What Are you Listening to Right Now?

[WestwayKid]

This still smokes.

Maybe the best live recording ever.

[Wolter]

This still smokes.

Maybe the best live recording ever.

Definitely the best pure 50s style rock'n'roll live album. And yeah, a contender for all-time.

[Kory]

Oh yeah. That was like...the last episode. Heh.

This is tangential, but that episode also accidentally explains why music dorks like me and marky and like the steve hoffman forum people will go on and on about dynamic range in mastering and why it's actually good and important.

I presume you are talking about Marky Ramone.

The guys at the Steve Hoffman forum are nut jobs who belong in a music asylum.

"If it sounds good then it's right" - Marky Dread

Dynamic Range

Most of the early CD releases with quieter sound have way better dynamic range than that of their remastered counterparts. This is due to the horrible process of brickwalling where the range has been pushed to and above it's limits.

A classic example of this is Iggy's remaster of "Raw Power" where even Iggy says on the sleeve notes "everything is in the red". Well you really don't want the needle in the red just to make something louder. You get can get it louder and fuller sounding by using other techniques. So the original vinyl releases have a much better dynamic range than the remastered CDs.

It's why we get conned with a lot of remasters. Like the recent Joe comp "Assembly" you put in on and it immediately sounds different so you assume it's better. Well it isn't it's just louder.

The Sound System box was remastered by Tim Young who has been around in music a very long time and has a fantastic understanding and knowledge of how things should sound. He did a fantastic job on SS.

Yes! I will admit to occasionally visiting when I want to geek out on the best mastering of Diamond Dogs or something, but they are pretty wacky and obsessed. Also a great point about getting conned by remasters. Newer is not always better. The Stones are a great example. The remasters put out by Universal back around 2008 are terrible, compressed messes. Sure, they're listenable, but a 1980's vintage CBS Sticky Fingers is going to sound a lot better because it isn't compressed...and you can pick those up in the used bin for $5.

The Hoffman forums are definitely useful if you want to see if you should ditch your current masters for the remasters of anything. The answer is usually no.

[Marky Dread]

Oh yeah. That was like...the last episode. Heh.

This is tangential, but that episode also accidentally explains why music dorks like me and marky and like the steve hoffman forum people will go on and on about dynamic range in mastering and why it's actually good and important.

I presume you are talking about Marky Ramone.

The guys at the Steve Hoffman forum are nut jobs who belong in a music asylum.

"If it sounds good then it's right" - Marky Dread

Dynamic Range

Most of the early CD releases with quieter sound have way better dynamic range than that of their remastered counterparts. This is due to the horrible process of brickwalling where the range has been pushed to and above it's limits.

A classic example of this is Iggy's remaster of "Raw Power" where even Iggy says on the sleeve notes "everything is in the red". Well you really don't want the needle in the red just to make something louder. You get can get it louder and fuller sounding by using other techniques. So the original vinyl releases have a much better dynamic range than the remastered CDs.

It's why we get conned with a lot of remasters. Like the recent Joe comp "Assembly" you put in on and it immediately sounds different so you assume it's better. Well it isn't it's just louder.

The Sound System box was remastered by Tim Young who has been around in music a very long time and has a fantastic understanding and knowledge of how things should sound. He did a fantastic job on SS.

Yes! I will admit to occasionally visiting when I want to geek out on the best mastering of Diamond Dogs or something, but they are pretty wacky and obsessed. Also a great point about getting conned by remasters. Newer is not always better. The Stones are a great example. The remasters put out by Universal back around 2008 are terrible, compressed messes. Sure, they're listenable, but a 1980's vintage CBS Sticky Fingers is going to sound a lot better because it isn't compressed...and you can pick those up in the used bin for $5.

The Hoffman forums are definitely useful if you want to see if you should ditch your current masters for the remasters of anything. The answer is usually no.

I wouldn't believe everything there though. Never take other people's word for mastering just do your own homework. It's not difficult. Lots of free software.

[Kory]

This is tangential, but that episode also accidentally explains why music dorks like me and marky and like the steve hoffman forum people will go on and on about dynamic range in mastering and why it's actually good and important.

I presume you are talking about Marky Ramone.

The guys at the Steve Hoffman forum are nut jobs who belong in a music asylum.

"If it sounds good then it's right" - Marky Dread

Dynamic Range

Most of the early CD releases with quieter sound have way better dynamic range than that of their remastered counterparts. This is due to the horrible process of brickwalling where the range has been pushed to and above it's limits.

A classic example of this is Iggy's remaster of "Raw Power" where even Iggy says on the sleeve notes "everything is in the red". Well you really don't want the needle in the red just to make something louder. You get can get it louder and fuller sounding by using other techniques. So the original vinyl releases have a much better dynamic range than the remastered CDs.

It's why we get conned with a lot of remasters. Like the recent Joe comp "Assembly" you put in on and it immediately sounds different so you assume it's better. Well it isn't it's just louder.

The Sound System box was remastered by Tim Young who has been around in music a very long time and has a fantastic understanding and knowledge of how things should sound. He did a fantastic job on SS.

Yes! I will admit to occasionally visiting when I want to geek out on the best mastering of Diamond Dogs or something, but they are pretty wacky and obsessed. Also a great point about getting conned by remasters. Newer is not always better. The Stones are a great example. The remasters put out by Universal back around 2008 are terrible, compressed messes. Sure, they're listenable, but a 1980's vintage CBS Sticky Fingers is going to sound a lot better because it isn't compressed...and you can pick those up in the used bin for $5.

The Hoffman forums are definitely useful if you want to see if you should ditch your current masters for the remasters of anything. The answer is usually no.

I wouldn't believe everything there though. Never take other people's word for mastering just do your own homework. It's not difficult. Lots of free software.

Well, the opinion is usually split there but it's helpful to see what people are talking about because a little grain of truth often emerges from the chaos. I found the main group's assessment of the most recent Buzzcocks masters to be fairly accurate, for example. And often they'll post some screenshots of waveforms, which is good for me because I'm not likely to spend the time and money to buy a CD just to compare the mastering to a previous version (unless it's the Buzzcocks).

[Marky Dread]

I presume you are talking about Marky Ramone.

The guys at the Steve Hoffman forum are nut jobs who belong in a music asylum.

"If it sounds good then it's right" - Marky Dread

Dynamic Range

Most of the early CD releases with quieter sound have way better dynamic range than that of their remastered counterparts. This is due to the horrible process of brickwalling where the range has been pushed to and above it's limits.

A classic example of this is Iggy's remaster of "Raw Power" where even Iggy says on the sleeve notes "everything is in the red". Well you really don't want the needle in the red just to make something louder. You get can get it louder and fuller sounding by using other techniques. So the original vinyl releases have a much better dynamic range than the remastered CDs.

It's why we get conned with a lot of remasters. Like the recent Joe comp "Assembly" you put in on and it immediately sounds different so you assume it's better. Well it isn't it's just louder.

The Sound System box was remastered by Tim Young who has been around in music a very long time and has a fantastic understanding and knowledge of how things should sound. He did a fantastic job on SS.

Yes! I will admit to occasionally visiting when I want to geek out on the best mastering of Diamond Dogs or something, but they are pretty wacky and obsessed. Also a great point about getting conned by remasters. Newer is not always better. The Stones are a great example. The remasters put out by Universal back around 2008 are terrible, compressed messes. Sure, they're listenable, but a 1980's vintage CBS Sticky Fingers is going to sound a lot better because it isn't compressed...and you can pick those up in the used bin for $5.

The Hoffman forums are definitely useful if you want to see if you should ditch your current masters for the remasters of anything. The answer is usually no.

I wouldn't believe everything there though. Never take other people's word for mastering just do your own homework. It's not difficult. Lots of free software.

Well, the opinion is usually split there but it's helpful to see what people are talking about because a little grain of truth often emerges from the chaos. I found the main group's assessment of the most recent Buzzcocks masters to be fairly accurate, for example. And often they'll post some screenshots of waveforms, which is good for me because I'm not likely to spend the time and money to buy a CD just to compare the mastering to a previous version (unless it's the Buzzcocks).

I remaster all my own stuff so it really doesn't make much difference to me. I know how I like the stuff I listen to, to sound. I hate brickwalling and stuff that's to sharp and brittle sounding. But it's subjective to ones own likes. Unless you simply don't care as long as you get to hear the thing in the first place.

[gkbill]

Hello,

James Chance and the Contortions - Buy. This is weird sax, nervy aggressive vocals, frantic funk kind of stuff - no wave, and it can be taken for really pretentious stuff. The cliché "not for the faint of heart" applies. Somehow, I like it. His concerts/shows were events - not dancing would really piss him off and he'd come after people. Sometimes, it just clicks with me.

[WestwayKid]

crowded-house-woodface.jpg (427.26 KiB) Viewed 1592 times

I heard the new Crowded House single the other day. Wonderfully weird and catchy. I've always had a real affinity for Neil Finn's songwriting (and singing/guitar playing). This album blew me away the first time I heard it back in 1991. The original 3rd CH LP had been rejected by Capital, so Neil co-opted some of the songs he'd recently written with older brother Tim. There is something magical that happens when siblings sing together, a natural harmony that can only come from being so close. There are several moments on this album that still send shivers down my spine.

[Inder]

Baby Don't Apologise came on shuffle and reminded me of this, which I featured one of my little playlists years ago:

[laxman]

A compilation of Siouxsie stuff , including collaborations. Happy birthday to Siouxsie, 64 a couple of days ago.

[revbob]

[Flex]

Oh fuck yeah

[Marky Dread]

Haven't listened to this yet (new Skids cd) it arrived this morning. But I am imagining Heston's smiling face at the tracklisting. Although not a KISS song or even a Paul Stanley song it must produce a huge grin on his mooey seeing it in such esteemed company.

[Heston]

Haven't listened to this yet (new Skids cd) it arrived this morning. But I am imagining Heston's smiling face at the tracklisting. Although not a KISS song or even a Paul Stanley song it must produce a huge grin on his mooey seeing it in such esteemed company.

Let me know if it approaches the laconic excellence of Ace's version.

[Marky Dread]

Haven't listened to this yet (new Skids cd) it arrived this morning. But I am imagining Heston's smiling face at the tracklisting. Although not a KISS song or even a Paul Stanley song it must produce a huge grin on his mooey seeing it in such esteemed company.

Let me know if it approaches the laconic excellence of Ace's version.

Will do.