made in, allegedly, two weeks.

Still, point stands. The Beatles made 13 albums in seven years. That is a torrential pace compared to today's musicians, who spend too much time on studio excess and too little on songcraft.

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur hah. I kind of left that there cuz I was hoping someone would say Human After All, which was made in, allegedly, two weeks.

Yeah, I knew you were thinking the Daft ones. It's me though. Whenever do I NOT jump at the chance to plug Neil?

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur hah. I kind of left that there cuz I was hoping someone would say Human After All, which was made in, allegedly, two weeks. Still, point stands. The Beatles made 13 albums in seven years. That is a torrential pace compared to today's musicians, who spend too much time on studio excess and too little on songcraft.

The Beatles were also massive and could afford to do nothing but make music. Besides, people write music in different ways. It takes some longer than others but it doesn't mean the quality of songwriting is worse if you aren't putting out 13 albums in seven years.

Are the Vibrasphere guys still working in the civil service or have they finally broken out that they can write and produce music exclusively?

Underworld havent even released half as many albums in the same time frame but every single one of them is still awesome in their own way.

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur The Beatles debut album was produced in 7 hours. One day. They went into the studio, recorded the parts, fini. Find me a single record today by any band produced in anything less than a month.

Tigarnora's debut album was done in a day.

That was recorded about three or four years ago.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.