Earthshine_sf Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 My video tribute to Wish them Well...with rockets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeminiRising79 Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) Edited June 10, 2012 by GeminiRising79 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 No offense to anyone, but I really hate the "if an album doesn't appeal to me instantly I'll never like it" mentality. Not to say that things can't have an instant (and lasting!) appeal, but just because something isn't immediate doesn't mean it's worthless. Some of my favorite songs/albums were ones that grew on me with time. Some took vast amounts of time! American culture suffers from short attention spans in my estimation and I find that terribly unfortunate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gedneil Alpeart Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 QUOTE (Snaked @ Jun 10 2012, 01:10 PM) I have the CD now and it sounds fine on all 3 systems I've played it on. I think people forget that different albums/artists/genres require a bit of fine tuning of your systems settings. It could be as simple as tweaking the treble/bass settings a hair or as complex as a completely new EQ setting depending on what is pleasing to your ears. Those that are complaining about the mix probably haven't taken the time to play with the knobs and sliders. Good point. VT was a diff story though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 QUOTE (Snaked @ Jun 10 2012, 11:10 AM) I have the CD now and it sounds fine on all 3 systems I've played it on. I think people forget that different albums/artists/genres require a bit of fine tuning of your systems settings. It could be as simple as tweaking the treble/bass settings a hair or as complex as a completely new EQ setting depending on what is pleasing to your ears. Those that are complaining about the mix probably haven't taken the time to play with the knobs and sliders. I disagree. The audiophile philosophy is to listen to everything flat with no equalization or messing with the treble or bass at all, other than using a subwoofer. It SHOULD sound great as is, and undistorted. If you have to mess with it to try and fix it, it's a problem either with the recording itself, or the equipment a person is listening to it through. Regardless, production is obviously quite an art form. One would THINK That over the decades that production would get better and better, that albums would sound more and more crystal clear, but really that's just not the case. It's still all dependent on the skill of the recording engineer, producer, mixer, etc. to get it right. How many modern albums sound as great as 70's Steely Dan for example? Not many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snaked Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jun 10 2012, 02:44 PM) QUOTE (Snaked @ Jun 10 2012, 11:10 AM) I have the CD now and it sounds fine on all 3 systems I've played it on. I think people forget that different albums/artists/genres require a bit of fine tuning of your systems settings. It could be as simple as tweaking the treble/bass settings a hair or as complex as a completely new EQ setting depending on what is pleasing to your ears. Those that are complaining about the mix probably haven't taken the time to play with the knobs and sliders. I disagree. The audiophile philosophy is to listen to everything flat with no equalization or messing with the treble or bass at all, other than using a subwoofer. It SHOULD sound great as is, and undistorted. If you have to mess with it to try and fix it, it's a problem either with the recording itself, or the equipment a person is listening to it through. Regardless, production is obviously quite an art form. One would THINK That over the decades that production would get better and better, that albums would sound more and more crystal clear, but really that's just not the case. It's still all dependent on the skill of the recording engineer, producer, mixer, etc. to get it right. How many modern albums sound as great as 70's Steely Dan for example? Not many. Sorry goobs, I completely disagree. As an audio professional I can tell you that every room sounds different and high end equipment needs to be tuned not only to the room but to other conditions that effect the quality of the sound itself. If you put a $10,000 system into your house and don't bother to tune it and simply listen as you say "flat" then you're basically wasting that equipment. Things that most people take for granted such as temperature and barometric pressure can effect the quality of the sound and may need to be accounted for when tuning your system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rushman14 Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jun 10 2012, 11:44 AM) QUOTE (Snaked @ Jun 10 2012, 11:10 AM) I have the CD now and it sounds fine on all 3 systems I've played it on. I think people forget that different albums/artists/genres require a bit of fine tuning of your systems settings. It could be as simple as tweaking the treble/bass settings a hair or as complex as a completely new EQ setting depending on what is pleasing to your ears. Those that are complaining about the mix probably haven't taken the time to play with the knobs and sliders. I disagree. The audiophile philosophy is to listen to everything flat with no equalization or messing with the treble or bass at all, other than using a subwoofer. It SHOULD sound great as is, and undistorted. If you have to mess with it to try and fix it, it's a problem either with the recording itself, or the equipment a person is listening to it through. Regardless, production is obviously quite an art form. One would THINK That over the decades that production would get better and better, that albums would sound more and more crystal clear, but really that's just not the case. It's still all dependent on the skill of the recording engineer, producer, mixer, etc. to get it right. How many modern albums sound as great as 70's Steely Dan for example? Not many. this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak2112 Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 QUOTE (Snaked @ Jun 10 2012, 02:32 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jun 10 2012, 02:44 PM) QUOTE (Snaked @ Jun 10 2012, 11:10 AM) I have the CD now and it sounds fine on all 3 systems I've played it on. I think people forget that different albums/artists/genres require a bit of fine tuning of your systems settings. It could be as simple as tweaking the treble/bass settings a hair or as complex as a completely new EQ setting depending on what is pleasing to your ears. Those that are complaining about the mix probably haven't taken the time to play with the knobs and sliders. I disagree. The audiophile philosophy is to listen to everything flat with no equalization or messing with the treble or bass at all, other than using a subwoofer. It SHOULD sound great as is, and undistorted. If you have to mess with it to try and fix it, it's a problem either with the recording itself, or the equipment a person is listening to it through. Regardless, production is obviously quite an art form. One would THINK That over the decades that production would get better and better, that albums would sound more and more crystal clear, but really that's just not the case. It's still all dependent on the skill of the recording engineer, producer, mixer, etc. to get it right. How many modern albums sound as great as 70's Steely Dan for example? Not many. Sorry goobs, I completely disagree. As an audio professional I can tell you that every room sounds different and high end equipment needs to be tuned not only to the room but to other conditions that effect the quality of the sound itself. If you put a $10,000 system into your house and don't bother to tune it and simply listen as you say "flat" then you're basically wasting that equipment. Things that most people take for granted such as temperature and barometric pressure can effect the quality of the sound and may need to be accounted for when tuning your system. Temperature and barometric pressure? Are you seriously telling me that these factors are going to be the difference between an album sounding good or bad in a persons listening room? They may effect sublte differences in sound, but a properly mixed and mastered album will sound great on almost any system. I dont have a crazy expensive system (about 14K total, which is nothing by some audiophile snobs) but I have taken a lot of time to use acoustical treatments to my listening room, I use an SPL meter to make sure all speakers are properly calibrated to one another, and am very careful about speaker placement. I have tried to take care of the sound quality the best I know how from my end, but I can tell when an album has been improperly compressed or boosted, and this album has had that done to it. Maybe not as bad as VT, but at this point, and especially after the debacle of VT, there is NO excuse for such an audio crime. Yes, the songs themselves are great and I'm moved beyond words by the content within, but this could have been a total home run if they had people in the recording/mixing/mastering chain that knew what they were doing. They made a deliberate effort to make this a loud, ear bleeding record, so it would stand up next to all the other brickwalled messes out there. At this point, I dont think the band gives a crap about whether or not the album sounds good. They have made what may be the greatest album since Moving Pictures, and yet, they allowed it to be sonically raped. Very sad. Dont believe me? Take a look at a waverform of just about any song on the album and you'll see an almost complete lack of dynamic range. Is it as bad as VT? No, but thats not saying much. Bottom line, its a masive success musically, but a monumental failure sonically. At this point in the bands career, there is no excuse for such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CruisingInPrimetime Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gompers Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jun 7 2012, 09:18 PM) About to go on a long walk by myself where I'll be listening to the entire album in its entirety. That's better than half the album in it's entirety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gompers Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog_Bro Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 I love how dark the album is - with Snakes and Arrows I get the feeling that a lot of the discontent comes from the fact that the songs are not very heavy and as a result not as adventurous because it is more poppy than prog. With CA the dark nature of the songs allow for more experimentation, and the songs that are poppy stand out amongst the other tunes (which is why I love The Wreckers so much) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 QUOTE (ak2112 @ Jun 10 2012, 04:31 PM) QUOTE (Snaked @ Jun 10 2012, 02:32 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jun 10 2012, 02:44 PM) QUOTE (Snaked @ Jun 10 2012, 11:10 AM) I have the CD now and it sounds fine on all 3 systems I've played it on. I think people forget that different albums/artists/genres require a bit of fine tuning of your systems settings. It could be as simple as tweaking the treble/bass settings a hair or as complex as a completely new EQ setting depending on what is pleasing to your ears. Those that are complaining about the mix probably haven't taken the time to play with the knobs and sliders. I disagree. The audiophile philosophy is to listen to everything flat with no equalization or messing with the treble or bass at all, other than using a subwoofer. It SHOULD sound great as is, and undistorted. If you have to mess with it to try and fix it, it's a problem either with the recording itself, or the equipment a person is listening to it through. Regardless, production is obviously quite an art form. One would THINK That over the decades that production would get better and better, that albums would sound more and more crystal clear, but really that's just not the case. It's still all dependent on the skill of the recording engineer, producer, mixer, etc. to get it right. How many modern albums sound as great as 70's Steely Dan for example? Not many. Sorry goobs, I completely disagree. As an audio professional I can tell you that every room sounds different and high end equipment needs to be tuned not only to the room but to other conditions that effect the quality of the sound itself. If you put a $10,000 system into your house and don't bother to tune it and simply listen as you say "flat" then you're basically wasting that equipment. Things that most people take for granted such as temperature and barometric pressure can effect the quality of the sound and may need to be accounted for when tuning your system. Temperature and barometric pressure? Are you seriously telling me that these factors are going to be the difference between an album sounding good or bad in a persons listening room? They may effect sublte differences in sound, but a properly mixed and mastered album will sound great on almost any system. I dont have a crazy expensive system (about 14K total, which is nothing by some audiophile snobs) but I have taken a lot of time to use acoustical treatments to my listening room, I use an SPL meter to make sure all speakers are properly calibrated to one another, and am very careful about speaker placement. I have tried to take care of the sound quality the best I know how from my end, but I can tell when an album has been improperly compressed or boosted, and this album has had that done to it. Maybe not as bad as VT, but at this point, and especially after the debacle of VT, there is NO excuse for such an audio crime. Yes, the songs themselves are great and I'm moved beyond words by the content within, but this could have been a total home run if they had people in the recording/mixing/mastering chain that knew what they were doing. They made a deliberate effort to make this a loud, ear bleeding record, so it would stand up next to all the other brickwalled messes out there. At this point, I dont think the band gives a crap about whether or not the album sounds good. They have made what may be the greatest album since Moving Pictures, and yet, they allowed it to be sonically raped. Very sad. Dont believe me? Take a look at a waverform of just about any song on the album and you'll see an almost complete lack of dynamic range. Is it as bad as VT? No, but thats not saying much. Bottom line, its a masive success musically, but a monumental failure sonically. At this point in the bands career, there is no excuse for such a thing. If you've got a 14K system and you say it sounds too loud and brickwalled, I'm definitely concerned. Acoustic treatments are great, making sure you get the right equipment for the room is as well, even tuning it in general (though I'm not sure how one does that), but that doesn't mean you need to go and get a graphic equalizer and tweak the listening experience of the album. If it doesn't work at flat levels, and there's nothing wrong with the system, it's the CD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gompers Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 I believe this album has moved to a 7 instead of an 8 with me. I want to skip a few songs now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 (edited) Edited June 11, 2012 by ReRushed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush-O-Matic Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gedneil Alpeart Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gedneil Alpeart Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 QUOTE (Gompers @ Jun 10 2012, 07:03 PM) I believe this album has moved to a 7 instead of an 8 with me. I want to skip a few songs now. Honeymoon wearing off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presto-digitation Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 I've given myself a small break over the weekend and am waiting now for the CD. Can't wait to crank it proper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gompers Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ Jun 10 2012, 08:35 PM) I've given myself a small break over the weekend and am waiting now for the CD. Can't wait to crank it proper. Yup... I should put it down for a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slack jaw gaze Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 An audiophile is someone who spends a boatload of money so they can enjoy the 5 songs in the universe that don't sound bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losingit2k Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jun 10 2012, 07:00 PM) QUOTE (ak2112 @ Jun 10 2012, 04:31 PM) QUOTE (Snaked @ Jun 10 2012, 02:32 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jun 10 2012, 02:44 PM) QUOTE (Snaked @ Jun 10 2012, 11:10 AM) I have the CD now and it sounds fine on all 3 systems I've played it on. I think people forget that different albums/artists/genres require a bit of fine tuning of your systems settings. It could be as simple as tweaking the treble/bass settings a hair or as complex as a completely new EQ setting depending on what is pleasing to your ears. Those that are complaining about the mix probably haven't taken the time to play with the knobs and sliders. I disagree. The audiophile philosophy is to listen to everything flat with no equalization or messing with the treble or bass at all, other than using a subwoofer. It SHOULD sound great as is, and undistorted. If you have to mess with it to try and fix it, it's a problem either with the recording itself, or the equipment a person is listening to it through. Regardless, production is obviously quite an art form. One would THINK That over the decades that production would get better and better, that albums would sound more and more crystal clear, but really that's just not the case. It's still all dependent on the skill of the recording engineer, producer, mixer, etc. to get it right. How many modern albums sound as great as 70's Steely Dan for example? Not many. Sorry goobs, I completely disagree. As an audio professional I can tell you that every room sounds different and high end equipment needs to be tuned not only to the room but to other conditions that effect the quality of the sound itself. If you put a $10,000 system into your house and don't bother to tune it and simply listen as you say "flat" then you're basically wasting that equipment. Things that most people take for granted such as temperature and barometric pressure can effect the quality of the sound and may need to be accounted for when tuning your system. Temperature and barometric pressure? Are you seriously telling me that these factors are going to be the difference between an album sounding good or bad in a persons listening room? They may effect sublte differences in sound, but a properly mixed and mastered album will sound great on almost any system. I dont have a crazy expensive system (about 14K total, which is nothing by some audiophile snobs) but I have taken a lot of time to use acoustical treatments to my listening room, I use an SPL meter to make sure all speakers are properly calibrated to one another, and am very careful about speaker placement. I have tried to take care of the sound quality the best I know how from my end, but I can tell when an album has been improperly compressed or boosted, and this album has had that done to it. Maybe not as bad as VT, but at this point, and especially after the debacle of VT, there is NO excuse for such an audio crime. Yes, the songs themselves are great and I'm moved beyond words by the content within, but this could have been a total home run if they had people in the recording/mixing/mastering chain that knew what they were doing. They made a deliberate effort to make this a loud, ear bleeding record, so it would stand up next to all the other brickwalled messes out there. At this point, I dont think the band gives a crap about whether or not the album sounds good. They have made what may be the greatest album since Moving Pictures, and yet, they allowed it to be sonically raped. Very sad. Dont believe me? Take a look at a waverform of just about any song on the album and you'll see an almost complete lack of dynamic range. Is it as bad as VT? No, but thats not saying much. Bottom line, its a masive success musically, but a monumental failure sonically. At this point in the bands career, there is no excuse for such a thing. If you've got a 14K system and you say it sounds too loud and brickwalled, I'm definitely concerned. Acoustic treatments are great, making sure you get the right equipment for the room is as well, even tuning it in general (though I'm not sure how one does that), but that doesn't mean you need to go and get a graphic equalizer and tweak the listening experience of the album. If it doesn't work at flat levels, and there's nothing wrong with the system, it's the CD. Or your tweeter might be out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak2112 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 QUOTE (Slack jaw gaze @ Jun 10 2012, 08:04 PM) An audiophile is someone who spends a boatload of money so they can enjoy the 5 songs in the universe that don't sound bad. Have you ever heard a properly mastered album on a properly calibrated and decent stereo system? If not, you're talking out of your ass... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 QUOTE (Slack jaw gaze @ Jun 10 2012, 06:04 PM) An audiophile is someone who spends a boatload of money so they can enjoy the 5 songs in the universe that don't sound bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now