|
|
|
Post by Ear September 17, 2008 (2 of 22)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
How sad...read quotes form engineer at end of this piece. The market gets what the market wants. It makes me despair...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/sep/17/metallica.guitar.hero.loudness.war
Oh well, but I don't think, that is what the market wants. The market wants loud music, yes, but not distorted(if not done by an amp) music. Especially in the hard rock camp.
I think manowar are a good example how it can be done. Powerful and yet skillfully produced. (Live may be something different) ;-)
Let's see if somebody comments on that from the regular (not audiophile) listeners on amazon.
PS. Interesting point is, that the new Neil Diamond album as some clipping as well in the voice part, also done by Rubin. Hmmmh...
PPS: LOOOOL I can even hear the clipping on the amazon music sampler through my laptop speakers...
|
|
|
Post by LivyII September 17, 2008 (3 of 22)
|
|
Every website I've seen, from Amazon to Hydrogen Audio to Band Chat to Metallica's website, there have been numerous comments on the sound quality of Death Magnetic and the disappointment with it.
After the disaster of St. Anger, almost everyone expected this band to avoid making the same mistake twice. It appears not to have happened that way, although I haven't bought the album and listened myself. It's sort of hard to understand why they would do this and generate this type of reaction. I have a theory that Metallica simply can't hear the difference any more - their hearing has been wasted by years of touring.
If Ted Jensen, who has certainly mastered records in a manner that I would consider loud (though not clipped) in the past, is complaining about the quality of this record and publicly stating that he's not proud to be associated with it, then there is a real problem with the recording. A poster on the Metallica website emailed him and then posted Jensen's reply - wow!
It's really to bad because from a song quality standpoint, some of the tracks I've heard are really good, much better than many recent Metallica efforts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This kind of story just makes it more tragic that SACD was never accepted as a defacto replacement for CD. At least then we'd have had more effort made in mastering and engineering. The logic being that even though there was some compromise in quality or even carelessness, then at least the SACD version of popular releases would have been at least as good the CD versions of yore.
|
|
|
Post by DragonFly September 17, 2008 (5 of 22)
|
|
Makes me glad I am currently awaiting three Metallica re-releases in 180g, 45rpm vinyl. :) DM is scheduled for release also.
But I don't think it is too late for the industry to come around and realize the benefits of SACD. But it is going to need a major shot in the arm, and numerous loud voices from the SACD community (and hopefully elsewhere as well.) I am at least contributing any way I can by buying releases I normally would not get, and posting in various forums and taking part in petitions.
I honestly do not envision Blu-Ray audio to ever become accepted the way SACD has been. SACD is so much better quality-wise for audio delivery (not be mention established), and it even has a DRM-scheme that still hasn't been broken; despite having almost ten years on it (BD+ was broken in less than 5 months.)
This is really the last chance to get a proper digital format that can truly compete with vinyl.
|
|
|
Post by DragonFly September 17, 2008 (6 of 22)
|
|
And btw., below this article the following ad can be found:
Ads by Google
Make your music Louder.
Mastering your music with Streaky will take it to a new level
www.StreakyMastering.com
Gotta love the irony of Google's context-sensitive ad system.
|
|
|
Post by Ear September 17, 2008 (7 of 22)
|
|
DragonFly said:
This is really the last chance to get a proper digital format that can truly compete with vinyl..
But.. why would they want that? You can sell Vinyl remasters at three times the price of an SACD and people still buy it. Or new releases. Cheaper in production and maximum in profit! Neil Youngs Prairie Wind sold in shops (not amazon with their sometimes very strange price policy) from the beginning around 45 Euro.
Ridiculous. As well as the fact that the 200g Issue of PG's UP sold at the beginning at normal 25 Euro and soon after this (Neil) was suddenly priced that way as well.
So... as long as people pay that price for Vinyl I think the Companies will rather push that format and low res in digital. For multichannel, I guess, there will be blu ray. Not that I would favor that and the fact that sanctuary is probably releasing two new SACD's makes me hoping again, but... well I would not be suprised if it turned out that way.
|
|
|
Post by dobyblue September 17, 2008 (8 of 22)
|
|
DragonFly said:
Makes me glad I am currently awaiting three Metallica re-releases in 180g, 45rpm vinyl. :) DM is scheduled for release also.
But I don't think it is too late for the industry to come around and realize the benefits of SACD. But it is going to need a major shot in the arm, and numerous loud voices from the SACD community (and hopefully elsewhere as well.) I am at least contributing any way I can by buying releases I normally would not get, and posting in various forums and taking part in petitions.
I honestly do not envision Blu-Ray audio to ever become accepted the way SACD has been. SACD is so much better quality-wise for audio delivery (not be mention established), and it even has a DRM-scheme that still hasn't been broken; despite having almost ten years on it (BD+ was broken in less than 5 months.)
This is really the last chance to get a proper digital format that can truly compete with vinyl.
How exactly has SACD been accepted? Can you get the new Metallica, Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews Band, etc., albums on the format? There are already more Blu-ray devices on the market than SACD devices and the latter's been out for 7 years longer.
How is SACD so much better quality-wise than a DXD recording mixed to 24/192 for 5.1 release on Blu-ray? Most of the audiophile's opinions I've read have suggested the 24/192 PCM is the closest to the DXD recording.
As for SACD not being cracked, what SACD drives for PC do you think we should use to try and crack it? With such poor sales with the exception of Dark Side of the Moon, who would want it to be cracked anyway?
BD+ isn't broken, it provides a 3-5 week window upon release of a title where it cannot be cracked, which is the time period the studios are most concerned with.
God knows I'd love for all the studios to get behind SACD like they never did collectively before, but there's a much better chance of Blu-ray bring high resolution music to the mass market over the next 5 years thanks to the accompaniements it can provide - interactive material, downloadable content, high definition video content, special features (making of album), etc.
|
|
|
Post by k-spin September 17, 2008 (9 of 22)
|
|
dobyblue said:
There are already more Blu-ray devices on the market than SACD devices and the latter's been out for 7 years longer.
Not sure that's true. There are about 10 - 15 or so Blu-Ray machines on the market at the moment. There are many more SACD compatible players available.
|
|
|
Post by Ear September 17, 2008 (10 of 22)
|
|
dobyblue said:
With such poor sales with the exception of Dark Side of the Moon, who would want it to be cracked anyway?
See, this is what puzzles me for quite a while now. When SACD sells so poorly, why are some many titles sold out? I know of CD titles that are given back to Companies and then are being destroyed. Popular CD titles. Given that they (at least in the beginning) had the same print numbers as CD's this is pretty good.
How can people charge 100 Euro and more for OOP titles if there is no market? We should be finding SACD'S for cents by now, if they are not wanted. OK, some used ones are going for around 6 Dollars, but heck, I have seen popular CD's for a cent. Again, I think Companies do not want SACD, but not because it does not sell well, but because you cannot milk it as much as you can CD (remaster of a remaster etc. Even though you maybe could with some titles :-))
|
|
