ITT: Albums that sound like they were recorded in a tin can

ITT: Albums that sound like they were recorded in a tin can

Other urls found in this thread:

apaleskinmexican.bandcamp.com/album/i-dont-value-my-life-enough
dr.loudness-war.info/
youtube.com/watch?v=c8eUqTkc9qY
reuters.com/article/us-science-music-idUSBRE86P0R820120726
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Amnesiac

all of them

radiohead sucks

...

any jimi hendrix record

What about it sounds like it was recorded in a tin can?

dynamics

I don't think you know what dynamics means

...

it is very fatiguing to listen to with good headphones

I think you guys have only listened to these albums on YouTube.

meant for

...

when are they going to remaster radiohead's work?

You can't remaster perfection

yes you can

>Spiderland
>perfection

Turn it down.
What does that have to do with sounding like a tin can?

>Turn it down.
not that simple

this shit
apaleskinmexican.bandcamp.com/album/i-dont-value-my-life-enough

Why not? You literally just take your volume button or dial and just turn it down to a comfortable level

...

Can someone explain what this means for a production retard like me? ty

That site is measuring the dynamic range of each song on an album, then averaging it out for an entire album. Dynamic range is the comparison between the quietest point and the loudest point in music.

On this website, the worst is a 1 is the worst with no dynamics at all (for example Metallica's Death Magnetic", which just sounds loud for the whole album) and a 20 is the best (an original pressing of Dark Side of The Moon for example, which has great dynamics). The screenshot user posted is showing that Kid A is more compressed and has less dynamics than it should, scoring a 7.

you mean zero

That's interesting, what score did Californication get?

Well if you are a pleb, sure

the first one maybe. you haven't listened to any of his other work though.

whats the site?

dr.loudness-war.info/

thanks

You can play Californication through the nicest speakers and it will always sound like it's coming out of a fucking cell phone. Such a good album wtf were they thinking with that production

...

Looks like a 4. Really bad. Looks like the 2012 vinyl remaster is better, at an 11.

Name a band with better use of dynamics

...

...

I'll name 10

crazy difference

redpill me on trios

...

feels claustrophobic and clanky in a good way

...

link me this site

btfo

Pft, you think that's bad?

youtube.com/watch?v=c8eUqTkc9qY

>an original pressing of Dark Side of The Moon
Where are you getting that? The highest maximum score for any issue of DSotM on that site is a 13, and the highest average score of any is a 12 (achieved by only one, which is a Japanese vinyl edition -- for original pressings, that score is 11)

Just off the top of my head

dr.loudness-war.info

...

>Turn it down.
Why don't they try not destroying one fucking CD with their shitty mastering for twelve year-old kids listening to music on earbuds?
You can turn it down, but it will still sound shitty and flat.
How about they leave some space so I can turn it up?

>only I know how art should be made, not the artist!

...

...

...

>I'm out of arguments
>better call b8

>mastering engineer is the artist
ok buddy

>artists don't give notes to the mastering engineer for their expectations
I see you've never gotten your album professionally mastered before

>artists give different notes for vinyl and CD master
>majority of artists coincidentally make their art the same way only in the last 25 years, even if they did it different before that

>>artists give different notes for vinyl and CD master
Often, yes.
>>majority of artists coincidentally make their art the same way only in the last 25 years, even if they did it different before that
What do you mean?

Why do you think they punish their CD buying audience with squashed dynamics?
Of course, there is a limit in compressing if you want the needle to stay in the groove, but don't you think nowadays vinyl masters are better because vinyls are more expensive, and people buying them know better?

I mean compare for example Pretty Hate Machine from 1989 and The Fragile from 1999, or PHM with its remaster. Or first CD issue of Murmur and last REM album...examples are countless, why would they want to make their album sound bad?

>Why do you think they punish their CD buying audience with squashed dynamics?
So it's loud and cohesive. Do you even know what compression is? Quiet CDs are dumb and unexciting. Also not every CD is brickwalled. Lots of good mastering on indie releases. Check out bandcamp. Not every album is mastered like an Oasis album vou putz.
>I mean compare for example Pretty Hate Machine from 1989 and The Fragile from 1999, or PHM with its remaster. Or first CD issue of Murmur and last REM album...examples are countless, why would they want to make their album sound bad?
Except that mastering technology has greatly increased over the last 20 years, and they are able to get a better sonic capture of the master tapes with a higher frequency response. Those newer releases are actually superior to the thin originals.

>So it's loud and cohesive
Great answer.
>Quiet CDs are dumb and unexciting.
That's just your opinion. With the birth of loudness wars, rock music literally died(or what was left of it).
>Lots of good mastering on indie releases
Those are surely exceptions.
>Not every album is mastered like an Oasis album vou putz.
If you're referring to WTSMG, it's not particularly bad comparing to today's albums. The meme caught on, like with Death Magnetic or Raw Power. The King Of Limbs for example has same DR score on above mentioned site as WTSMG and nobody is talking about it, it became normal, you see.
>Those newer releases are actually superior to the thin originals.
If you are talking about PHM remaster, you are either trolling or actually deaf.

It's the whole point.

39/Smooth by Green Day

>Great answer.
Yes, I know right? That's why people do it.
>rock music literally died(or what was left of it).
That's just your opinion.
>Those are surely exceptions.
There are more independent music being made than mainstream, so no, it is not the exception
>The meme
Stopped reading right there. Please discuss music intelligently or don't do it at all
>If you are talking about PHM remaster, you are either trolling or actually deaf.
If you can't hear the frequencies that weren't there before, you are literally deaf.

>There are more independent music being made than mainstream, so no, it is not the exception
You can't prove that most of independent music has good mastering unless you have heard every release. Anyway, give me 5 examples.
>If you can't hear the frequencies that weren't there before, you are literally deaf.
You know, you can hear frequencies on Raw Power 1997 CD that weren't there before too. You'll probably like it.

i have never listened to a song i love and said this is too loud in my life

What kind of music do you usually listen to?

came to post

What if it's a song that's just really quiet the entire time?

Wait, so does that mean the remaster is better or worse?

I hope whoever produced this album gets chemically castrated.

>You can't prove that most of independent music has good mastering unless you have heard every release. Anyway, give me 5 examples.
The burden of proof is on you though. Nice misdirection attempt
>You know, you can hear frequencies on Raw Power 1997 CD that weren't there before too. You'll probably like it.
Red herring

>The burden of proof is on you though.
You were the one who claimed that there's "lots of good mastering on indie releases". Give me some examples.
>Red herring
The point is that dynamic compression during mastering is not needed. We we're talking about PHM for Christ's sake, one of the best sounding releases, and you're telling me that remaster is better? What's next, Steely Dan releases would sound better squashed? Don't make me laugh.

>Billy Corgan
>Jimmy Chamberlin
>Terry Date
>Roy Thomas Baker

kek

>You were the one who claimed that there's "lots of good mastering on indie releases"
You claimed otherwise FIRST. Hence the burden of proof is on you
>The point is that dynamic compression during mastering is not needed
lol This couldn't be farther from the truth
>one of the best sounding releases, and you're telling me that remaster is better?
I haven't heard it, but the technology is better, so it's probable it is, regaurdelss of how loud it is.

PRO-TIP: in mastering, loudness isn't the only factor. I would try to educate yourself on it sometime.

>You claimed otherwise FIRST. Hence the burden of proof is on you
reuters.com/article/us-science-music-idUSBRE86P0R820120726
>The music industry has long been accused of ramping up the volume at which songs are recorded in a 'loudness war' but Serra says this is the first time it has been properly measured using a large database.
>I haven't heard it
Ooh boy...
Thanks for the pro-tip, engineer, but I didn't say loudness is the only factor. Master can have great dynamic range and it doesn't mean it's automatically great sounding. However, if you squash it to hell, you can throw it in the garbage, there isn't anything you can do to make it sound good.
Bye now

>reuters.com/article/us-science-music-idUSBRE86P0R820120726
Link isn't working, sorry. I'll need you to provide proof that the majority of masters are bad for all music as you claimed. Hopefully you won't give a generic study that only covers Top 40 as your answer.
>but I didn't say loudness is the only factor
It's literally all you talk about.
>Master can have great dynamic range and it doesn't mean it's automatically great sounding. However, if you squash it to hell, you can throw it in the garbage, there isn't anything you can do to make it sound good.
Oh look you're talking only about how loud and compressed something is. Whattaya know!
>Bye now
Out of arguments I see

The vocal effects on this are so irritating

>le radiohead is bad bandwagon
radiohead is indeed bad but no one asked for your validation

tago mago is straight up from a can. the guitar tone always sounds like silverware being bashed together

i think it's better