ABSOLUTELY REPULSED by the cd quality of this new album

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
How do the drums and cymbals sound on the FLAC for Crazy Tonight? They are ridiculously distorted on the CD.

I can't really tell much of a difference, if any. Not nearly as clear a difference as at the start of Boots.

I get this issue, and would like to see people master their albums with normal sounding dynamics rather than compressing everything, but I do think some so-called "audiophiles" (audio=sound, phile=lover of; so except people who simply hate all music, aren't we all "audiophiles?") make too much of the problem. I'm sure there are extreme cases with some CDs over the last decade or two, but I don't particularly notice any distortion on any U2 albums, not only this one, but ATYCLB and HTDAAB too, both of which seem to be the ones most complained about as far as mastering goes.

(And the above goes for whatever format I listen to them in - CD on my stereo, computer speakers, or iPod. I most often listen to my iPod on a Bose docking station, and my stereo is a Yamaha with Bose speakers; but I'm sure neither of those systems would be good enough for so-called audiophiles, for whom, my reading up on the matter suggests, no sound system is decent unless it nearly requires a second mortgage! I read one of the Sterophile articles someone linked too earlier, and while interesting, most people simply cannot and would not pay $20,000 for the kind of speakers the guy in the article was raving about).

I also don't get the audiophile attachment to vinyl...perhaps it sounds good now on high-end turntables and speakers, but what do you think most people in the heyday of vinyl were listening on? Certainly not the kind of system that would qualify one as an "audiophile" these days. The fact is that more people now have better access to good quality sound at a reasonable price than they ever had in the "golden age" of vinyl.

And sometimes sound quality isn't everything. I listen to a lot of classical music too, and one of my favorite Mahler recordings is Bruno Walter's last Vienna performance of Mahler's 9th in Vienna in 1938, six weeks before the Nazi invasion. Being a 1938 mono recording, the sound quality is not great(though it's much better than one might suspect) compared to a modern recording, but it's a beautiful performance, and wonderful to hear despite the lack of "audiophile" quality.
 
it IS loud. I have a superior car system and would really like to hear the nuances without the clatter and chatter. ah well, its the ipod generation.

In a car, having the dynamic range squashed may not be a bad thing. Or else unless your car is silent inside you'd always be turning the volume up and down in order to hear the quieter parts.

However, where things go totally astray with current day CD's is that in doing their dynamic range squashing they introduce clipping (i.e. square waveforms) where the information in the signal is totally lost.

Surely it should be possible to master CD's loud but only up to a point and not introduce clipping?
 
Well, I ripped SUC from both the CD (top) and the DVD (bottom), and I think you can see that there's not much differences in the dynamic range between the two. Whatever the source of that FLAC is, it doesn't seem to be the Linear DVD.

SUC CD
SUC_CD.png

SUC DVD
SUC_DVD.png
 
Not really: Whether you're listening on a PC or on a high end system, you can still make a relative judgment if you have something to compare to.
Agreed.

I don't have any high-end equipment and I loathe vinyl, but I still greatly care about the quality of what I'm listening to.

I personally rip all my albums to FLAC and then convert them to VBR -2 MP3 using LAME 3.98.

And then once that's done, I scan the ReplayGain of all my albums, which reduces the volume to where it SHOULD be, and removes the clipping in the process.

I'm very picky about the quality. If it's not to my standard, I don't bother with it. A LAME 3.98-encoded MP3 with ReplayGain added will always sound great even on my crappy speakers.
 
Agreed.

I don't have any high-end equipment and I loathe vinyl, but I still greatly care about the quality of what I'm listening to.

I personally rip all my albums to FLAC and then convert them to VBR -2 MP3 using LAME 3.98.

And then once that's done, I scan the ReplayGain of all my albums, which reduces the volume to where it SHOULD be, and removes the clipping in the process.

I'm very picky about the quality. If it's not to my standard, I don't bother with it. A LAME 3.98-encoded MP3 with ReplayGain added will always sound great even on my crappy speakers.


What is ReplayGain?
 
I just converted some of the FLAC files to .wav and .aiff files and I have to say these do not sound better than the CD. There is hardly any bass, which may explain the airiness, less muddled sound, or tinny sound that some have described. They also sound very shrill. Oh well.
 
I just converted some of the FLAC files to .wav and .aiff files and I have to say these do not sound better than the CD. There is hardly any bass, which may explain the airiness, less muddled sound, or tinny sound that some have described. They also sound very shrill. Oh well.

The 96k FLACS?
 
I just converted some of the FLAC files to .wav and .aiff files and I have to say these do not sound better than the CD. There is hardly any bass, which may explain the airiness, less muddled sound, or tinny sound that some have described. They also sound very shrill. Oh well.

What flac files? The 96khz ones? From what I can hear, they do have more dynamic range. Which means the sound will be less 'up front' and possibly inline with your description. Maybe you aren't used to audio that has lots of range.
 
I'm very picky about the quality. If it's not to my standard, I don't bother with it. A LAME 3.98-encoded MP3 with ReplayGain added will always sound great even on my crappy speakers.

I'm sorry but that is just not true.

The quality of sound is always limited by the weakest component in a system. Whether that is the bit-rate of the file, the amp, speaker or headphone.

You can put a fucking DVD-Audio disc through £5 speakers and it will sound equally bad as a 128kbps MP3. Simply because the speakers lack the ability to resolve the additional detail. Certainly, better encoding never hurts, but the observed benefit will be approaching zero.

Try that same process on a high end system, and the difference will be clearly apparent - encoding does matter in this instance.

People using 320kbps tracks with iPod headphones are just wasting their time (and battery life, and disk space).
 
i tried ReplayGain once, and i was ABSOLUTELY REPULSED by the results. :wink:

I'm ABSOLUTELY REPULSED that you were ABSOLUTELY REPULSED by ReplayGain.

You cannot/will not make the source file any better/any less clipped. All you are doing is quieting the clipping.

Maybe it's time we just listened to the songs and accepted that this is just the way it is at the moment... Maybe when the loudness wars have subsided, everything will be remastered properly...
 
I'm ABSOLUTELY REPULSED that you were ABSOLUTELY REPULSED by ReplayGain.

You cannot/will not make the source file any better/any less clipped. All you are doing is quieting the clipping.

Maybe it's time we just listened to the songs and accepted that this is just the way it is at the moment... Maybe when the loudness wars have subsided, everything will be remastered properly...

well i'm ABSOLUTELY REPULSED that you were ABSOLUTELY REPULSED that i was ABSOLUTELY REPULSED. :wink:
 
trying to find out if there is a way to download (legally) Linear without it sounding awful. I have the digipack, downloaded and the audio is awful.

does the DVD sound just as bad or is it just the download.

UPDATE:
figured it out. suprised it hasnt been discussed on here though. I cant be the only one who did what I just did.
 
I'm just SLIGHTLY REPULSED by this thread.

And yes, once there is clipping, there's no way to get that data back. Clipped forever. Any fancy software that claims otherwise is bogus.
 
If you use foobar2000, once you've done the ReplayGain scan, you can prevent clipping according to the track (or album) peak.
 
What flac files? The 96khz ones? From what I can hear, they do have more dynamic range. Which means the sound will be less 'up front' and possibly inline with your description. Maybe you aren't used to audio that has lots of range.

Yes the 96k ones. Perhaps it is more dynamic, but with no bass and ear-bleeding treble - what's the point?
 
well i'm ABSOLUTELY REPULSED that you were ABSOLUTELY REPULSED that i was ABSOLUTELY REPULSED. :wink:
I am ABSOLUTELY REPULSED that you were ABSOLUTELY REPULSED that he was ABSOLUTELY REPULSED that you were...
What were we arguing about again? :hmm:

And I am ABSOLUTELY REPULSED by the fact that I missed most of this thread. It seems fun.
 
It doesn't sound that bad, honestly. :eek: Why get upset over something like this? We have a new album, appreciate, appreciate!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom