General Forum

Re: Why most "modern digital" music sounds artificial

Puncher — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:48:45 GMT

Alex:

Puncher:

Call auto-tune what you will, it seems there is no bounds to what can be done with pre-recorded audio these days. Watch and be amazed, not at the results particularly but at the fact that it can be done at all.

Melodyne DNA

I couldn't quite believe what I was seeing/hearing when I first saw DNA. In fact, even some university level directors I'd shown the preview video to thought it was really quite remarkable.

I'm guessing it works via some sort of very advanced FFT?

And some other stuff! Pulling out related harmonics etc. is easy, but how do you unravel which harmonics go with which and how many notes are playing simultaneously?

I have to say I'm very, very impressed with what it does. When Melodyne first hit the scene and was capable of not only real time pitch/formant shifting to the extent that you could completely re-write the melody/rhythm/tempo of a monophonic audio track from pre-recorded audio it made autotune look like tape delay - producers/engineers raved about it's capabilities but even then it was thought that that would be it's limit, you would be able to build up editable real audio chords from a single line etc. but everyone (even the guy who invented it, if you believe the video) thought editing component notes of polyphonic audio was impossible. And yet here we are.

The next impossible stage is to be able to edit individual lines from a complete mix - a holy grail of audio editing. Obviously editing guitar chords etc. has the advantage that indivdual notes share roughly the same (or similar) harmonic content and you can see how it may be possible, to date editing random audio streams from a random audio mix remains infeasible - I shall watch Mr. Melodyne closely

Re: Why most "modern digital" music sounds artificial

Alex — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:23:46 GMT

Puncher:

Call auto-tune what you will, it seems there is no bounds to what can be done with pre-recorded audio these days. Watch and be amazed, not at the results particularly but at the fact that it can be done at all.

Melodyne DNA

I couldn't quite believe what I was seeing/hearing when I first saw DNA. In fact, even some university level directors I'd shown the preview video to thought it was really quite remarkable.

I'm guessing it works via some sort of very advanced FFT?

Re: Why most "modern digital" music sounds artificial

Eugene — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:45:39 GMT

But I also believe that a part of the problem has as much to do with the move towards 5.1, 6.1 Surround setups.

Anymore it seems most of the stuff out their is geared for the TV and home video audience and little thought is given to reproducing quality music.

I made the switch to surround sound back in the early 90's and found myself replacing the entire systems every four or five years. All in an attempt to find a setup that can play good stereo music in 2 or 2.1 and play the movie at 5.1 without a lot of success. I suppose my 12 yr old Yamaha surround did about the best.

I should never have sold my old 4400 back in 95.

"Pet Sounds" by the Beach Boys is another masterpiece of digital reproduction. IMO the remastered version far outshines the original recording and I have both together on a limited edition reissue.

Re: Why most "modern digital" music sounds artificial

Puncher — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:59:36 GMT

Call auto-tune what you will, it seems there is no bounds to what can be done with pre-recorded audio these days. Watch and be amazed, not at the results particularly but at the fact that it can be done at all.

Melodyne DNA

Re: Why most "modern digital" music sounds artificial

bayerische — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:41:23 GMT

Rudy Van Gelder is also a master of "remaster".

Re: Why most "modern digital" music sounds artificial

Puncher — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:34:03 GMT

Medogsfat:

Puncher:

Medogsfat:

Puncher - John,

The first use of even a sythesizer (an Oberheim OBX) in any of their recordings was on the album "The Game" in 1980.

I saw them live in 1982 at Elland Road and they simply blew me and the rest of the audience away.

Chris.

Are you implying Queen were the first band ever to use a synth! or just first to use an Obie?

Ahh............ it's all in the inflection and emphasis

Re: Why most "modern digital" music sounds artificial

Medogsfat — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:22:03 GMT

Puncher:

Medogsfat:

Puncher - John,

The first use of even a sythesizer (an Oberheim OBX) in any of their recordings was on the album "The Game" in 1980.

I saw them live in 1982 at Elland Road and they simply blew me and the rest of the audience away.

Chris.

Are you implying Queen were the first band ever to use a synth! or just first to use an Obie?

Re: Why most "modern digital" music sounds artificial

soundproof — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:07:18 GMT

Absolutely, there are remastering wizards. I've previously mentioned the remastered Newport Jazz Festival album with Duke Ellington, from 1956. Brilliant piece of work, and there are many other examples - but unfortunately, there's no guarantee that "Remastered" means good ...

Re: Why most "modern digital" music sounds artificial

Eugene — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 06:42:03 GMT

A lot of depends on the sound engineer.

I have a two disk set of a "A Love Supreme" by John Coltrane. One disk is the original tape recordings transferred unaltered to disk and the the other disk is the remastered version. In this case my hats off to the engineer. IMO he did an excellent job.

On the other hand I have a suffered through a horrible botch job of Atom Mother Heart Suite in remastered Quad. Terrible.

I figured it was a matter of time before they got around to remuddling Pink Floyds original recording.

Re: Why most "modern digital" music sounds artificial

Puncher — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 06:20:30 GMT

Medogsfat:

Puncher - John,

The first use of even a sythesizer (an Oberheim OBX) in any of their recordings was on the album "The Game" in 1980.

I saw them live in 1982 at Elland Road and they simply blew me and the rest of the audience away.

Chris.

Are you implying Queen were the first band ever to use a synth! or just first to use an Obie?

Yes, I heard they blew a bit

Re: Why most "modern digital" music sounds artificial

bayerische — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 06:00:32 GMT

Some of my best sounding (both music and sound quality wise) albums are:

Ry Cooders productions of the Buena Vista social club, to some extent also Ry Cooders own music and records

Everything by Jazz musician Jacques Loussier His records has amazing dynamics

Seu Jorge, Life aquatic sessions

Lisa Ekdahl (Swedish singer)

Elvis Costellos Momofuku is a good example that you can still make Rock albums sound good.

Then, the music my wife listens to tends to be so horrible compressed and mastered that my ears bleed when she puts it on. A few examples, James Blunt and Juanes.

Re: Why most "modern digital" music sounds artificial

TWG — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 05:47:24 GMT

99% of the "Top 100 charts" etc. is real crap in terms of musical and production quality. It is music that sounds as it is produced for a longer ride in the lift but not for listening at home with good equipment!
The producers seem to use compression in the studio till the limit. One of the worst CD examples was the single "Kano - another life". The Bassdrum must have exceeded the 0dB mark during recording or mastering and it's clipping on a CD! That's a real shame!

Realy good productions are - in my opinion - Chris Rea (he realy takes care about the recording and the sound quality) and the producer of Michael Jacksons early albums (Bad, Thriller etc.). I don't know the name of the producer actualy, but he made GREAT work withouth fancy computer controlled studio equipment.

Buy yourself a T.C. Electronics Vocalizer for example and you can sing what you want: It will correct all your tonal errors etc.

You can't sing very high? Than use emagics (now Apple) Logic formant correction. It not only pitches your voice up or down, no, it analyses your formants (I hope it is the right word in english; formants describe the way your personal body produces your voice) and processes your whole voice to a level you won't believe that it is possible.

In general I don't think that a synthesizer is a bad thing that kills music. It is an instrument like any other: You HAVE to know how to play and use it the right way.
Listen to Vangelis, Enigma or some good tracks from Faithless. They know how to use and control these instruments to make their music sound musical and not robotic death like.

I'm sure my description is fun considering my level of english :-)

Re: Why most "modern digital" music sounds artificial

wirralsimon — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 05:06:21 GMT

This is an interesting discussion.

There is certainly more to great music that being recorded well and instrumental skill though.

Bob Dylans Guitar playing could be described as limited and his voice was once described as sounding like a cow with his leg stuck in a fence, but he created some of the most compelling music of the 20th Century.

I prefer the early Springsteen, but comparing him to Queen isn't really appropriate , Queen's appeal is based around showmanship, flash and some great pop tunes while Springsteens output is much deeper and darker.

I absolutely agree about Oasis though, I bought their best of compilation last year and they have done something horrible to it by mastering the CD much too loud, killing the dynamic range and rendering it unlistenable in the process.

Simon

Re: Why most "modern digital" music sounds artificial

soundproof — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 04:13:57 GMT

We've previously discussed the Loudness War and how that is destroying music.

Here's the perfect illustration (if the new site will accept the code).

What you're seeing is how in 1985, the entire signal stayed inside sensible parameters, and nothing was compressed. Then, gradually, the signal was pushed, until everything is pushing the limits and all details and dynamics are gone. This affects not just current releases, but also remasters.

Here's Dire Straits, from Brothers in Arms, Walk of Life, the original CD-release:

Here's the same music, but in the XRCD-release which you'd think was a find - http://www.musicdirect.com/product/75458 - until you see they've compressed the heck out of that track, in order to save you the bother of turning up the volume ... (sigh!)

And this is actually not that bad, compared to some releases out there, but all the air of the original is gone:

Lenny Kravitz - original - Let Love Rule:

2008 release of same track - ooh, all the detail's gone. BUT IT IS LOUD!!!

Re: Why most "modern digital" music sounds artificial

Medogsfat — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 04:04:19 GMT

Puncher - John,

I couldn't agree more re :- Bruce Springcabbage but I can't believe your'e having a pop at Queen, go hang your heads in shame.

They were an intelligent band full of great song writers - ALL of 'em - and they could all play there instruments consumately. Where do you find combinations like that these days? The first use of even a sythesizer (an Oberheim OBX) in any of their recordings was on the album "The Game" in 1980.

I saw them live in 1982 at Elland Road and they simply blew me and the rest of the audience away. I have never seen a live band come even close to how good they were, and I've seen a fair few believe me.

Chris.