| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 16.07.2007 23:15 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Ìîñêâà Ãèòàðû 
|
Ðåáÿò, ïðèâåò! Íà äíÿõ âçÿë ñåáå Hi-Fi àóäèîñèñòåìó (äâóõêàíàëüíûé óñèëîê + íàïîëüíûå êîëîíêè + äâä ïëååð), è îáíàðóæèë, ÷òî ïîëîâèíà ìîèõ ëþáèìûõ ïèðàòñêèõ CD äèñêîâ ëàæàþò! À íå ñàìûå ëþáèìûå, íî ëèöåíçèîííûå, çâó÷àò íå íàïðÿãàÿ ñëóõ! Âîîáùå øèêàðíî, çâó÷èò ñóïåð-àóäèî ñèäè (SACD) Áàõà, êîòîðûé ðàíüøå ÿ âîîáùå íå âîñïðèíèìàë! Ñêàæèòå, ìåíÿ ãëþ÷èò, èëè ïèðàòû õåðÿò êà÷åñòâî ñòóäèéíîé çàïèñè??? Êàêèì äèñêàì âåðèòü, ê ÷åìó ñòðåìèòüñÿ??? |
|
|
♪♫
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 16.07.2007 23:34 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
ñîìíåâàþñü, ÷òî áû ñïåöèàëüíî ïèðàòû íàïðÿãàëèñü, êàê â ðåêëàìå-óáåðåì 5.1, îáîëêó, èíòåðâüþ, âðÿäëè, ñêîðåå ïèðàòû ñòàðàþòñÿ îïåðåäèòü îô âûõîä, è òàùþò ïåðâûå ïîïàâøèåñÿ ôàéëû íà ïåðâîì ïîïàâøåìñÿ íîñèòåëå, íó è åñëè íå âëàçèò, òî ïîäæèìàþò(íàïðèìåð èç âàâ èëè ðàâ â ìï3 è íàîáîðîò â 16õ44 èëè ÷òî òî åùå), êðîìå òîãî èçãîòîâëåíèå ÖÄ äèñêà è åãî êà÷åñòâî, âëèÿþò íà ñ÷èòûâàíèå,ïðèöåëèâàíèå ëàçåðà,( ìîæåò è äæèòòåð äîáàâèòüñÿ) âîò è ïðèõðàìûâàåò êà÷åñòâî! èëè ïðîñòî çàñëóøàë ëþáèìûå äèñêè äî íè÷èòàåìîñòè 
|
|
|
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 16.07.2007 23:45 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Ìîñêâà
|
"Êàêèì äèñêàì âåðèòü, ê ÷åìó ñòðåìèòüñÿ???" - âû íè÷åãî íå ïåðåïóòàëè? Âû íà ôîðóìå ÑÒÓÄÈÉÍÛÉ (!!!) ÇÂÓÊ, à íå ïîðòàëå àóäèîôèëîâ. Íàñ÷åò ïèðàòñêèõ äèñêîâ è "Hi-Fi àóäèîñèñòåìû (äâóõêàíàëüíûé óñèëîê + íàïîëüíûå êîëîíêè + äâä ïëååð)" îáùàéòåñü òàì. |
|
|
åñëè åñòü æåëàíèå ñåðüåçíî ó÷èòüñÿ âîêàëó è ïîëó÷èòü âûñøåå îáðàçîâàíèå âîêàëèñòà - ïèøèòå â ëè÷êó
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 17.07.2007 00:53 |
|
|---|---|---|
Moscow
|
-- Ìîæíî áóêâàëüíî ïàðó ñëîâ, ïîêà òåìó íå çàêðûëè? Ìíå òîæå êàê-òî áûë íóæåí CD ñ ÕÎÐÎØÈÌ çâóêîì. Îêàçàëîñü, ÷òî òàêèõ ó ìåíÿ - ïî÷òè íè îäíîãî! Ïðè÷¸ì - íåçàâèñèìî îò ìåñòà ïðèîáðåòåíèÿ è çàêîííîñòè èçäàíèÿ. (âñå äèñêè - èçäàííû çäåñü). Ïðè "ðàçáîðå ïîë¸òîâ" ñî çíàþùèìè ëþäüìè - âûÿñíèëîñü, ÷òî êà÷åñòâî çâóêà è îôèöèàëüíîñòü èçäàíèÿ - ÍÈÊÀÊ ìåæäó ñîáîé íå ñâÿçàíû!!!! Òàê êàê ïðîäà¸òñÿ ÏÐÀÂÎ èçäàíèÿ, à ìàòåðèàë ñþäà - ñòðîãî ãîâîðÿ, íå âõîäèò. Åãî, åñëè õî÷åøü - êóïèòü ìîæíî, íî çà îòäåëüíûå äåíüãè. Ò.å. îïëà÷èâàåøü ëèöåíçèþ, à ïèøè - õîòü èç ÌÐ3, õîøü èç ÐåàëÀóäèî....  Òàê ÷òî åñëè íóæíû òî÷íî õîðîøèå - òî òîëüêî ðîäíûå. |
|
|
WELCOME!
WWW.LONG.RU WWW.SOUNDINFO.ORG/FORUM/ |
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 17.07.2007 01:38 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Ïåòåðáóðã Ìèêøåð
|
Íà ñàìîì äåëå ýòî òîëüêî ïîëîâèíà ïðîáëåìû, äàæå ôèðìåííûå äèñêè íåêîììåð÷åñêèõ ãðóïï ÷àñòî çâó÷àò íåóäà÷íî, èáî ó èíäè-ëåéáëîâ íèêîãäà íå áûëî äåíåã íà òîïîâóþ àïïàðàòóðó è îïûòíûõ çâóêîðåæèññåðîâ, ïî íàñòîÿùåìó êðóòî çâó÷àò àëüáîìû, âûïóùåííûå íà Sony Music, EMI, BMG, Äîé÷å ãðàììîôîí è ò. ï. Îñîáåííîñòü õîðîøåé àïïàðàòóðû åùå è â òîì, ÷òî íà íåé ñðàçó ïðîÿâëÿåòñÿ óðîâåíü çâóêîðåæèññóðû. | |
|
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 17.07.2007 01:45 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Spb Ñòðóííûå ùèïêîâûå.
|
Äóìàåòñÿ ìíå, øòà ìèíîãèå ÑÄ íàðåçàíû ïóò¸ì êà÷àëîâà ìï3 ñ ÔÒï è êîíâåðòà â âàâ.. Ñààòâåööâåííà.. |
|
|
Vaso.
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 17.07.2007 01:58 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Ïåòåðáóðã Ìèêøåð
|
2 Vaso  ïðèíöèïå, òàêèå äèñêè ìîæíî óçíàòü ïî ñàìîé íèçêîé öåíå â ìàãàçèíå èëè ïî ñòðåìíûì ìåñòàì ïðîäàæè (ñòîëèêè íà óëèöàõ è ò. ä.), êà÷åñòâî îáëîæêè òîæå ìîæåò äàòü íåêèé íàìåê (åñëè ìïòðèõè ñêà÷àíåû ñ èíåòà, òàì æå áåðóò è îáëîæêó). |
|
|
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 17.07.2007 02:15 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
×åáóðàøêè ó êîòîðîãî íå áûëî äðóçåé
|
ãì...à ó ìåíÿ íåò íè îäíîãî ïàëåíîãî äèñêà...ÿ - ëîõ? 
|
|
|
"I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation." Martin Luther King, Jr
https://soundcloud.com/andrew-klyushnikov http://vk.com/akmix |
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 17.07.2007 02:22 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Ïåòåðáóðã Ìèêøåð
|
2 ïàïî÷êà À ñìîòðÿ êàêîå îáùåå êîëè÷åñòâî: ó ìåíÿ, ê ïðèìåðó, îêîëî 250 audio-CD, åñëè áû îíè áûëè âñå ëèöåíçèîííûå, ýòî îçíà÷àëî áû, ÷òî ÿ ïðèòîðãîâûâàþ íàðêîòåãàìè... |
|
|
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 17.07.2007 02:24 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Moscow
|
"Îñîáåííîñòü õîðîøåé àïïàðàòóðû åùå è â òîì, ÷òî íà íåé ñðàçó ïðîÿâëÿåòñÿ óðîâåíü çâóêîðåæèññóðû." -- È - óâû! - êà÷åñòâî äèñêà\\çàïèñè. (Õðåí áû ñ íåé, ñ ðåæèññóðîé...) Õîðîøèé äèñê ïîíàäîáèëñÿ äëÿ äåìîíñòðàöèè ïóëüòà ïðè ñäà÷å åãî çàêàç÷èêó. Ðåøèë òóò ÿ ìàíåíüêî "ïîâûïåíäðèâàòüñÿ" - ïîäêëþ÷èë JBL 4412, Ñàêåâè÷à 1200-ãî, è.... Âñ¸ õðèïèò, ïåðäèò - áëèí, êîíåö ñâåòà. Äîâûïåíäðèâàëñÿ! Òàêîå âïå÷àòëåíèå, ÷òî ñëîìàëîñü âîîáùå ÂѨ............ Âîïùèì, èçî âñåé êó÷è õëàìà ïîä ãîðäûì íàçâàíèåì CD - îêàçàëàñü òîëüêî îäíà íîðìàëüíî çàïèñàííàÿ âåùü. Êàê íè ñòðàííî, íàøëàñü îíà íà äèñêå SCOOTER-à "Øåôôèëä".
|
|
|
WELCOME!
WWW.LONG.RU WWW.SOUNDINFO.ORG/FORUM/ |
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 17.07.2007 03:02 |
|
|---|---|---|
ã.Âëàäèìèð
|
>Òàê ÷òî åñëè íóæíû òî÷íî õîðîøèå - òî òîëüêî ðîäíûå. Îäíàêî ñðåäè ïèðàòñêèõ åñòü êîïèè ðîäíîé ëèöåíçèè è ïðîæèãàþòñÿ íà ïðèëè÷íûõ "ðåçàëêàõ". |
|
|
åäð¸íûòü ýò âàì íå èòèòü.
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 17.07.2007 03:09 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Ïåòåðáóðã Ìèêøåð
|
Äà, âåðîÿòíîñòü ñòîëêíóòüñÿ ñ "ÌÏ3-êà÷åñòâîì" íà ïèðàòñêèõ äèñêàõ íå áîëåå 30-40%. | |
|
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 17.07.2007 09:55 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Ìîñêâà Âñ¸, ÷òî ñâÿçàíî ñî çâóêîì 
|
Long Äëÿ äåìîíñòðàöèîííûõ è îòñòðîå÷íî-ïðîâåðî÷íûõ öåëåé åñòü ñïåöèàëüíûå ÑÄ. Òàì îòëè÷íàÿ çàïèñü âñÿêèõ ðàçíûõ èíñòðóìåíòîâ â ðàçíûõ ñî÷åòàíèÿõ, à òàêæå øóìû(ñòàíäàðòíûå). Íî òîëüêî èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ôèðìåííûå è äîðîãèå, ñîáàêè. ÇÛ. Ê òîìó æå ðåäêîñòü.
|
|
|
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 17.07.2007 10:19 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Ìîñêâà Ãèòàðû
|
>"Êàêèì äèñêàì âåðèòü, ê ÷åìó ñòðåìèòüñÿ???" - âû íè÷åãî íå ïåðåïóòàëè? Âû íà ôîðóìå ÑÒÓÄÈÉÍÛÉ (!!!) ÇÂÓÊ, à íå ïîðòàëå àóäèîôèëîâ. Äà ïðè ÷¸ì òóò àóäèîôèëû! Ïðîñòî ñðàâíèâàÿ ñâîþ ðàáîòó ñ ðàáîòàìè ïðîôåññèîíàëîâ çâóêîçàïèñè ìîæíî ñäåëàòü âûâîäû î òîì, ÷òî ó òåáÿ íå ïðàâèëüíî! Íî åñëè ðàáîòû ïðîôåññèîíàëîâ èñêàæåíû ïèðàòàìè, òî áðàòü çà îáðàçåö çâóêîçàïèñè òàêèå äèñêè ïðîñòî îïàñíî! Âîò ÿ î ÷¸ì õîòåë óçíàòü. |
|
|
♪♫
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 17.07.2007 11:43 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Moscow
|
2 Slesar: -- òàê è ïðèøëîñü ïîñëå îïèñàííîãî ãîðåñòíîãî ñîáûòèÿ êóïèòü ôèðìåííûå, ïî 100-200$. Íî ó íèõ ó âñåõ îäèí îáùèé íåäîñòàòîê - óæ äþæå êîðîòêèå ôðàãìåíòû çàïèñàíû... 2 Serge23: "âåðîÿòíîñòü ñòîëêíóòüñÿ ñ "ÌÏ3-êà÷åñòâîì" íà ïèðàòñêèõ äèñêàõ íå áîëåå 30-40%" -- Ñèå íèêîìó íå âåäîìî. Íî ñóäÿ ïî ìîåìó ãîðåñòíîìó îïûòó - ãîðàçäî áîëüøå. 2 ÕîÇå: åñëè äèñêè __ïèñàííûå__, òî ñêîðåå âñåãî òàì âñ¸ áóäåò ÎÊ. Ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå, íè íà îäèí ïèñàííûé DVD ó ìåíÿ íàðåêàíèé íåò. ß èìåë â âèäó íàïå÷àòàííûå çàâîäñêèì ñïîñîáîì. |
|
|
WELCOME!
WWW.LONG.RU WWW.SOUNDINFO.ORG/FORUM/ |
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 18.07.2007 08:41 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Áàòàëüîí Êîðã 
|
À ÷åì âàñ íå óñòðàèâàþò äèñêè-ïðèëîæåíèÿ ê æóðíàëàì Ñàëîí-À èëè ÀâòîÇâóê? Îíè ÷àñòåíüêî ïèøóò âåñüìà "ïðîäóìàííóþ" ìóçûêó, çàïèñàííóþ â õîðîøèõ ñòóäèÿõ ãðàìîòíûìè ðåæèññåðàìè è ê òîìó æå âûïóñêàëè ïàðó äèñêîâ "Àóäèîäîêòîð" ñ ýòàëîííûìè îáðàç÷àìè çâó÷àíèÿ (òàì áûëè ôðàãìåíòû êàê äÿë ïðîñëóøèâàíèÿ, òàê è äëÿ îöåíêè êà÷åñòâà çâóê÷àíèÿ àïïàðàòóðû ,òàê è äëÿ "òðåíèðîâêè" ñëóõà... Ïîñëóøàéòå õîòÿ áû èõ ñáîðíèêè òèïà "Ìóçûêà äëÿ ìîçãîâ" èëè ó íèõ áûëè ñáîðíèêè, ñîñòàâëåííûå èç ïðîèçâåäåíèé êîìïîçèòîðîâ è èñïîëíèòåëåé, "ïîäïèñàíûõ" íà ëåéáëàõ ïðîèçâîäèòåëåé Naim è Linn... |
|
|
Ñîáñòâåííî, äèñêóññèé â ðóíåòå ñåé÷àñ ïðîèñõîäèò î÷åíü ìàëî - îáèòàòåëè çîíû .ru ïî÷òè ñðàçó ïåðåõîäÿò ê òîìó, êòî ñ êåì â ÷üåì ñåìåéñòâå èìåë èíòèìíóþ ñâÿçü. Ïðèçûâ âûæèãàòü íàïàëìîì âñåõ îïïîíåíòîâ, åâðååâ è âåëîñèïåäèñòîâ, ñëó÷àåòñÿ óæå íà òðåòüåì.
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 19.07.2007 00:17 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Ìîñêâà Âñ¸, ÷òî ñâÿçàíî ñî çâóêîì
|
RedBaron Äà óñòðàèâàåò, íàâåðíîå. Òîëüêî ÿ âîò âïåðâûå î òàêèõ æóðíàëàõ ñëûøó. Äà åù¸ ñ êà÷åñòâåííûì àóäèî-ïðèëîæåíèåì. Ñïàñèáî, ïîèùó â êèîñêàõ, èëè ãäå òàì èõ ïðîäàþò?
|
|
|
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 19.07.2007 00:18 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
wadas | |
|
Èãðàþ â îðêåñòðå ïîä óïðàâëåíèì Äæåêà Äåíèåëñà
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 19.07.2007 00:23 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
âëîàìïâûä | |
|
Èãðàþ â îðêåñòðå ïîä óïðàâëåíèì Äæåêà Äåíèåëñà
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 19.07.2007 00:24 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
Ïî÷åìó íå ïîëó÷àåòñÿ çäåñü çàïîñèòü ññûëêó? óæå 6-å ñîîáùåíèå ïèøó %(  îáùåì ïî ñëåäóþùåé ññûëêå ðàçãîðåëàñü äèñêóññèÿ íà ýòó òåìó: |
|
|
Èãðàþ â îðêåñòðå ïîä óïðàâëåíèì Äæåêà Äåíèåëñà
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 19.07.2007 00:27 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
òà ññûëêà íå ïîñòèòñÿ, ýòà ìîæåò áûòü: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ |
|
|
Èãðàþ â îðêåñòðå ïîä óïðàâëåíèì Äæåêà Äåíèåëñà
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 19.07.2007 00:28 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
è âîò êîììåíòàðèè... ñîáñòâåííî ñàì ñïîð: Hooty said... That's what happens when you let money control art... 05 June 2007 23:33 Rabbit said... Is this similar (or the same) as normalizing a track? 06 June 2007 00:15 joe said... Not the same as normalizing, at all. Normalization is merely making the loudest sound as loud as the medium will support (so the drum in this example would smack the top of the screen). Normalization does not alter dynamics at all. The effect this post is talking about is called "compression", though there are numerous other techniques and patented algorithms for ruining music in very high tech ways ("Maximizer", "Exciter", etc.). Compression reduces the loudest sounds so that the average amplitude can be cranked up...it's always been used in recording to make bass guitars thicker, vocals smoother, drums heavier, etc., but the 90's and 00's have seen rise to aggressive compression that is beyond anything in the previous decades of recorded music. 06 June 2007 01:00 Rabbit said... Ah, I see. Thanks for clarification, Joe. Hehe... "...techniques and patented algorithms for ruining music..." So true. /sigh 06 June 2007 01:08 Antisoc said... Compression is practically essential when you are mixing a recording, especially when mixing a band, but it's been taken to the extreme these days. There are two clear upshots to compression that I can think of offhand. First, it makes it easier to hear a song when you turn down the volume. Compression has been added to various high end TVs for this reason. Second, low volume songs that must be turned up will introduce equipment noise. To see the effect of this, turn off your music and turn the speakers all the way up. Hear the hiss? 06 June 2007 05:10 Anonymous said... Someone pointed this problem out elsewhere when Rush released the Vapor Trails album, imho their worst product from my hobbyist sound tech point of view. Unfortunately that problem is not uncommon: many studios like this practice of pumping out as many decibels as they can without any regard for sound quality. Ironically, that level of compression kills one of the main reasons behind CD adoption versus vinyl, which is the CD's much higher dynamic range. 06 June 2007 15:26 Anonymous said... I record projects and use software such as this and other compression tools to process sound. It is true, modern approaches to sound capturing has unfortunately been shipped off to the Jr. High department, where louder must mean better. Sadly, to find realy great recordings where dynamnics exist, you have to find a god classical or Jazz CD. However, in defense of this practce, when done in moderation and with the right ear, aggressive compression is a great tool for preparing cuts for radio play (which is the primary reason for such compression anyway), and to enhance and thicken and round the internal frequencies within the "valley"s of the audio signal. 06 June 2007 16:38 David Mulholland said... Really interesting. Thanks! 29 June 2007 03:04 Shane said... Amen. No more extreme compression! I'd argue, though, that "exciter" saturation happened in the late 80s and early 90s, when people realized they wanted CDs to sound "crisp." I've got some stuff from that period that sound absolutely awful, just saturated with harmonic distortion, in an effort to make it sound "crisp." Bleh. 29 June 2007 05:07 Anonymous said... There is something to note here as well, in that "technically" the CD is a lesser form of recording than vinyl, as is commented on here: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=375592 29 June 2007 06:19 Anonymous said... So, if I own say, Vapour Trails by Rush and I want to listen to it through my iPod without the (sonic rape) mix making my ears bleed... and say, I have a copy of Cool Edit or Audacity laying around... how would I go about fixing the tracks myself? 29 June 2007 08:01 Anonymous said... The consumer unfortunately won't be able to "fix" a recording that has been compressed to the point where original detail is lost. What the video is talking about typically is done at the last stage of mastering a recording. Dynamic "peaks" in the music are taken out so that the overall volume of the music can be raised. You can lower the volume in Audacity, which may help prevent your ears from bleeding. But you can't get the detail captured in those peaks back. You can't get rid of the distortion that results from chopping those peaks, either. You would have to go back to the original tapes and re-master them with less aggressive compression. Aggressive mastering compression creates a "wall of sound" effect in my ears. I think record companies mainly do this to allow music to sound "louder" on cheap equipment that can't handle dynamics very well. Fine, and this mastering technique isn't too bad for bands that go for a "wall of sound" effect to begin with (say, your typical nu metal band). This technique destroys dynamics though... and is horrible for a band like Rush. Even for a normal pop song, the heavy compression can ruin mood. When you chop off the details, the resulting "clipping" square-izes the wave. As a result, the sound becomes harsher. It is impossible for an over-compressed song to sound calm and soothing. Your nu-metal band could care less, but what about your R&B ballad maker? Another article, with some visual examples, on the death of dynamic range in music, is here. 29 June 2007 12:25 Anonymous said... If you are hearing hiss (especially, high levels of it) from your audio system when you turn up your volume, that system has been trashed. The only way I would think would kill off some of the harshness of the compressed media, is to roll it off onto tape. Cassette or reel to reel. Tape has a tendency to "roll off" the highs and fatten up the bottom end somewhat. It's sad that the music industry has resorted to such cheap antics to sell crap. 29 June 2007 13:00 Raf said... "What about your R&B ballad maker?" Have you heard an R&B song in the past two decades? I doubt R Kelly gives much more of a shit about his mastering than Linkin Park. But I digress. While all of this is a bit depressing, the fact is that such overcompression came to prominence due to major labels essentially trying to do their job; sell music to as large an audience as possible. With sales hitting skids as hard as they are these days, it makes sense that they'd try to broaden their appeal; like a previous poster said, they're essentially trying to make music listenable on any piece of equipment. Which brings me back to my first point; make something worth my money and I'll buy it. 29 June 2007 17:33 Anonymous said... You're all wrong about the terminology. "Compressing" reduces the loudest sounds AND boosts the quietest ones - it compresses the dynamic range (the difference between the lowest and highest decibel values). Think of it as flattening the slope of the curve, if you will. Compression was a necessary evil back in the age of tiny transistor radios: otherwise you wouldn't hear the quiet stuff and the loud stuff would distort. Now, what joe described on June 6 - just reducing the loudest sounds - is called "limiting". All digital recording requires severe limiting, because it can handle only up to a certain numerical value for volume. 29 June 2007 17:53 producermusicianguy said... @Anonymous "When you chop off the details, the resulting "clipping" square-izes the wave. As a result, the sound becomes harsher." Not necessarily true. While clipping does cut off the tops of the waveform, thus creating a square shaped form and distorted sound, true compression does not clip the waveform. Instead it reduces the amplitude of the wave by a set ratio once it crosses a set threshld of loudness. So instead of clipping the wave, it actually shrinks it. This often creates a pumping sound that's noticeable when a lot of compression is used on a track with large dynamic range. @Anonymous "If you are hearing hiss (especially, high levels of it) from your audio system when you turn up your volume, that system has been trashed." "The only way I would think would kill off some of the harshness of the compressed media, is to roll it off onto tape. Cassette or reel to reel. Tape has a tendency to "roll off" the highs and fatten up the bottom end somewhat." Both of these statements are false. Hiss is inherent noise that electronics create when amplifying sound. How loud that hiss is at normal operating levels, often referred to as the noise floor, varies from system to system, but should be lower on better systems. Since most people are listening through consumer grade computer speakers and fm radios, it's necessary to try to lower the noise floor as much as possible in recording. And as for running the recordings onto tape. This won't fix compression issues on a previously over-compressed recording. In fact, tape naturally compresses the sound (for years, it's been praised for it's ability to compress bass and drums), so instead of fixing the problem, you're in fact increasing the amount of compression applied to the track. Also, the higher noise floor of the tape will most likely introduce more hiss, pops, etc. into the recording, thus creating the effect that you are listening to a recording with less compression that has been turned up louder, but this is merely effect. Analog is great, but in this case, won't solve the problem. The detail has already been lost. 29 June 2007 18:07 Anonymous said... Thanks for the info. Makes me wonder why people pay big buck$$$ for so-called top of the line earbuds to listen to compressed tunes... 04 July 2007 17:14 Peter said... A lot of the arguments defending the overuse of this technique seem to be based around broadening the playability of the music track on a wide variety (i.e. low fi) of devices, such as radios etc and make the music seem louder on these devices. However, that argument overlooks the fact that nearly every radio station in existence uses compression to make their station appear louder and stronger than the competition and also to boost advertising volume. If you are listening to any contemporary non classical/jazz radio station in the world your are listening to heavily compressed audio. 07 July 2007 00:30 Anonymous said... The Chili Peppers last 3 albums have all suffered this fate. Does this effect sacd or dvd audio masters as much?? 10 July 2007 21:33 Anonymous said... i personally think that modern recording techniques used in digital recording such as compression give the music a smoother sound. especially music that is driven by heavy distorted guitars. as a guitarest myself, i always use my compressor and my sustainer when recording. i am not sure i agree with this article. a bigger problem with todays music is that there are too many artists out there and all of them rush to put a cd together only resulting in one well produced song. i am personally a fan of compression. it makes music sound better, unless if it is old hendrix cds. \\ 10 July 2007 21:41 Anonymous said... Another factor is that fewer folks take the time to actually to music. Music has become filler for the masses. Recordings are compressed to the max for the "benefit" of car stereos, boom boxes and mp3 players. None of those medium are going to deliver a high quality listening experience compared to a quality home stereo. Truth is few people that actually buy the music today have ever heard a quality recording on a quality stereo, so they are clueless that anything is amiss. 10 July 2007 21:41 Ryoku said... Lol, no wonder I like older music better! 10 July 2007 21:43 Joe W. said... maybe we can start to see Artists release "Uncompressed" CD's sort of like the "Unplugged" heyday in the 90's 10 July 2007 21:45 Christian said... High end compression equipment is the reason most amateur home recording engineers can't get that track mixed in your home studio to sound like the big production studio CD's. I do notice, however, that my home recordings, even when saturated with my Focusrite Penta's compression, sound WAY to live and dynamic compared to commercial recordings. You really do have to smash the hell out of a recording now days to get it to sound like a big, loud commercial cd. Sad if you ask me. 10 July 2007 21:47 mittens said... where to begin...1. you have to keep in mind what happens after we bounce to cd: kids put it in itunes and have a crappy converter transpose an AIFF file that has so much information, and knock it down to an mp3 or aac. so right there we can tell that the target market really doesn't care about what they are listening to. those of us in the industry hear it, and bitch about it. 2. compression isn't as necessary as people make it out to be. rolling 1-3db off a kick to make it more consistant is one thing. slamming it on a distressor on "nuke" with 26dB of reduction...umm...what are you doing? real mastering...like done by a guy that is a mastering engineer...not using your L2 plugin on your master fader takes a limiter and a compressor into the mix. good engineers don't compress that much. 3. this is more of a request...can we stop distorting masters? granted the genre of two such albums that i've heard it on is hardcore...but i shouldn't hear track distortion when a vocalist comes in with a doubled guitar. 4. the artist can be to blame. fire your producer if he is making your album sound like crap. bring your unmastered downmix somewhere else if your mastering engineer distorts your tracks. step up. it is your music afterall. 10 July 2007 21:50 Anonymous said... what's the name of this song, it's really cool. 10 July 2007 21:51 CalgarC said... Thats what happens when you give stupid people midi controller and a cheap pc 10 July 2007 21:51 Mat said... That's the reason why I'm back to vinyl records. 10 July 2007 21:52 ponosby_jones@yahoo.com said... I think I'll stick with garage bands, thanks.... geez. what music used to be. 10 July 2007 21:52 Anonymous said... anyone know the name of the song? 10 July 2007 21:53 Anonymous said... So I guess this loudness trend is also plaguing "remastered versions" that have been released in these past few years. The Ozzy Osbourne's solo early 80s releases being a perfect example. 10 July 2007 21:54 Anonymous said... Here's the Rush Vapor Trails article referred to earlier http://moozeek.de/mirrors/articles/over_the_limit.htm If that link doesn't work, just search for "Vapor Trails Over the Limit" 10 July 2007 21:55 Anonymous said... to the guitarist: guitars nowadays are "unnaturally" loud--I mean, they are loud to the detriment of everything else. Their levels are boosted way up, but so is the bass, but you want guitars to dominate, so everything is mashed together in a wall of sound. This isn't music. I don't understand why "space" between instruments, the sound of a band playing in a room (even if they didn't actually) is no longer wanted, but in fact despised. The art of recording is gone forever. 10 July 2007 21:56 pinky said... they sound the same to me! 10 July 2007 21:56 Paul Kane said... If you can restrain yourself to using the minimum of compression at the tracking stage, IE snare,bass and 'soft knee'on vocals, you can then allow the mastering engineer more scope to finalise the bigger picture, according to the genre recorded. I have personally sat in on mastering sessions where the engineer was handed a pile of over processed/over compressed crap and was expected to do something magical with it????......amateur recording engineers and producers should get back to basics and allow the natural dynamic of the music to flow....then let the mastering guy do his/her thing!!!! Paul Kane. 10 July 2007 21:58 Elliot said... I never knew this was going on in the music industry. Very interesting, no wonder people are playing music louder these days. 10 July 2007 22:05 Anonymous said... CD's sound better than early wax cylinder and 78 records. LP's were getting very good in the last years of production, I think CD's were made better in the beginning to get people hooked on CD's, new CD's are not as good however who cares they will be on their way out in the next 5-10 years. MP3's are on the way in. 10 July 2007 22:08 Kraig said... "as a guitarest myself, i always use my compressor and my sustainer when recording." Analog compression is a fine effect, indeed. But we're talking about digital compression that is put in place AFTER the recording, not during. This type of compression ####S. 10 July 2007 22:09 allenrichardson said... The track is Figure of eight from Paul McCartney's album Flowers in the Dirt It's one of his better ones. 10 July 2007 22:13 JP said... There are car stereos that are made now that are supposed to “restore” the sound from when it was compressed. I know there I have played a CD in my truck and then played it in his and it was much clearer. I know that there is a difference in speakers and power between the two, but there was a BIG and I mean BIG difference in them. 10 July 2007 22:13 Anonymous said... I own some great high-quality classical CDs with full dynamic range, no compression at all. And they sound terrific listening on my stereo at home. But you know what? I do most of my music listening while driving in the car (I've got other things to do when sitting at home). While driving in a car, you have an automatic noise floor due to the sounds of the road, and that noise floor blocks quiet music from being audible at all. When driving, high-dynamic-range music is almost pointless to listen to, and I'm thankful for compression for giving me low-dynamic-range music I can listen to instead, because even if the clarity is slightly less, I can at least hear the whole thing over the noise of the highway. 10 July 2007 22:13 Thomas Carney said... Bloody amazing. The BIG THING about CDs is DYNAMIC RANGE. Make it loud and you ruin the dynamic range. hooty wrote above "That's what happens when you let money control art...." He's absolutely right. I'm an engineer and I get tired of the "shirt-and-tie boys" having more say than the engineers on technical parameters than the engineers, who really know how it works. 10 July 2007 22:13 JP said... This post has been removed by the author. 10 July 2007 22:13 Anonymous said... This is only one aspect of the manner the record companies have destroyed rock and roll in a rush for short term profits. And when we resist buying the crap they attempt to force feed us, they call us pirates and criminals. Great info, thanks. ...ElvisNixon 10 July 2007 22:15 Moni said... On the normalizing bit, Joe refers to PEAK normalization. RMS normalization is a different ball game though, and would work similar to this video. We ONLY use peak. Adding this video to our site now... GrindLab.tv 10 July 2007 22:18 Sydney said... I don't understand why CD bit rate is not increased from 1440 to say 2048, or 4096. It can only improve clarity and reduce the need for compression. I don't think that this is the same as HD Audio, which is just extra channels of data at the same 1440 bit rate. Unfortunately, this move would cut the max total of time on a CD in half. If the record industry released everything on disks with the data capacity of DVDs, we would still have 185 min. of music at 4096 kbits on a single disk. Now THAT would be an improvement using current technology. 10 July 2007 22:19 DJ Nuddy Budda said... As a digital composer I strive to make my tracks hit as many frequencies as possible with many devices. The producer who mastered my first album had a hell of time mastering it because of this. No matter how much pre-mastering I do, every time I export a piece from Reason I always have to turn up the volume to hear all of the sounds and even then some of them are drowned out because of the louder volume. Essentially this is what mastering and compression does as already mentioned by previous bloggers. My producer did a pretty good job mastering the final cut of the album but it still needed some work. I now realize that what I first thought was a major problem was actually him saving the artistic qualities of my tracks. In other words, I was rather disappointed that I couldn't turn the volume past 18 and even 16 for some songs in my car. After reading these posts I now understand why this is so. I am soon coming out with my second and third albums and will be working with the same producer again. This time, however, I will be working with him in Reason so that every sound is as perfect as can be and the finished product should delight anyone opposed to the debachery of big labels etc. In our current time of minimalistic songs it should be easier for composers to make their tracks sound as great as possible without comprisiming sound quality. I'm starting to have second doubts about adding vocals to my second and third albums after reading these posts...especially because my first album was heavily critized for having none at all. In the face of it all, though, I still say #### em and do what I want to do. The artists must retake control of their "works" and in doing so art will once again be appreciated for what it is and not sold as a commodity. P.S. If you go to my webpage you will find 2 poorly mastered tracks (I did this on purpose to save the quality of the true song for when it is released). Respect to faithful artists! 10 July 2007 22:21 Nate said... This is all so interesting! I think that as people discover the ear fatigue caused by these loud albums they will aslo discover that they will turn down there earbuds and stereos. I'm reminded of how a restaurant will play fast music in the background just so you will shove it down and get out so they can serve the next client. As people get back to mature listening we should see this trend subside a bit. One genre that will usher this change will be the new developing popularity of ambient music and experimantal music that is more tone based and wont require this Maximizing effect. I am one of those guilty record producers that has had to slam the wall. But I am a strong advocate for doing what is needed for any given type of music. But I do believe the change will come. We just need to tell people to use their ears and ask themselves what they are hearing. My best to all the posters here! 10 July 2007 22:22 DinoCorleone said... What actually happens to music in the studio is supposed to happen one track at a time. The idea is to be able to turn the music up and down without distorting the individual tones. Ergo- all things being equal- listening to the song on one volume level should be the same as listening to it on another. (I know one would be louder than the other- what I mean is the if the cow bell starts 25% louder than the high hat it stays that way.) The problem is compression does not effectively take into account little nuances in tones. Simply put- raising the level of a bass guitar is not the same as raising the level of a snare drum or high hat. And to ruin a piece- a little distortion in only one ingredient is all it takes. 10 July 2007 22:23 Marge said... Going back on the blog, CD's in the begining didn't sound better than today, period...they didn't have the technique down IMHO. Case in point, Jennifer Warnes' CD of Leonard Cohen's music when originally released on CD sounded awful, I realized this when listening recently, so I picked up a newer version from Hong Kong and the sound nearly rivals an LP. Also, the other reason that the processing is so prevelent is very simple, very few listeners are actually using HI-FI equipment, so why bother with good recording techniques if you don't have to. Give a listen to Jack Black's release of a couple of years ago (can't recall the name), it sounded great on the radio, but I couldn't listen to the entire disc at home on real HI-FI equipment, the processing was SO awful. 10 July 2007 22:27 Anonymous said... Anyone know the name of that program shown in the video? Thanks 10 July 2007 22:28 Anonymous said... I was going to make a smart remark using a line from the movie "Almost Famous"... While I was looking for the exact quote, I see someone asking if there was a real Penny Lane.... UGH!!! It seems there are too many people unaware of what "good music" SHOULD sound like -- They have no idea what they're missing. 10 July 2007 22:34 Anonymous said... Another similar topic is ripping a song down to MP3. I'm a musical artist and the sound quality diminishes horribly from the studio to an MP3, particularly in tones from instruments that are rich in dynamic range. This adds to the problem that compression causes in mastering. 10 July 2007 22:47 Anonymous said... So do you think that compression is applied too much at the engineering stage or the mastering phase of a recording? Around my region alot of the artist use the same Mastering Studio. The engineer there has done many many albums you've all heard......is he to blame? 10 July 2007 22:48 Royce said... mittens is right on the money..I implore musicians out there to read those comments carefully and think them through..We can't trust a lot of producers and engineers these days to do the right thing where our music is concerned..A well known (legendary) record producer actually had an engineer tell him that it had to be "maximised" (squashed) because the engineer had a "reputation" to uphold..Let's just forget for a moment that an engineer has no business telling a producer how the record should sound (especially THIS producer) this engineer was working for a BIG record company and doesen't know what the hell he's doing..As you might imagine he quickly found himself off the project..Take Amy Winehouse's current release "Back To Black"..If you compare the CD version to the LP version, you won't believe your ears..The LP has more "space" between the sounds, allowing everything to "breathe" better..If you like the CD you will LOVE the LP (and no, i'm not one of those "vinyl is always better" kind of people)..If you want people to still be listening to your music years down the road, education is your best bet..Don't be a witness to the production and mastering of your music (both steps are CRUCIAL) be a participant..As i say, you can't trust a lot of producers and engineers these days to know what they're doing.. 10 July 2007 22:59 Rob said... Depending on how you set the attack, decay, threshold and compression ratio; overcompression can have either a "squashed" and "swelling" sound (used for effect on the drums from the later Beatles recordings), or the nasty "Squashed" yet "pumping effect" (noticeable when the kick overrides everything). A good (well, bad) modern example of the an utterly unlistenable "squashed" album would be Beck's "The Information". Pretty much all modern dance and hip hop records are smacked and distorted to high hell (this could be seen as intended, I suppose). And, yes, as of late, most "remasterings" are, simply, "squash it" jobs. You will see the term "limiting" and "brick wall limiting" floating about. Limiting is setting the compression ratio in such a way that sound, mostly, never escapes over the set threshold. "Brick Wall" limiting is as it sounds, a brick wall, that peaks can not penetrate, whatsoever. Modern technology has lead to a world of non-skilled and untrained "mastering engineers" working out of bedrooms with pirated copies of waves plugin bundles, brick-walling to high hell while using dB gains of 13 +. Alas, the folks sitting in multi-million dollar mastering facilities are pulling the same, frowned upon, results. The unfortunate case for real mastering engineers is that it's the client demanding the audio assault. One thing to understand, however, is that compression (whether via leveling amplifiers, tape saturation, tube saturation, etc.)has always been used during tracking, mixing and mastering (or cutting acetates) stages of recorded music. It is a good thing. It is also mandatory for the radio/television/film fields. What one should mind is "overdoing" it, with attention to compression over the mixbuss/2buss during mixing and over the mix during mastering. Also, notice that this trend of dynamics crushing has moved over into film/tv. Notice the dynamics in "Once Upon A Time In The West" versus your average modern action flick. Or the "EVERYTHING LOUD AS EVERYTHING ELSE" mess of the American Idol broadcasts. This trend is utterly immature in nature; and as an American, I am not surprised by my observation that this problem appears to, mostly (and at it's worse), stem or orginate from the United States (although, UK dance/electronic/idm and hip-hop records are squashed as much as their european counterparts ). Time and again, I have picked up US versions of records, originally intended for the European market; only to find an obvious amount of added compression compared to my previous copy. :o 10 July 2007 23:08 "mo" said... yep, I agree 100 percent... most of the music recorded today ####s. Most folks have no clue what a scope is or how to use one. so your dealing with people that dont have a clue? They cant do brain surgery either , but they can watch it on the discovery channel. The blame lies on the producers and recording industry. They bad thing for folks that remember what quality sounds like, we are getting ripped off by trashy sounding CD's that are overpriced in the first place. If you never had a great tasting banana slpit, how could you compare it to a fair tasteing one. Kinda like a home made hamburger, vs fast food bugers. It's just not the same taste even if you like fast food bugers, you still have to say it doesnt taste like they came off the grill in the backyard. Screw the record companies! Shame on them for making good music sound bad. And for the comment about how to fix a bad CD mix...you cant fix what is not there, you can remix the masters, but once it's on the cd, its gone. Like cutting a lenth of rope too short. You cant tie ...what you dont have. get it... OH YES to comment on the radio stations.. Radio stations are free to listen to, if they pump out trash ...fine, but... WE HAVE TO PAY FOR CD's THINK ABOUT IT. 10 July 2007 23:13 Anonymous said... I did some research in college on the effects of digital compression as far as the quality of music downloaded on computers and transfered to I-Pods etc. and I have found that the sound quality downloaded from a computer does not compare but most people don't have an ear for music. They just seem to be obsessed with how loud music is and not the quality of the music. GOOD stereos have always been known to produce a range of 20 to 20 Kh. Does this extreme compression reduce that range? I am also wondering if this extreme compression affects a stereos RMS capabiltiy (ability to put out a constant volume level) and does it also affect a stereos abilty as far as peak power before clipping???? I have always been a fan of acoustic suspension speakers compared to ported speakers because acoustic suspension speakers provide a beefer and smoother bass although they require more power. Can a high end system with an equalizer reduce this ugly sound? Would a tube stereo work better compared to a transisterized stero to rid the awful sound effects? 10 July 2007 23:29 Obtuse said... Sadly the record companies fail to understand that the folks who are still buying CDs are doing so for the increased (potential) sound quality over MP3's (or any file-compression scheme, which are inherently inferior technologies). "The masses" once again have traded quality for convenience (as they did with audio cassettes in the 80's), and are pleased as punch with 128 kb/s MP3's which sound like cream of crap. To them loud=good. Note to record companies, save the uber-loudness for your downloadable tracks, and give us quality CD's. Or even better, utilize the increased capabilities of Blue Ray, HD-DVD, or DVD (ex. DVD-A). 10 July 2007 23:38 Anonymous said... While the basic idea of the article is true, ie. recordings being louder now than previously. The example given is probably the result of subpar engineering/mastering. The author is making the overgeneralization that volume is the key to making sounds and instruments pop out when in fact you can have different instruments playing simultaneously at the exact same volumes and still have each one be perfectly discernable by using differnt eq settings, compression/expansion, and panning. The example in the original story was squashed probably a little on the heavy side, but with the right tools you can get a pretty dynamic recording at high volume fairly easily... 10 July 2007 23:55 Anonymous said... I have no trouble making music without compression, however, it's generally more desired by people who know what music is and who actually go out now and then and hear live music. Been recording for a long time and got a Grammy nomination for best recording last year without any processing at all. It's not just my opinion, but also that of thousands of music lovers and professional musicians, that just because someone owns a compressor, it's not mandatory to use it on everything as if it were the only audio tool available. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail. There are tens of thousands of "recordists" who should not be victimizing music with their incompetence. Even more important, every artist and every recording engineer should be telling the marketing types to go to hell, that they will not ruin music for marketing--that's just plain stupid. The music marketers have effectively taken the progress out of audio and trashed it, and in the process turned most "commercial" music into intolerable noise that fewer people want to buy. 11 July 2007 00:05 rob said... I noticed a couple "Vinyl vs. CD" comments; and I agree, you will hear a difference.... BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO MAKE SEPERATE MASTERS. No way getting around that. Thus, there can be thousands of variables as to why you would prefer one version over the other. Hardly anything to do with format, whatsoever. The 2 most common situations I've seen is: Someone compares 40 year old vinyl record to newly-released, and "squashed", re-mastered CD. (not too mention that, of course, a cd would be "re"-mastered if the album had not previously been released on that format). A classic scenario, I once witnessed, involved a funky-psychedelic-rock cult record that failed, miserably, in sales when it was first released on a major label. Since it had reached cult-status, a tiny record label, operating out of the back of a record shop, decided to license the rights to re-issue the album on cd. Operating on a tiny budget, they had the CD master handled by a guy with a facility that was barely recording studio grade. As they were low on money, he cut them a deal, and said he'd do the work during down time (mostly rushed through). He transfered the tapes, via "ok" converters into his computer, and did all the mastering in software (not a million dollars worth of mastering hardware). When the CD came out, I picked it up, it wasn't something worth spending the $150 price tag that the orginal vinyl was commanding in the marketplace. However, my rich friend, on discovering the album via re-issue, had no problems blowing a wad of cash on the vinyl. He decided to make a comparison of our two versions; and upon listening, decided that this "scientific analysis" determined vinyl to be a superior format. Ridiculous. The second common scenario involves a modern release receiving a vinyl issue a few months after the Compact Disc version. Let's say an up and coming artist puts his jazzy-folk album out on CD via an independent record label. The budget is paper thin; the mastering while done at a proffesional studio; is performed by a mastering engineer's assistant at around 1 am. While the assitant is good enough to be trusted with this task; he's more of a heavy-modern rock fan, and not exactly familiar/or suited with the style of our up and coming artist's record. Regardless, the master is approved, and the album is released, proving to be rather successful; and being a fan of vinyl, the artist asks for and receives permission to have a limited edition 180 gram vinyl version of the record made available for the marketplace. Discouraged by the problems they've had with vinyl releases in the past, they decide to go with one of the few remaining vinyl cats who's experience stems from the 1950's. The mastering engineer, who has worked on similar records, happens to love the artist's record, and pays special close attention to "getting it right". The vinyl version comes out and, sure enough, everyone declares that vinyl is a superior format. Despite the fact that the primary difference is the human behind the wheels. Now that I've talked too much, let me add just one more thing.... Ignoring such things as "quality of mastering" and "overcompression", I should note that modern CD's sound leagues better than those from the 1980's. Digital technology has improved by leagues. Converters are much improved; dithering and new concepts in mastering have almost destroyed the old problem of "digital harshness". While many "re-masterings" are quite horrid; many others are utterly well-crafted and rather "analog" sounding. 11 July 2007 00:07 JTL said... Funny you should mention the Chili Peppers... When I bought "Californication" back in 1999, I took it home, listened to about three songs, and was convinced I'd received a defective disc because it kept topping-out and getting distorted. I took it back to the store and exchanged it, and the second CD did exactly the same thing. I haven't bought a RHCP album since (or downloaded anything of theirs, for that matter). 11 July 2007 00:22 Anonymous said... Interesting video... I think the recording industry's use/abuse of music goes along with the ear of listeners. In classical and jazz music, listeners expect to hear a things as small as a clarinet or cymbal individually. In other words, to alter the highs and lows of recordings is to alter the true sound of the recording. You are getting what the artist played or what would be heard live. Very few artists care about live music and a true musical sound. If you can sell one big hit on the radio, you are a musician. On the flip side, very few listeners care about how well that drum sounded or how his technique rendered the perfect timbre. They only want to hear a great, catchy tune. Unfortunately, until the recording industry starts taking over the online piracy, the overall quality of music will continue to degrade. People converting Cd's into Mp3's instead of taking the original recording and converting it... its lose lose 11 July 2007 00:27 Anonymous said... Rob hit the nail on the head. I have heard good cd remastering and bad and it has everything to do with the quality of the master tapes, if they can find them, and the person who is doing the remastering. If you listen to any of Rhino's remasters they are almost always excellent. Some of these young recording engineers who are remastering older material don't have clue what it should sound like. Most of them think bass is the place to be so to speak, they have no idea what a well balanced and mixed recording is because they have been raised on over produced and just plain badly produced and recorded music. 11 July 2007 00:29 Anonymous said... antisoc needs better audio equipment. compression is NOT essential. my stereo is silent with no source and the volume turned up to "aleven". 11 July 2007 00:39 Anonymous said... Trex Don't believe this. If you're a good producer, you know how to make a great production. 11 July 2007 00:56 John said... I disagree with this. With compression, you can hear the softer parts more clearly. The video simply shows a synth part that has its volume boosted, there's nothing wrong with that. If you want to hear more of what is going on, then turn up the volume of the softer parts. I would actually listen to a compressed track at a softer volume than an uncompressed track because it is much easier to hear all its diverse sounds. That, to me, is quality. 11 July 2007 01:08 Anonymous said... sounds the same to me. 11 July 2007 01:54 Anonymous said... www.cheskyrecords.com and you don't have to deal with all this BS for great quality music, done from a single microphone preserving the natural acoustics and perfect soundstage in a well set up audio system. 11 July 2007 02:52 Job - The DC Traveler said... Finally, someone clearly explains why CDs sound so flat, especially compared to old vinyl records and older CDs which iused significantly less compression. Thanks. PS: With some car owners putting mega-watts amps into their car or home audio systems, do we really need "louder" CDs? 11 July 2007 03:14 DFL said... From what I was told, even the Led Zeppelin remasters were tweaked to the point where the volume exceeds the maximum. I can't stand the sound of modern recordings. Everything is so loud the subtlties are lost. Music needs room to breathe. 11 July 2007 03:16 Anonymous said... I hope I'm not repeating what was already said... The best sound is, of course, uncompressed -- provided you are in a listening environment where you are paying full attention to the music, loud peaks are ok, and there is very little background noise. In effect, as if you are at the live performance. The key feature is that there is a very large range between inaudible and too loud. However, much of the time, we make do with background music which can't be too loud, or we are listening in a noisy environment such as a car. In both of these cases, there is a more limited acceptible dynamic range between inaudible and too loud. Compression is essential in these cases. But the correct place for compression is not on the CD, but in the playback system. That is why many car CD players have compression available. It isn't typically available for home audio systems, though, even though the need exists when loud peaks need to be avoided. This occurs frequently, such as late at night, in apartments, and many other situations. Appropriate compression can make the difference between just hearing the loud parts and hearing the entire recording. As was mentioned, there have been some advances made in compression algorithms. One of the drawbacks of typical compression algorithms is that the gain is always being tinkered with, even when unnecessary for listening. This robs the music of the way it breathes. A better approach is to use some lookahead to distinguish between large and small dynamic changes, to ignore the small changes and handle the large changes. With today's fast CD drives, a lookahead buffer can easily be part of a CD player, so there will be very little delay between pushing Play and hearing the music. 11 July 2007 03:26 Anonymous said... I am facing this challenge today as an active audio engineer. I mixed a band(punk/metal) and used moderate compresion in the mix and the evil "L" limiter in the mastering but tryied to be moderate and considerate of not destroying the dynamics and at the same time make it as loud as musically possible. I was happy with the mix but after a couple of weeks tha band called and told me they wanted it to be LOUDER. This was due to friends saying" it's not as loud as other(crappy) CD's and a posible distributer saying the same, " it's not as loud other CDs we play on the radio". So It's hard to be musical in this business. I'll try to tell the band to read this article and see if that changes their mind but that probably wont work for the guy in distribution unfortunately. We have to educate so that that people learn to apreciate! I think that the whole MP3 thing makes it worse and the fact that not many people had quality stereos to listen to at home or in their cars and MP3s are not HI-FI ! What can one do? We (engineers) have the knobs in our hand but if it's not the exec it's the ignorant musician telin us to ruin their music Analog compresion rules!Benjamixer 11 July 2007 03:39 Anonymous said... One last thing, In the recording/mixing/mastering I believe there has always and will always be some compresion/limiting. But, it is not necesary to OVER do it. Maybe if more listening devices had compresion it wouldnt be necesary to compres as much and one could control that effect oneself depending on the environment that one is in ie. loud car, apartment, home stereo, headphones etc... In radio stations the music is always compresed as well before it is broadcast so if the CDs were a bit less compresed one could put the last touch on it if one wanted. Benjamixer 11 July 2007 03:50 Anonymous said... it's sad too that the industry walked away from another half of the process that could easily serve all parties involved... vinyl uses a sort of compression/expansion process to enable the sound to be conveyed on a relatively noisy surface like vinyl. it was not unlike a specific parametric equalizer & volume setting for the 'phono' channel - the bass and treble were cut back in the 'compression' phase and stretched back out as part of the 'phono' channel circuitry of the pre-amp. toward the end of vinyl's popularity, there was a beefed up version of 'compansion' that rendered on vinyl a higher dynamic range than the metal tape of the time (which was not that far away from digital recording of that time, as i recall). being so flippin' digital now anyway, simply adopt a standard digital compression algorythm on the (unclipped!) recording end and apply the expansion via the same algorythm to whatever degree suits the equipment - leaving it more compressed for a table radio or boom box and less so for finer equipment in home & auto systems. it worked that way for vinyl except that wasn't done digitally. how silly to blow an imho obvious opportunity to ensure maximum sound quality and actual listening pleasure across the board... 11 July 2007 03:57 Anonymous said... Anybody that hasn't heard vintage 80s CDs like Donald Fagen - Kamakiriad or Bobby McFerrin - Don't Worry Be Happy on a pair of vintage Infinity Kappa 8s driven with Pioneer SPEC1/SPEC2 through a Carver Sonic Hologram Generator isn't even qualified to be having this discussion --- You're all crazy and you're all being ripped off by a money-hungry music and hi-fi industry that doesn't know the meaning of the word quality - Oh wait - they don't even sell REAL hi-fi equipment anymore. 11 July 2007 04:04 Anonymous said... my kappa 9s have bigger ubangees  11 July 2007 04:10 Anonymous said... Ah - A Kindred spirit - An extra pair - twice the fun - Like the proverbial puppy with two appendages. 11 July 2007 04:36 Leon Rousseau said... Amen. The problem is that people get used to it. I masterize my albums myself, because i wouldn't let anyone eslse do it. I trapped between what I like (high vynilish dyn) and what people like. Because when I do it my what people feel it doesn't sound powerful and doesn't bother listenneing. With a good multiband compression device and a good pair of ears, you can do a descent middle of the road. To add to the Hall of Shame : - the Fratellis - The Cooks - Everything Johnny Cash released with Rick Rubin. (I'd give a leg to be able to listenned the the before master tapes of the Unearthed box set) 11 July 2007 08:29 Anonymous said... Pinky HAS to be an A&R guy at major label, everyone should read Water Sear's artical "what have they done to my art" Searsound.com Thanks I thought it was just me who is confident the New music and the processes #### and the stupid labels and the media are blaming everything else but the truth. Do not worry it is all a big cycle and it will change for the better, 11 July 2007 10:22 Anonymous said... this is what happens when you let narrow-minded and cash driven managers/marketing people control too much of a company (and, in effect, the industry)... companies should trust the expertise of engineers and shouldn't sacrifice QUALITY just to make money.... it's bad for the industry and bad for consumers in general... 11 July 2007 12:15 Anonymous said... Compression during production is never good; if you want to be able to hear everything when you turn something down, use a sound system with Dynamic Range Compression that does exactly this - compresses the dynamic range, or difference between soft and loud sounds. This way, if you ever listen to it loud, you get the clarity, and if you listen to it at a lower volume, you just turn DRC on and hear more. 11 July 2007 12:57 Anonymous said... sad. 11 July 2007 12:59 Anonymous said... The sad fact is, if you polled 1000 lamens, the overwhelming majority would prefer the compressed audio. So who's to say what's better? Producer Marc 11 July 2007 16:29 Anonymous said... Oh lord, so many incorrect, not-quite-right and just-plain-wrong comments. Can I try and clear some of the points up? 1. Using compression on an individual instrument while recording; Doesn't create an evil, all it does (simplistically) is bring up the quiet notes in volume and bring down some of the loud notes if you left things otherwise uncompressed. If your loudest note was +10 and your softest +0.1, you could compress this to say +2.5 and +7.5 or any other ratio. 2. How loud that guitar track is in the final mix is up to the mixer (simplistically). The guitarist chooses some control over the dynamics (think whispering / shouting adjusted to soft talking / loud talking) but has NO influence over how loud it will be in the final mix. 3. So far so easy 4. There is a well established human psycho-acoustical condition where we think that 'louder = better'. For this reason if you play two cd's next to each other and one is louder than the other, the vast majority of humans will think the louder is "better" at the same master volume level on their hifi. 5. In practice music manufacturers make stuff louder = "better" by bringing up all the soft parts and squishing the loudest peaks so that everything can be brought louder relative to the other cd you're being compared to. This is the Compression War innit. 6. Doing so utterly destroys the volume dynamics of the performance as intended and originally recorded by the musicians if you do it on a wholesale across-the-track basis. It is necessary to control some genuine peaks which would otherwise cause distortion but the general control is utterly overdone. 7. A less dynamic range does make listening to popular music (hell any music) in a noisy environment easier because you don't lose the quiets. Yes classical music is highly susceptible to this. But this is a rubbish excuse if you master the one-and-only copy of an album and completely rob the dynamics for home listening by compressing it to hell. Imagine the 1812 overture only played at *!@*ing loud the whole way thru.... whatever the sensitivity of the passage.... No one dares to do it to classical because the dynamic ranges are so explicit. It is criminal to do it to much fine pop / rock / rap / country / whatever. All these musicians do actually care about volume dynamics. There isn't just one expression of 'fortissimo'. 8. And it's doubly stupid because, EVERY radio station puts tracks through a massive compressor / expander that *dwarves* any recording-applied strength so any compression by the time it comes to relative loudness on radio is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT if you are looking for an 'airplay effect' 9. So why not let radio do it's already-happening-thing and if you want to it would be a total doddle to include a compressor type function into an mp3 or car radio if people actually cared to overcome high background noise environments without causing the original recording to be RUINED for home and reference listening. 10 The good news is that articles like this give it prominence and that with the advances in storage, anyone with a pair of ears is moving to FLAC or other lossless recordings. Now all we need to do is get some self-respecting musicians to back a dynamics-in-music campaign and reinstall quality in recordings. The Chilli-Peppers example is not appropriate because their whole sound is deliberately ultra-compressed in your face. It's a *style* choice and quite deliberate. However if you asked someone like Flea what he thought about this issue with respect to general recorded music, I will bet you a thousand dollars he would support the above. This is the issue, not some of the quasi-audiophile rubbish above. If we can all focus on it for what it is, maybe we can change it. 11 July 2007 21:16 deanayer said... Music died the day MTV was born. 12 July 2007 05:51 Anonymous said... Actually it's 'limiting', not 'compression', that is being used to make CD's loud. Plug-ins like the Waves L1 and now L3 are used to boost volume without digital clipping. The result of too much limiting is distortion and loss of dynamic range. 12 July 2007 10:26 Anonymous said... As an old guy, a former broadcaster, recording engineer and lover of great big band jazz, I find the whole compression thing really offensive. To my ears, compression is a form of distortion, a distruction of the original master work, but it doesn't surprise me that we have finally arrived at this abuse. We have seen compression used on TV commercials for years, making the sound level of the commercials seem louder to get your attention and the same has happened on radio. Anything for the money! But who these days can even hear it after years of pounding of the ear drums by who are now younger adults. They have no way of hearing what I hear in a recording when all the detail is present because they are all nearly deaf anyway from 200 to 300 watts of normal listening levels. They probably don't even know what we're talking about. For those people, a whisper is impossible to hear. What a shame! We have raised generations of young people who spent their young lives trying to become deaf. It seems they have succeded. Hearing aid anyone? 12 July 2007 10:59 Scott said... The question I have is: Is this a real quality issue on talk-radio?... and is there a difference if it is AM or FM? 12 July 2007 13:12 Anonymous said... Personally I find the snap of the snare a little irritating and feel it takes away from the enjoyment of the other sounds. I've always thought to myself, "I wish they would have turned down the drum a bit" because it was too overwhelming. Besides I prefer more base then treble although the opposite was true when I was younger. I guess you can't please everyone. 12 July 2007 14:08 Anonymous said... I've been warning my students for years about the dangers of listening to MP3 players at excessive volume levels. Would love to find out how to use this video in my classroom... 12 July 2007 14:29 B said... I can't believe someone said they like compression because they listen to most of their music in the car! If the noise of the road bothers you, then turn up the volume! How dare they trash the sound of the music yet slap an 18.99 price tag on the cd? Forget the radio and people who don't know music! The sheep/masses will still buy the music, look at the crap they put their money into now! It's so sad that my vinyl sounds better than my cds. I fear the next stage where we go completely digital. All music on mp3? Please, no! For all the money they charge for music nowadays, they should at least record it properly. Then they wonder why we download so much music... 12 July 2007 14:34 B said... I can't believe someone said they like compression because they listen to most of their music in the car! If the noise of the road bothers you, then turn up the volume! How dare they trash the sound of the music yet slap an 18.99 price tag on the cd? Forget the radio and people who don't know music! The sheep/masses will still buy the music, look at the crap they put their money into now! It's so sad that my vinyl sounds better than my cds. I fear the next stage where we go completely digital. All music on mp3? Please, no! For all the money they charge for music nowadays, they should at least record it properly. Then they wonder why we download so much music... 12 July 2007 14:35 DispatchVan said... This making everything all loud is also a way to sell High Definition stuff too. I've noticed on my XM radio in my car that with the HD stations (only 2 of them) the sound is excellent, a full range of highs and lows can be heard no matter what the volume is. I sounds as if the instruments are right there in my vehicle. And all the other "regular" stations the highest highs and lowest lows are either not there or are distorted. I've been hearing a difference in the past few years but could never figure out why things were sounding different. Now I am informed and it makes total sense of what is happening to music. 12 July 2007 16:39 Anonymous said... it sounds the same to me 12 July 2007 16:52 Shawn said... Oh wowww BIIGG difference! being a drummer myself.. I'd kill the record company if they made my drums sound like that..lol 12 July 2007 17:43 Anonymous said... I agree this does make a recording sound terrible and hate to see it happening so often. However, I do believe that this level of compression does have a place in the world. But I would much rather receive the music uncompressed (or compressed as little as possible) and add the compression to suit my tastes (or needs). Some level of compression does help in situations like portable mp3 players and in the car (most of them anyway). 13 July 2007 00:25 The Home Office said... To me, the saddest part is what hardly anyone has mentioned: CDs were supposed to bring the quality of live music into the home. Live recordings can sound better than ever, if they're not messed with. The problem is that everything is mixed and balanced to "optimal" (read: similar, or bland) levels. It seems onlt classical, jazz, and some smaller labels are immune. 13 July 2007 01:36 arg said... Please ignore the information in the link provided in the post dated 29 June 2007 06:19 in this thread. The stuff about CD being technically inferior to vinyl is full of technically incorrect assertions, and reaches the wrong conclusion. Vinyl is technically quite inferior to CD. 15 July 2007 14:05 Anonymous said... The CD vs. Vinyl stuff is technically incorrect, but there are still real technical reasons for the problems of the CD format. For example, the missing supersonic can demonstrably have an effect. Joe Pompei at MIT developed a supersonic speaker that induces sonic in the audible spectrum in the air ("Audiospot"). I also remember engineers at Sony came to the conclusion that supersonic interference creates distortion in the audible range, although I can't find references. If this is the case, live music would do the same, but not a CD recording because the instruments are recorded independently. 17 July 2007 15:02 Anonymous said... correction: modern CD recordings mastered with supersonic-capable equipment (using 96 KHz / 24 Bits etc) would preserve the interference. I don't know what cutoff they usually use. The CD format is fine for the final presentation, but there is very little margin for error (cheap parts, bad editing). The new formats fix this |
|
|
Èãðàþ â îðêåñòðå ïîä óïðàâëåíèì Äæåêà Äåíèåëñà
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 19.07.2007 02:00 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
Âåñüìà èíòåðåñíàÿ "âðàæüÿ" áåñåäà)) Ñïàñèáî!
|
|
|
Nobody's laughing here..
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 20.07.2007 16:31 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Áàòàëüîí Êîðã
|
>RedBaron >Äà óñòðàèâàåò, íàâåðíîå. Òîëüêî ÿ âîò âïåðâûå î òàêèõ æóðíàëàõ ñëûøó. Äà åù¸ ñ êà÷åñòâåííûì àóäèî-ïðèëîæåíèåì. Ñïàñèáî, ïîèùó â êèîñêàõ, èëè ãäå òàì èõ ïðîäàþò? Àãà, òîêà íå çíàþ, êîãäà îíè ñëåäóþùèé òåñòîâûé äèñê âûïóñòÿò... Ìîæåò èìååò ñìûñë ñâÿçàòüñÿ ñ ðåäàêöèåé è óçíàòü, ìîæíî ëè ïðèîáðåòè äèñê îòäåëüíî îò æóðíàëà? www.salonav.com Íàïèøè â ðåäàêöèþ, ìîæ ÷åì è ïîìîãóò |
|
|
Ñîáñòâåííî, äèñêóññèé â ðóíåòå ñåé÷àñ ïðîèñõîäèò î÷åíü ìàëî - îáèòàòåëè çîíû .ru ïî÷òè ñðàçó ïåðåõîäÿò ê òîìó, êòî ñ êåì â ÷üåì ñåìåéñòâå èìåë èíòèìíóþ ñâÿçü. Ïðèçûâ âûæèãàòü íàïàëìîì âñåõ îïïîíåíòîâ, åâðååâ è âåëîñèïåäèñòîâ, ñëó÷àåòñÿ óæå íà òðåòüåì.
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 20.07.2007 16:33 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Áàòàëüîí Êîðã
|
Âîò åù¸ ññûëêà íà ñàìó èíôó î äèñêå http://www.salonav.com/arch/2005.03/CD.htm ÍàäåþñÜ, ïîìîã
|
|
|
Ñîáñòâåííî, äèñêóññèé â ðóíåòå ñåé÷àñ ïðîèñõîäèò î÷åíü ìàëî - îáèòàòåëè çîíû .ru ïî÷òè ñðàçó ïåðåõîäÿò ê òîìó, êòî ñ êåì â ÷üåì ñåìåéñòâå èìåë èíòèìíóþ ñâÿçü. Ïðèçûâ âûæèãàòü íàïàëìîì âñåõ îïïîíåíòîâ, åâðååâ è âåëîñèïåäèñòîâ, ñëó÷àåòñÿ óæå íà òðåòüåì.
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 22.07.2007 22:42 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
êîìïàêò-äèñêè ëó÷øå êðóòèòü ñïåöèàëüíî ïðåäíàçíà÷åííûì äëÿ ýòîãî CD-ïðîèãðûâàòåëåì,à íå óñòðîéñòâîì 10-â îäíîì. | |
|
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 23.07.2007 10:45 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Áàòàëüîí Êîðã
|
Ðîêìàí, íó ýòî è åæ¸ ïîíÿòíî... Òóò âîîáùå-òî ëþäè íå áóìáîêñû îáñóæäàþò...
|
|
|
Ñîáñòâåííî, äèñêóññèé â ðóíåòå ñåé÷àñ ïðîèñõîäèò î÷åíü ìàëî - îáèòàòåëè çîíû .ru ïî÷òè ñðàçó ïåðåõîäÿò ê òîìó, êòî ñ êåì â ÷üåì ñåìåéñòâå èìåë èíòèìíóþ ñâÿçü. Ïðèçûâ âûæèãàòü íàïàëìîì âñåõ îïïîíåíòîâ, åâðååâ è âåëîñèïåäèñòîâ, ñëó÷àåòñÿ óæå íà òðåòüåì.
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 23.07.2007 13:29 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Ïåòðîïàâëîâñê-Êàì÷àòñêèé
|
êñòàòè áîëåå äîðîãàÿ àïïàðàòóðà è òðåáóåò òîëüêî ôèðìåííûå äèñêè. âåäü òðàíñïîðò õàé ýíä àïïàðàòóðû çàòî÷åí ïîä ñòàíäàðòíóþ ïîâåðõíîñòü äèñêà, à ïèðàòû ïëåâàòü õîòåëè íà òåõíîëîãèþ((( |
|
|
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 23.07.2007 15:04 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Áàòàëüîí Êîðã
|
Õàé-ýíä ÑèÄè-ïðîèãðûâàòåëü - íîíñåíñ!!! ÈÌÕÎ áîëüøå 600 áàêñîâ çà ðïîèãðûâàòåëü - äåíüãè íà âåòåð, îñòàëüíûå ïîòðà÷åíûå äåíüãè âûëåòÿò â ôîðòî÷êó
|
|
|
Ñîáñòâåííî, äèñêóññèé â ðóíåòå ñåé÷àñ ïðîèñõîäèò î÷åíü ìàëî - îáèòàòåëè çîíû .ru ïî÷òè ñðàçó ïåðåõîäÿò ê òîìó, êòî ñ êåì â ÷üåì ñåìåéñòâå èìåë èíòèìíóþ ñâÿçü. Ïðèçûâ âûæèãàòü íàïàëìîì âñåõ îïïîíåíòîâ, åâðååâ è âåëîñèïåäèñòîâ, ñëó÷àåòñÿ óæå íà òðåòüåì.
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 23.07.2007 21:09 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Moscow
|
" òðàíñïîðò õàé ýíä àïïàðàòóðû çàòî÷åí ïîä..." --  èíåòå óæå áûëî íàâàëîì ñîîáùåíèé ïðî "ïîòðîøåíèå" õè-åíäà è ðåçóëüòàòû îíîãî.  ÷àñòíîñòè î òîì, ÷òî ñïëîøü äà ðÿäîì òàì ñòîÿò êîïåå÷íûå, ñàìûå îáû÷íûå, êîìïóòåðíûå ÷èòàëêè... |
|
|
WELCOME!
WWW.LONG.RU WWW.SOUNDINFO.ORG/FORUM/ |
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 24.07.2007 01:42 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Ïåòðîïàâëîâñê-Êàì÷àòñêèé
|
LONG, ïðÿìûå ññûëêè ñ îôèöèàëüíûõ èñòî÷íèêîâ åñòü?? (æåëàòåëüíî íà ðóññêîì) À òî ìíå òîâàðèù òîäå ãîâîðèò, ÷òî NOD 32 (îáîæàåìûé íà ýòîì ôîðóìå) - ýòî áûâøûå, êóïëåííûå ó Êàñïåðñêîãî (óíèæàåìûé íà ýòîì ôîðóìå) àëãîðèòìû. îäíàêî ìíå ÷òî òî ñëàáî âåðèòñÿ è â ïåðâîå è âî âòîðîå Êñòàòè òðàíñïîðò õàé ýíä àïïàðàòóðû - ýòî àãðåãàò äîâîëüíî òàêè âíóøèòåëüíûõ ðàçìåðîâ, â íåñêîëüêî ðàç áîëüøå êîìïüþòåðíûõ ÷èòàëîê. (íî ìîæåò ýòî áûë òîëüêî êîðïóñ )
|
|
|
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 24.07.2007 02:01 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Ïåòðîïàâëîâñê-Êàì÷àòñêèé
|
RedBaron, ìíå äèäæåéñêèå Pioneer î÷åíü íðàâÿòñÿ, íàñòîëüêî óäîáíàÿ è ïðèÿòíàÿ ýðãîíîìèêà, äà è íàäåæíûå îíè. Äóìàþ ìîæåò äîìîé òàêîé æå ïîñòàâèòü))) À íàñ÷åò îáìàíà..  îáùåì íà áûâøåé ðàáîòå, îòäåë áûë..  îáùåì äîðîãóþ ýëèòíóþ àêóñòèêó äåëàëè ñàìè, âðîäå ñîâìåñòíî ñ èòàëüÿíöàìè. Òàê â íå¸ êàê ðàç è ñòàâèëè äåøåâûå ÷óò ëè íå àâòîìîáèëüíûå ïèùàëêè. Íî êëèåíòàì ðåàëüíî ïîôèã áûëî, îíè ïîêóïàëè äîðîãóþ àêóñòèêó èç çà öåíû è äèçàéíà ýòî ñîþç Niro Vision è Foster Group, äëÿ òåõ êòî â òåìå)) |
|
|
|
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 24.07.2007 04:35 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Moscow
|
"ïðÿìûå ññûëêè ñ îôèöèàëüíûõ èñòî÷íèêîâ åñòü?? (æåëàòåëüíî íà ðóññêîì)" -- Ìíýýýý... À êàê Âû, ñàìè, äóìàåòå?
|
|
|
WELCOME!
WWW.LONG.RU WWW.SOUNDINFO.ORG/FORUM/ |
||
| Àâòîð |
Òåìà: Re: Ïèðàòñêèå êîìïàêò äèñêè êàê îáðàçöû çâóêîçàïèñè.
Âðåìÿ: 24.07.2007 08:29 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Áàòàëüîí Êîðã
|
Ñàòèðèê, âñå íüþàíñû õàé-ýíä òðàíñïîðòîâ íèâåëëèðóþòñÿ îòêðûòîé ôîðòî÷êîé/êóõîííûìè ïîäâèãàìè æåíû/íàòóæíûì ñîïåíèåì ñëóøàòåëÿ... À äëÿ ìàñññîâîé (ïîïóëÿðíîé\\ðîê) ìóçûêè ýòî âîîáùå íå ïðèíöèïèàëüíî... Âîò è äóìàéòå, çà ÷òî ïëàòèòå êèëîáàêñû...
|
|
|
Ñîáñòâåííî, äèñêóññèé â ðóíåòå ñåé÷àñ ïðîèñõîäèò î÷åíü ìàëî - îáèòàòåëè çîíû .ru ïî÷òè ñðàçó ïåðåõîäÿò ê òîìó, êòî ñ êåì â ÷üåì ñåìåéñòâå èìåë èíòèìíóþ ñâÿçü. Ïðèçûâ âûæèãàòü íàïàëìîì âñåõ îïïîíåíòîâ, åâðååâ è âåëîñèïåäèñòîâ, ñëó÷àåòñÿ óæå íà òðåòüåì.
|
||