Why does Loveless look and sound so ugly? Maybe because it looks

>>52621626
Since when is Borderline from the 90s?

>>52621626
At least loveless doesn't look like a brick.

>>52621626
>thinking a shoegaze album will have a pretty graph
You don't know a lot about frequency, I gather.

>>52621668
Well, it's from The Immaculate Collection and I'm pretty sure they remixed everything for that album.

>>52621626
>Madonna
>nothing but peaking
>Loveless
>no peaking

That's the opposite of what you're trying to say op.

Honestly I like the bottom better.

File: Zkw4cuP.png (155KB, 273x240px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 273x240px

>>52621626
>judging an album on how it "looks"
holy shit rain man you are autistic.

File: de new one.png (89KB, 1413x601px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1413x601px

Up top? De Barge.

Down low? De Loveless.

Which is better? You decide.

>>52621626
>pop music is mastered differently than shoegaze

stop the fucking press

>>52621626
what is this post

what
is
this
post

File: like toni braxton.png (90KB, 1414x602px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1414x602px

Up top? Toni Braxton.

Below her? No love.

(holy shit the Toni track...)

you get down with some early 90s Madonna? Erotica is pretty awesome

>>52622230
Her last good album.

>>52622283
though the track "Bedtime Story" is no joke. may be one of the best music videos of all time. not sure about the rest of the album though

>>52622000
what are these dubs

what
are
these
dubs

>he doesnt know about wall of sound

>>52621741
you mean remastered

>>52622495
I don't really know, but I'd thought they were actually not from the same source. Not sure if re-recorded or what.

>>52622588

They remixed all but two of the songs I think. Compare them to the originals, they sound way different.

>>52621626
bottom is sleek and minimal.
top is quirky random garbage. why are madonna's songs so ugly?

File: pipinghotbagels.png (337KB, 486x602px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 486x602px

>>52621626
This is a new breed of autism and I am glad that I've witnessed its birth.

>>52621693
>>52621702
>>52621762
>>52622732
lmao are you people fucking retarded
the top one clearly even has more dynamic range, just limit to -6dB and EQ at will

Down is a visually and structurally flat recording. Nothing is made to come front in the mix, it's all literally brickwalled and pushed to a sonically pleasant limit. Only not needlessly being limited to -1dB. Just amplifying the signal to the same peaks as the above will present a terrible master.

It's hilarious how such an album would be so inconsistent in terms of mastering. Just the contrast between the heavy and warm Sometimes and the flat and ear-piecing I Only Said is hilarious.
Half of the album can't even be fixed by EQing the low end that would stand up to Sometimes. Can only bring forth drums.

Loveless is a definite contender for the worst mastered album ever. Regarding the 'wall of sound' atmosphere, even Merzbow's music is more pleasant and rich to the ears. Loveless just has drums and easy rhythms (and a few god-awful rock riffs) for the simpletons, i imagine.

possibly wrong on all sorts of terminology but fuck, how stupid can you be

Pic related is an example of perfect mastering. Even the upper one(remaster) sounds absolutely brilliant because the focus went on the low-end. Even if any actual distortion occurs, it's not audibly heard.

File: Untit44ed.jpg (334KB, 1422x767px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1422x767px

>>52623623

Well /mu/ another stellar thread, I take it those autofellatio lessons haven't gone to waste eh, how about rewarding yourselves?

>>52623623
>calling me a retard even though I'm a dynamic range activist
Loveless has it's issues but at least the mastering isn't as bad as Death Magnetic

>>52624695
>Loveless has it's issues but at least the mastering isn't as bad as Death Magnetic
HIGH PRAISE

I don't see how Loveless or MBV in general is supposed to sound pleasant. It's literally, and I mean it, the most boring and minimal britpop hidden behind ear-raping static and tunnel reverb.
Go ahead and say I don't "get it", but there's nothing to get in my opinion except an ear hemorrhage and a headache.

>>52624581
>someone has made an argument I don't want to refute
>better accuse him of sucking his own dick

>>52624695
'Herpes has its issues but at least it isn't as bad as AIDS'

>>52623668
So mastering is just lowering the range..?

>Song waveform looks ugly so must be ugly sounding

Kevin Shields has said he vaporized everything with compression when making Loveless. It's just part of the effect and his vision of a wall of sound. If there's not enough dynamic range turn it up, Loveless sounds amazing when it's on great speakers and literally is shaking your body.
It's also part of the loud quiet dynamic for the choruses, I think it works great, especially on Only Shallow and Blown A Wish.

How does mbv compare?

>>52621626
>Behold, /mu/. By taking this screencap, I have proved with logic and science that your ears and personal tastes are incorrect. In this moment I am euphoric, not because of any bogus /mu/ essentials list, but because I am enlightened by my own ability to judge songs on waveforms alone. Checkmate, earfags.

ya'll niggas sayin that this pop bitch's song full of spikes and peaks looks more appealing via image graph then a heavily compressed track with no spikes or peaks on it's image graph


shitman i cant fukn deal with this level of stupidity

>>52627481
This person understands.

>>52623623
If you really think that all there is to music is the mastering, you must have a really restricted taste. Sucks for you.

>>52627481
>Do you really listen to music? Are you some kind of fucking pleb? Everybody knows the only way to truly enjoy a song is to study it's waveform intensely and draw comparisons to other songs to dictate which waveform is better. I really don't understand earfags.

File: EARFAG!.jpg (203KB, 500x834px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 500x834px

>>52627524

>>52627937
>sonds

fuck it was almost perfect

File: EARFAG!.jpg (204KB, 500x834px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 500x834px

>>52627937
>>52628006
Fixed.

Describing how something sounds by looking a graph of the waveform is like judging a book by how it sounds when you drop it on stuff.

>>52628141
This was OP's plan all along, to make a shitty meme.

>>52628227
You don't know about sound and waveforms.

>>52628264
>if a track has no dymanic range it's automatically bad

File: 1255702532308.png (48KB, 369x369px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 369x369px

>>52627146
>If there's not enough dynamic range turn it up

>expecting music with lots of reverb and delay to have lots of dynamic range

one of the worst threads ever because op might actually think this shit

>>52628227
>Using ears to determine quality of music

Beethoven was the greatest musician ever.

Beethoven had no ears.

This is proof that only plebs rely on ears for musical appreciation. Patricians look at waveforms, like Beethoven did. Earfags go "durr the propagating waves that are hitting my eardrums sound cool lol durr"

File: 1338364031058.jpg (18KB, 365x315px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 365x315px

>>52628345
>Beethoven had no ears.

Thanks for the laughs anon

File: ludwig-van-beethoven.jpg (290KB, 800x1002px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 800x1002px

>>52628345
explain

guys remember that thread where some guys from mlp said he didn't understand music and said it was like touching rocks
i think op is almost at that level of autism

>>52628376
photoshop

>>52628416
But they didnt have photoshop back in 1876

>>52628376
Lol that's not even a real photograph of Beethoveen. You expect me to believe that? You could have drawn that yourself to satiate your perverted ear fetish, earfag.

>>52628424
yes they did. how else do you think the mona lisa was created?

>>52628434
That is a photograph

cameras worked different back then

>>52623623
Loveless's dynamic range problem hasn't got a damn thing to do with mastering. It was compressed when it was recorded by the musicians who made it for artistic purposes.

>>52628424
Explain why there's a big red circle floating around it, then. Was that really there and not photoshopped in? Did they even HAVE red in 1876? No, you dumbo, you didn't even bother to make it realistic by making it black and white like things really were back then. It sticks out from the picture SO badly.

>>52628345
>greatest musician
>plebeian black romantic-era composer
Pick one

File: 1412270143359.jpg (62KB, 431x450px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 431x450px

>>52628345
>Beethoven had no ears

File: VanGoFuckUrself.jpg (12KB, 252x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 252x200px

>Van Gogh cuts off ear
>Becomes greatest artist ever

I bet you earfags listen to his work too, right?