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

Amnesiac

all of them

radiohead sucks

>>72139794
any jimi hendrix record

>>72139794
What about it sounds like it was recorded in a tin can?

>>72140386
dynamics

>>72140430
I don't think you know what dynamics means

File: dynamic range.png (22KB, 1109x171px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 1109x171px

>>72140430
it is very fatiguing to listen to with good headphones

>>72139794
>>72140461
I think you guys have only listened to these albums on YouTube.

>>72140478
meant for >>72140444

>>72139794
>>72140478
when are they going to remaster radiohead's work?

>>72140531
You can't remaster perfection

File: file.png (10KB, 886x73px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 886x73px

>>72140536
yes you can

>>72140547
>Spiderland
>perfection

File: Screenshot 2017-04-13 10.00.05.png (133KB, 909x563px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 909x563px

>>72140478
Turn it down.
>>72140499
What does that have to do with sounding like a tin can?

>>72140583
>Turn it down.
not that simple

>>72139794
this shit
https://apaleskinmexican.bandcamp.com/album/i-dont-value-my-life-enough

>>72140979
Why not? You literally just take your volume button or dial and just turn it down to a comfortable level

>>72140478
>>72140547
Can someone explain what this means for a production retard like me? ty

>>72141386
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 anon posted is showing that Kid A is more compressed and has less dynamics than it should, scoring a 7.

>>72141023
you mean zero

>>72141523
That's interesting, what score did Californication get?

>>72142520
Well if you are a pleb, sure

>>72140372
the first one maybe. you haven't listened to any of his other work though.

>>72141523
whats the site?

>>72142707
http://dr.loudness-war.info/

>>72142720
thanks

>>72142680
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

File: Screenshot 2017-04-13 12.57.45.png (49KB, 951x587px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 951x587px

>>72142680
Looks like a 4. Really bad. Looks like the 2012 vinyl remaster is better, at an 11.

>>72140566
Name a band with better use of dynamics

File: Screenshot 2017-04-13 13.15.15.png (58KB, 948x576px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 948x576px

>>72143447
I'll name 10

>>72143219
crazy difference

>>72143502
redpill me on trios

File: image.jpg (123KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1000x1000px

feels claustrophobic and clanky in a good way

link me this site

>>72143502
>>72143447

btfo

>>72140512

Pft, you think that's bad?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8eUqTkc9qY

>>72141523
>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)

>>72144902
Just off the top of my head

>>72144442
dr.loudness-war.info

>>72140583
>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?

>>72146825
>only I know how art should be made, not the artist!

File: 080.jpg (34KB, 550x633px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 550x633px

>>72147033

>>72147920
>I'm out of arguments
>better call b8

>>72147033
>>72150162
>mastering engineer is the artist
ok buddy

>>72150715
>artists don't give notes to the mastering engineer for their expectations
I see you've never gotten your album professionally mastered before

>>72150745
>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

>>72150931
>>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?

>>72150961
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?

>>72151207
>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.

>>72151298
>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.

File: IMG_1214.jpg (45KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 300x300px

It's the whole point.

>>72139794
39/Smooth by Green Day

>>72151698
>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.

>>72152695
>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.

>>72141523
i have never listened to a song i love and said this is too loud in my life

>>72153943
What kind of music do you usually listen to?

came to post >>72141384

>>72141523
What if it's a song that's just really quiet the entire time?

>>72140547
Wait, so does that mean the remaster is better or worse?

File: 13992038961238afdd77d13fcb5d374e1fb89d7ca3[1].jpg (200KB, 1008x1024px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1008x1024px

I hope whoever produced this album gets chemically castrated.

>>72153655
>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

>>72154514
>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.

>>72154325
>Billy Corgan
>Jimmy Chamberlin
>Terry Date
>Roy Thomas Baker

kek

>>72154743
>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.

>>72156151
>You claimed otherwise FIRST. Hence the burden of proof is on you
http://www.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

>>72156624
>http://www.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

File: Diamond Eyes.jpg (47KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x600px

>>72139794
The vocal effects on this are so irritating

>>72140326
>le radiohead is bad bandwagon
radiohead is indeed bad but no one asked for your validation

>>72141384
tago mago is straight up from a can. the guitar tone always sounds like silverware being bashed together

>>72154321
i think it's better