|
| quote: | Originally posted by Wendell Frost
Yeah you started the thread by saying:
Give us your opinion, but not your opinion. |
No, I asked you to withhold your bias. There's a difference.
| quote: | Originally posted by RichieV
until recorded audio can sound exactly like it was being played live, there is room for improvement. |
Good point, however I was talking about electronically created sounds, not live instrumentation. I should have said this but I assumed it would be a given.
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Will mastering improve?
One of my long-term studio goals is to be able to record from hardware summing into a Korg MR-1000. It's simply optimal for high-resolution recording, in order to capture detail and clarity that might otherwise be ignored. Programs like Sonar are capable of developing 64-bit resolution to audio recording but I don't think the day is too far away when individual tracks in a DAW will be capable of delivering one bit resolution.
I think, in-so-far as the question Domesticated posed, that such a "level" is still entirely subject, albeit generally, to Moore's Law. The higher the resolution that may be obtained, as the result of general technological development, the better recordings will become. Innovations, in both music hardware and software, will be developed to take advantage of the ever expanding ability of technology. |
I wasn't so much talking about bit-depth (though that's important too) as I was talking improving the relative levels and clarity within tracks.
| quote: | Originally posted by cryophonik
Um...no thanks, I prefer to exercise my right to express my opinion, but thanks for the suggestion anyway. There are many people (myself included to some extent) who would argue that music sounds worse now than it has in the past few decades precisely because it is so heavily compressed and that the current trends of excessively squashing the dynamic range and overlimiting is ruining the expressiveness of many good tracks. So, yeah, there's a lot of room for improvement in both mixing and mastering IMO. Try googling "loudness wars" and you'll see that I'm not alone in my opinion. |
I'm well aware of "loudness wars". Why do you think I asked people to withhold their bias as one of the first points in this thread? I don't want it to degenerate into a conflict between those who prefer heavy compression to those who don't.
However, whether or not you like this heavily squashed sound that destroys track dynamics is irrelevant; we can all agree that compression has greatly increased the clarity with which individual elements in a track can be heard. My question concerned this. Will the clarity and "thickness" of tracks have improved markedly in another decade (or ten)? The title of the thread is perhaps misleading in this respect.
Interestingly, with loudness wars, I wrote a small article a while back proposing that human hearing may evolving to be worse. While iPods, clubs, movie theatres and loud industrial noise in general bombard us, our ears may adapt so that we are unable to hear softer sounds and tend to speak louder. As a result, music devices would be manufactured to have even louder outputs, which would start the cycle all over again. I think it's entirely conceivable that in 100 or 200 years, western hearing will be much less sensitive than it is now, but that will be the norm for society.
___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide
Last edited by Domesticated on Apr-09-2009 at 01:46
|