HiRez Poll Nosound - LIGHTDARK [DVD-A]

[keenly]

Hi,

I think Lightdark was more compressed for the way it was as well recorded. It is loud but was not hard limited. When I mix I just mix with my ears (and checking obviously with other reference mixes) but I also try to put in it what's my taste, and I find most surround discs sound way too weak and clinical, lacking the punch that (also for psychoacoustic and physical reasons) stereo recordings have, being the source concentrated all together on one side and two speakers. And I refer to the 'intensity' not just the volume that you can just turn up

I usually just check RMS averaging around -15db, in terms of dynamics, after that I want to make my surround discs sounding more powerful and less clinical, more about 'surrounding' then putting an instrument here and another there because it sounds not natural to me

I hope you'll like the live album, you can have a preview of it on the QQ topic about it where I posted a flac preview of one full track!

Thanks for reply. I have plenty of discs ultra quite that are extremely powerful when turned up. I really don't think they have to be this loud. I think compression takes way the power by decimating the dynamics, it's something takes away my enjoyment from listening to music.

The Zeppelin LPs are not compressed to hell but they sound huge.

Have you listened to the new Gavin Harrison album? Extremely dynamic, punchy, yet not overly loud at all; perfect sound in fact.

 

[nosound]

Hi,

thanks for your reply, I like this kind of talking

Yes the latest GH is the most recent example of what I mean with surround discs sounding to me too analytical and pristine. Sound/mix a bit like music is all about personal taste once we go over the technical quality needed to make a professional sounding album.

For me pushing up the volume makes it just a louder analytical album, the impact and density of a stereo mix for me is missing in most surround discs to my ears. So I just mix my own ones in the way I'd like to listen to them if I was buying them, like I do anyway with stereo ones, or with my own music.

If you can have a listen to the .flac full surround track from Teide and let me know if you like it more

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Hi,

I think Lightdark was more compressed for the way it was as well recorded. It is loud but was not hard limited. When I mix I just mix with my ears (and checking obviously with other reference mixes) but I also try to put in it what's my taste, and I find most surround discs sound way too weak and clinical, lacking the punch that (also for psychoacoustic and physical reasons) stereo recordings have, being the source concentrated all together on one side and two speakers. And I refer to the 'intensity' not just the volume that you can just turn up

I usually just check RMS averaging around -15db, in terms of dynamics, after that I want to make my surround discs sounding more powerful and less clinical, more about 'surrounding' then putting an instrument here and another there because it sounds not natural to me

I hope you'll like the live album, you can have a preview of it on the QQ topic about it where I posted a flac preview of one full track!

Since you seem receptive and open to comments about your music...let me offer a perspective...first a qualifier....I don't own any of your recordings...and that is why I'm responding...before I buy any music that I'm unfamiliar with I do research..although content is the most important thing...a close second is sound quality...the greatest content won't make up for bright compressed music...what we in the audiophile community call "ear bleeding" music...most of us at some point(when we can)like to play the music at higher volumes...and the better recordings really shine at increased volumes...especially surround music....the individual channels are more clearly represented at these volumes...the higher the compression the less volume can be applied to the music...as a listener you get fatigued and don't want to hear it as often...

When your band came onto my radar through this forum I decided to see what the Dynamic Range numbers were for your recordings...now these numbers are only one point in evaluating how something will sound..but for ME it's critical...I can tolerate a lot of things in recordings...especially vintage recordings where the equipment used during the band's era wasn't that great and the sound quality suffered as a result...but one thing I seldom make a concession for is heavy compression...I just can't enjoy the music...sometimes a clever surround mix can hide some of the compression...but that's rare...so when I looked at your previous work HERE is what I found....anything that is a 9 or below for an album is something I won't even consider buying...

Let me mention something for you to consider...as an artist I can understand the concept of music sounding sterile..or too perfect...but the difference is... IMO...that should only apply to the content of the music...and from my understanding of your comments regarding Gavin's surround mix is that you thought it was too pristine...the reality is in the audiophile community(the buyers of surround mixes)we want pristine sounding discs...that is the whole point of buying hi rez products...that is what makes them worth more than conventional types of music...you will find that if you want to expand your audience in the audiophile community(surround music lovers)improving the compression numbers in your recordings should be a consideration...now if your goal isn't to gain widespread acceptance...and you aren't concerned with selling more discs and you only do this for "art itself" and personal satisfaction...then keep making the recordings to suit your own personal preferences and don't worry about anything else...let me give you an example of what "pristine" does for a title in the audiophile community...Roxy music has a surround version of one of their albums...Avalon....some debate whether it's the best album from Roxy Music..and we are talking about Roxy Music here...not the Beatles...Rolling Stones or any high profile bands you could name...but the surround version makes this album "pristine"...and here are some examples of how valuable that surround title is in the marketplace HERE...a used copy here

I hope you take these comments in the spirit they were offered...as an objective view of your recordings...I personally think it's great that you have chosen to interact with us on this forum..it certainly is a pleasure for me and from the offerings of your work on the DR database it appears there are other parties out there that are interested in your music...good luck in your future endeavors

 

[keenly]

Hi,

thanks for your reply, I like this kind of talking

Yes the latest GH is the most recent example of what I mean with surround discs sounding to me too analytical and pristine. Sound/mix a bit like music is all about personal taste once we go over the technical quality needed to make a professional sounding album.

For me pushing up the volume makes it just a louder analytical album, the impact and density of a stereo mix for me is missing in most surround discs to my ears. So I just mix my own ones in the way I'd like to listen to them if I was buying them, like I do anyway with stereo ones, or with my own music.

If you can have a listen to the .flac full surround track from Teide and let me know if you like it more

I have listened to the flac track and I am afraid is is far too loud and compressed for me to enjoy. I couldn't get through it. It is louder than Dommi Borgirs Death Cult Armageddon(death metal), not a pleasant listen unfortunately.

I certainly do not think having very little to no compression and low volume on an album means no power and weak. I think it is the opposite. Plenty of very dynamic surround recordings are powerful. Faithless Live At Brixton DVD has a sublime DTS 5.1 mix which puts you right in the middle of the music, not overly pristine and never weak, yet never harsh or too compressed. I understand your point, and I think the punch and slam, or power in music comes from the recording to begin with, not volume added via compression.

That being said I am in not position to tell an artists what to do and you like what you like. I just know I have really good hearing and a decent set up which is properly calibrated. I can notice any harshness on any recording. With the Lightdark album however, even family members have said Jesus that is loud, turn it down, and I had the receiver much quieter than normal listening levels during this.

Sorry loud compressed albums are not my thing, and I am a fan of metal so it is not as if I like ultra quiet easy listening.

 

[nosound]

Hello everyone,


yes I have no problem with people not liking my work, the same way I get not problem with people liking it, so your comments are welcome and a very useful for me to understand.

As an artist for me content and sound are the same, and in those terms no one is objective, no matter how many people agree with one or another point of view. I'm not looking to get a widespread acceptance by anyone, I look forward to do the opposite: keep doing things my way and refining my way so that more and more people come my way, not the opposite. That is work or market, not my cup of tea. Whatever it is will be always my own and never the one someone (a few or many) would like to

I'll take in consideration what you said, I understand it and will be useful. But Teide (for example) is mixed exactly like I'd like it to be, many said is the best live they heard in long time, many will say is too loud, as an artist all this is not really important to me, for me is just important to make art (mix is part of it like the cover or booklet) 100% honest without compromise with anyone outside myself.

Let's see maybe next album will have a -12 range who knows Whatever it will be I'll just mix it always in the way I like it to sound, and I'll offer as usual a free hires sample for everyone to try before buy, so everyone is happy

 

[keenly]

Hello everyone,


yes I have no problem with people not liking my work, the same way I get not problem with people liking it, so your comments are welcome and a very useful for me to understand.

As an artist for me content and sound are the same, and in those terms no one is objective, no matter how many people agree with one or another point of view. I'm not looking to get a widespread acceptance by anyone, I look forward to do the opposite: keep doing things my way and refining my way so that more and more people come my way, not the opposite. That is work or market, not my cup of tea. Whatever it is will be always my own and never the one someone (a few or many) would like to

I'll take in consideration what you said, I understand it and will be useful. But Teide (for example) is mixed exactly like I'd like it to be, many said is the best live they heard in long time, many will say is too loud, as an artist all this is not really important to me, for me is just important to make art (mix is part of it like the cover or booklet) 100% honest without compromise with anyone outside myself.

Let's see maybe next album will have a -12 range who knows Whatever it will be I'll just mix it always in the way I like it to sound, and I'll offer as usual a free hires sample for everyone to try before buy, so everyone is happy

At least make sure there is no clipping. No album should have that.

 

[nosound]

Thanks yes I always try to avoid any unwanted clipping

I'll just never mix looking at a waveform or meter instead of closing my eyes judging first and foremost by heart, because that's what my way of making art is and I think it's what makes it different. In the end luckily what for someone sounds 'too loud' for someone else sounds across the best hires albums they have, also here, that's why I just go my way without being influenced by feedback.

Hopefully I'll succeed not when I follow what others want, but when others follow what I want