02-10-2013, 10:04 PM
|
#61 | |||
|
That one annoying furfag
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: VA
|
Quote:
 It's just that feel, bro. Ya'know?
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 10:07 PM
|
#63 | ||||
|
you **** like a racehorse
Join Date: May 2011
Location: man is the animal
|
Quote:
Seriously though, stop bullshitting and give me an objective description of feel.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 10:19 PM
|
#64 | |||
|
That one annoying furfag
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: VA
|
Quote:
It's really just a combination of things, from the spread being messed up as mentioned to having the shitty smile-EQ that plagues modern mixes (mostly rock, metal, and pop). And being a digital remaster, that just makes it more of an approximation recording, like what you'd hear from a CD or 44.1khz/s sound. EDIT: You know now that I think of it, I could also be biased by the fact that I'm using a high-end turntable & stylus, yet a barely-working CD player from the mid-80's.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Ian_the_fox : 02-10-2013 at 10:21 PM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 10:22 PM
|
#65 | |||
|
That one annoying furfag
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: VA
|
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 10:26 PM
|
#66 | ||||
|
you **** like a racehorse
Join Date: May 2011
Location: man is the animal
|
Quote:
Analog is still approximation, with the loss of some of the bass/treble and added mids. Also, what you describe is the fault of a shitty mix to begin with.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 10:33 PM
|
#67 | ||||
|
That one annoying furfag
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: VA
|
Quote:
Same reason good tube guitar amps sound better than cheaper digital/modeling amps. And even with higher end digital amps, they're still trying to emulate a tube signal, yet still is not the real thing. Just an approximation. Of course, this probably doesn't matter or appeal to you as you are most likely still a broke teenager running an Epiphone through a Spider III with no ear for good tone. Quote:
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Ian_the_fox : 02-10-2013 at 10:34 PM. |
||||
|
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 10:38 PM
|
#68 | ||
|
Dot MPEG
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Buck Hill
|
Quote:
Like he previously stated, it's the engineer's fault, not digital's. You'll take back those words when you listen to a proper digital remaster
__________________
Voted as #7 Uger Quote:
Add me on Facebook Soundcloud UGMC If I’ve offended you, please accept my apology. Then smack yourself in the face for getting offended by something on the Internet. |
||
|
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 10:44 PM
|
#69 | |||
|
That one annoying furfag
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: VA
|
Quote:
Please direct me to a good digital remaster, because from my experience all they (engineers) try to do is make it "iPod friendly" (i.e. giving it the "smile", over-compressing everything, making it louder, etc.). Some albums aren't as terribly effected, but some are just straight-up ruined. I have a copy of Rush's Permanent Waves on CD that's a digital remaster. It's so butchered it's almost unlistenable. Though I've generally heard that Atlantic is known for terrible remasters.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 10:46 PM
|
#70 | ||
|
Dot MPEG
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Buck Hill
|
Quote:
I would but it's going to cost you money because I'm going to make you buy a handful of albums.
__________________
Voted as #7 Uger Quote:
Add me on Facebook Soundcloud UGMC If I’ve offended you, please accept my apology. Then smack yourself in the face for getting offended by something on the Internet. |
||
|
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 10:51 PM
|
#71 | |||||||
|
you **** like a racehorse
Join Date: May 2011
Location: man is the animal
|
Quote:
The problem with this logic is that any difference is extremely subtle or unnoticeable, because the human ear can't process sound fast enough to pick it up. Theoretically, there is a huge difference, but in practice it hardly exists with a quality digital recording on a decent medium. Quote:
Don't bring that up, as the DSP done in modeling amps and digital playback are two separate things. Quote:
Actually, I'm a broke teenager with a Douglas and a Peavey Valveking. I can assure you that I know how to dial in a decent tone. Quote:
Again, if somebody remastered and does a shitty job, no matter how good the original, the outcome will still be bad.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 11:23 PM
|
#72 | |
|
Keeper of the Seven Keys
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: I Want Out from Where the Rain Grows
|
Minus all the Analog vs. Digital debate in the thread, it depends on the mastering done on the album. For example; The Who - Who's Next on vinyl sounds a ton better than it does on cd, in my opinion. The reason for this is that IIRC back in the 60's, 70's, 80's etc. music was mastered for vinyl, not cd, which would make the cd's sound quality inferior.
Nowadays however, since the cd is more convinient and shit, music is mastered for cd or even as an MP3. On new vinyls there is not a huge sound difference in terms of quality of sound, clarity of instruments, etc. the majority of the time. For example, Amon Amarth - With Oden on our Side sounds exactly the same on record as it does on cd. This does not take into account the record player, which I can't say that I know a whole lot about bad ones since I inherited my dad's one, which was top of the line when he bought it. IE: depends on the vinyl, really.
__________________
Quote:
last.fm |
|
|
|
|
 |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | Rate This Thread | |
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:02 PM.