Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kerry Stansbury]

I have a friend that lives 600 miles from me that is really into all the new digital equipment. He owns a yamaha OV196 mixer and a dbx 260 DSP. He is always telling me how great they are, especially all the features. My question is, How do they sound? I can't seem to find the time to go see him, so I would like to hear some unbiased opinions. When I hear all the new CD's that come out recorded on all digital equipment, thay sound like shit! you can't even tell what instruments are playing. I can see the digital advantage if your speakers are not designed very well and need a lot of help, but what if the speaker are well designed? Please give me your 2 cents worth.

 Thanks, Kerry

[Bennett Prescott]

This... is a joke, right? You've got me in full fight-or-flight panic mode here.

[John Roberts {JR}]

Kerry Stansbury wrote on Fri, 02 June 2006 18:29

I have a friend that lives 600 miles from me that is really into all the new digital equipment. He owns a yamaha OV196 mixer and a dbx 260 DSP. He is always telling me how great they are, especially all the features. My question is, How do they sound? I can't seem to find the time to go see him, so I would like to hear some unbiased opinions. When I hear all the new CD's that come out recorded on all digital equipment, thay sound like shit! you can't even tell what instruments are playing. I can see the digital advantage if your speakers are not designed very well and need a lot of help, but what if the speaker are well designed? Please give me your 2 cents worth.  Thanks, Kerry

You need to visit your friends more...

JR

[Kerry Stansbury]

If what I'm hearing is true. Then why do all the new recordings sound so bad. especially the vocals, they don't even sound real and they all have this wispy sound in the higher frequencies. (Anyone listen to the latest Nickelback, Kelly Clarkson or any other CD lately? Everything sounds like a 128 kbps MP3. I also have noticed that the sound quality at many concerts have started to sound that way too, A synthetic sound with no realism.

[Alexandre Richer]

Have you seen an audiologist lately? Your ears might be the culprit. Seriously.

Or you've just been unlucky and bought some badly-produced CDs and seen some poorly-mixed concerts.

[John Roberts {JR}]

Kerry Stansbury wrote on Fri, 02 June 2006 19:50

If what I'm hearing is true. Then why do all the new recordings sound so bad. especially the vocals, they don't even sound real and they all have this wispy sound in the higher frequencies. (Anyone listen to the latest Nickelback, Kelly Clarkson or any other CD lately? Everything sounds like a 128 kbps MP3. I also have noticed that the sound quality at many concerts have started to sound that way too, A synthetic sound with no realism.

I have no idea what you are hearing but objective metrics suggest that a clean (i.e. unprocessed) digital audio path can and will be extremely linear.

I can't comment on recent production values and how individual concert systems may be operated but the hardware is vastly improved over pre-digital days.

YMMV

JR  

[Kerry Stansbury]

There seems to be quite a difference between the high fidelity purist crowd and the pro-sound crowds opinion on sound. The high fidelity crowd won't even listen to CD's! I have never heard a CD sound as real as a vinyl record, I can play albums that sound so real they take your breath away, I play the same song on a CD and it might have a better frequency response, but it just doesn't sound real. I have listened to a lot of bands live with mics only on the vocals and the rest of the instruments without additional amplification, that's what a PA should sound like! I think when the recording studio's started using cheap monitors like alesis instead of JBL is when the recording industry started going down hill.

[Rodd Lowell]

Kerry Stansbury wrote on Sat, 03 June 2006 02:59

There seems to be quite a difference between the high fidelity purist crowd and the pro-sound crowds opinion on sound. The high fidelity crowd won't even listen to CD's! I have never heard a CD sound as real as a vinyl record, I can play albums that sound so real they take your breath away, I play the same song on a CD and it might have a better frequency response, but it just doesn't sound real.

Oh boy, here we go again!

[Bennett Prescott]

Kerry, what you're hearing is how people are mixing records today. Extensive chorusing, detuning, and effects make for an extremely "processed" end result. A lot of people are into that, I've got no problem with it. It's appropriate in certain places and not in others. If you're listening to Nickelback and expecting to have some sort of Floyd-esque realistic symphonic experience, well, I don't know who you're trying to kid. If some mix engineer pulls that shit on your kettle drum during Also Sprach Zarathustra, they be crazy, it don't belong there.

You seem to be unable to separate the delivery medium from the sound, and additionally your opinion of what it should sound like from what it does sound like. Digital is not the problem, and it isn't going anywhere because the advantages far outweigh the detriments. Every year some smart engineer figures out how to take care of one more of those detriments. Pretty soon the only issue left with digital will be "idiots driving a poorly designed system improperly with a bad source are still able to make things sound bad", which has been a problem since the beginning of PA history and isn't going anywhere fast.

And now, one of my seemingly endless car analogies: Two cars pass you on the highway. One is a '67 Chevy, flawlessly restored, driven by a cool-looking middle-aged guy. The other is a Toyota Prius, with flames painted on, driven by some 20 year old in sunglasses with someone who looks suspiciously like your daughter in the passenger seat. You're probably going to have a negative reaction to the latter, even though it's getting 50 miles to the gallon and the kid's having the kind of fun you were at that age. The Chevy has a lot of nice things about it, but it costs a lot to maintain, you can't find parts for it, and it burns oil along with its 15MPG.
Technically, for highway driving, the Prius is far superior. You like the Chevy more because it's what you think a car should be, but someday you're going to have to admit that just because th Prius is new and shocking (!) doesn't mean it doesn't have merit.

I hope that made some sort of sense, these discussions rarely do.

[Ryan Lantzy]

Bennett Prescott wrote on Fri, 02 June 2006 22:43

And now, one of my seemingly endless car analogies: Two cars pass you on the highway. One is a '67 Chevy, flawlessly restored, driven by a cool-looking middle-aged guy. The other is a Toyota Prius, with flames painted on, driven by some 20 year old in sunglasses with someone who looks suspiciously like your daughter in the passenger seat. You're probably going to have a negative reaction to the latter, even though it's getting 50 miles to the gallon and the kid's having the kind of fun you were at that age. The Chevy has a lot of nice things about it, but it costs a lot to maintain, you can't find parts for it, and it burns oil along with its 15MPG. Technically, for highway driving, the Prius is far superior. You like the Chevy more because it's what you think a car should be, but someday you're going to have to admit that just because th Prius is new and shocking (!) doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. I hope that made some sort of sense, these discussions rarely do.

VERY well put Bennett.