Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   mekka okereke :verified: (mekkaokereke@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 12:19:10 JST mekka okereke :verified:

   My hipster cred is that when Caren Kelleher said, "Vinyl is coming back!" I believed her! I'm super proud to support her!

   https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4pwa24xWBjw

   Streaming music is great! I love streaming! You know where I work. But streaming isn't everything. We have to find more ways for bands and artists to make money. Or we don't get bands and artists.

   If you can fill a venue with 100 people and make them happy by playing great music for them, you should be able to earn a living. Caren makes that happen.

   • Embed this notice
     Wayne Myers (conniptions@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 12:19:06 JST Wayne Myers

     in reply to

     @mekkaokereke I'll answer this with my 'music fan' hat on rather than the 'musician' or 'software engineer' hats.

     I am lucky enough to have copies of several albums both on vinyl and digital.

     Repeated A-B testing reveals that I prefer the vinyl playback every time without exception.

     I don't really care if - as Adrian has pointed out - "digital audio is more accurate to its input". Maybe so.

     In that case, perhaps accuracy-to-input isn't so important after all. Something else is going on.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 12:19:06 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Wayne Myers

     @conniptions @mekkaokereke
     I’ll take this one.

     Vinyl doe not have “effectively infinite bitrate.” All sound reproductions introduce error, including analog. The question is: What •kind• of error? How much?

     In the case of digital, much of the error comes in the form of •quantization noise•: the difference between the “stair step” shape of digital and the actual signal. (Good image of it here: http://davidswiston.blogspot.com/2014/11/adcs-dithering-when-adding-noise-is.html) There’s also some error that comes from circuitry etc. 1/

   • Embed this notice
     mekka okereke :verified: (mekkaokereke@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 12:19:07 JST mekka okereke :verified:

     in reply to

     • Wayne Myers

     @conniptions

     Instead I'll politely wait for someone else with "software engineer" and "musician" in their bio to show up, and they can tell both of us how it really works!

     My (probably wrong?) understanding: the noise of vinyl gives it an effective bitrate. As in, there's minimal audibly detectable loss relative to vinyl if digitizing above bitrate X.

   • Embed this notice
     Wayne Myers (conniptions@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 12:19:08 JST Wayne Myers

     in reply to

     @mekkaokereke I thought the point of vinyl was that, being analogue, with its infinite bitrate and zero sampling loss, it effectively /was/ super hi-fi?

   • Embed this notice
     mekka okereke :verified: (mekkaokereke@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 12:19:08 JST mekka okereke :verified:

     in reply to

     • Wayne Myers

     @conniptions

     ?You have "software engineer" and "musician" in your bio? That means I probably shouldn't try to 'splain to you how (I think) vinyl works. I've learned from previous (gentle!) spankings that this is generally not a good idea.

     That's how I find out which of my friends worked on CoreAudio, who owns a modular synth, and who was in a rock band and played with bands like Life House before they suddenly said "C++ is cool, I wanna work on Spanner, tell me about the atomic clocks again."

   • Embed this notice
     mekka okereke :verified: (mekkaokereke@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 12:19:09 JST mekka okereke :verified:

     in reply to

     This isn't zero sum. It isn't "streaming or vinyl." The two things are complementary. ????

     If a great indie band can survive the lean early years while they develop their sound, they might actually make it to your Spotify or YouTube Music station. You might have heard the streaming version of your favorite song, but do you have the vinyl record of the live performance of that song that you saw in a dive bar outside Nashville?

     Vinyl sounds different. Not everything needs to be super high-fi.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 12:22:53 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Wayne Myers

     @conniptions @mekkaokereke
     Vinyl lives in a whole different universe of error: harmonic distortion, noise, surface defects, etc. No quantization noise!

     But here’s the thing: the noise vinyl introduces is •orders of magnitude• larger than the noise CD-quality digital audio introduces. Like 20-30dB more.

     There is absolutely no sound an LP case produce that a CD can’t reproduce (much less higher-quality digital audio). There reverse is not true.

     Yet LPs •do• often sound better! Why?
     2/

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 12:27:28 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Wayne Myers

     @conniptions @mekkaokereke
     I owe this next part to my brilliant friend Greg Reierson (https://www.rareformmastering.com):

     Mastering folks use compression and limiting and “sonic maximizing” and crap to make CDs sound louder. Unfortunately, it also makes the audio sound worse! Turn the volume on “maximized” audio down to match, and you’ll probably prefer the original.

     Here’s the thing: those tricks mostly •don’t work• with analog audio. So people don’t use them.

     LPs = worse audio of better masters.
     3/

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 12:31:12 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Wayne Myers

     @conniptions @mekkaokereke
     On top of that, there’s the fact that in the early days of CDs, labels were cranking out CDs as fast as they could, without proper care.

     When you master an LP, you have to crank the high end up way to high. And many early CDs came straight off the LP master — but unlike an LP, the CDs accurately reproduced that high end!

     Result: CDs got a reputation for being “crunchy” or “brittle,” when it was the masters and not the CDs that were the problem.
     4/

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 12:38:30 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Wayne Myers

     @conniptions @mekkaokereke
     ICYMI, this painful story bears out the above: expensive boutique remasters claiming to use an all-analog chain, which people luuurrrrved, actually had digital in the chain.
     https://www.washingtonpost.com/music/2022/08/05/mofi-records-analog-digital-scandal/

     But you know what? I’ll bet they really did sound better. Not because they were LPs, but because better mastering sounds better!

     –––

     P.S. I ?LPs, just not for the sound. The album art! The physicality! The ritual! And yes, often, the better masters!
     /end

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 14:49:21 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • JoeChip

     @JoeChip ?!

     Are you suggesting that tapes have always been digitally encoded? I don’t follow this at all.

   • Embed this notice
     JoeChip (joechip@mstdn.social)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 14:49:22 JST JoeChip

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell

     @inthehands
     I dispute the very existence of "analog" in those cases where the vinyl is derived from magnetic tape recordings. Magnetic domains on the tape media are *not* analog.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 14:52:50 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Paul_IPv6
     • Wayne Myers

     @paul_ipv6 @conniptions @mekkaokereke It’s true! The new mixes (like the asteve Wilson or the 2017 Sgt Pepper) are particularly interesting because they cross into the realm of new artistic decisions.

     Also, always happy to find another Yes fan.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul_IPv6 (paul_ipv6@infosec.exchange)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 14:52:51 JST Paul_IPv6

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell
     • Wayne Myers

     @inthehands @conniptions @mekkaokereke

     +1 on mastering/remastering.

     been interesting seeing what remastered albums have come out and how much clarity there is. got some jethro tull that i knew the albums inside out. amazing what was hiding in the original recordings.

     and the dvd mixes, like eagles hells freezes over dvd or the steve wilson remixes of yes albums.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 23:36:33 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Wayne Myers
     • Noah Cook

     @UncivilServant @conniptions @mekkaokereke
     Huh, it’s possible! And also possible that a player’s speed might vary slightly, creating a subtle waver that becomes a sonic fingerprint.

     Some quick math says a player being off by 0.1 rpm is about the threshold of audible difference (5 cents, though more like 0.5 cents to a highly trained ear).

     Anecdotes here of people seeing much larger variances: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/turntable-speed-variances-and-acceptable-levels.15428/ Don’t have total confidence in their methods, but your theory is credible.

   • Embed this notice
     Noah Cook (uncivilservant@med-mastodon.com)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 23:36:34 JST Noah Cook

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell
     • Wayne Myers

     @inthehands @conniptions @mekkaokereke I have a question (I'm deaf in one ear, so absolutely no claim to expertise here at all): might individual LP players each have a slightly different rotation speed, at least compared to CDs/streaming?

     The reason I ask is it would give each LP player a unique offset in tempo and pitch, just slightly enough to notice and make it feel like LPs on this player are each your ideal version of the song?

   • Embed this notice
     Tormod Halvorsen (airwhale@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 23:40:40 JST Tormod Halvorsen

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell
     • Wayne Myers

     @inthehands @conniptions @mekkaokereke

     Excellent clarifications Paul, the mixing and mastering are key to making good sounding audio. A vinyl master is different from a CD master or something optimized for FM radio.

     What I love with digital is the clarity, separation of instruments and dynamic range. Silence in music is the same as TV-nerds rave about as "true blacks", right?

     Lossless signal is important too, will make your Bluetooth buds sound better with only one conversion from source.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 23:40:40 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Wayne Myers
     • Tormod Halvorsen

     @airwhale @conniptions @mekkaokereke The irony high is that the dynamic range of digital is much higher — MUCH higher, insanely higher — if only people would master that way! There might be reasonable concerns at 16 bits; I have some choir and orchestral recordings I’m sure losing quality to quantization when they get very soft. But with 24- and 32-but recording, there’s no excuse!

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 00:05:30 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Wayne Myers
     • elle mundy

     @exchgr @conniptions @mekkaokereke When I was younger and had better hearing, my right ear could hear up to 24 kHz. I could easily distinguish 48kHz from 44.1 in a blind test, and could pick out 96 kHz and 24-bit samples in blind tests •sometimes• (low bass in quiet sections, usually). And there are some good theoretical arguments for why that should be. But basically yes, CD quality is at the edge of human perception; 96x24 is comfortably beyond it.

   • Embed this notice
     elle mundy (exchgr@mastodon.world)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 00:05:31 JST elle mundy

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell
     • Wayne Myers

     @inthehands @conniptions @mekkaokereke and due to the fact that cd quality audio is outside the bounds of human hearing, we’ll never actually notice that quantization noise. 16-bit audio has a 96dB dynamic range (well enough to blow your eardrums out), and 44.1kHz accounts for nyquist-shannon at the maximum of human hearing plus a bit for the high pass rolloff at the top. audiophiles who claim otherwise are victims of pseudoscience and placebo marketing

   • Embed this notice
     elle mundy (exchgr@mastodon.world)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 00:05:32 JST elle mundy

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell
     • Wayne Myers

     @inthehands @conniptions @mekkaokereke yes, exactly this. listening to digital masters that weren’t subject to the loudness wars (for instance, mfsl) is a very good experience, often sounding as good or better than vinyl. streaming services’ lufs-based loudness leveling renders the loudness wars moot, and people listen in noise canceling headphones, so these days, music tends to be mastered with much less of that horrible compression

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 00:57:08 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Wayne Myers
     • Donnie Hyxos

     @macbraughton @conniptions @mekkaokereke Not really, because the quantization noise at CD quality is at the very edge of human perception, whereas the noise in the whole LP process is orders of magnitude larger.

   • Embed this notice
     Donnie Hyxos (macbraughton@infosec.exchange)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 00:57:10 JST Donnie Hyxos

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell
     • Wayne Myers

     @inthehands @conniptions @mekkaokereke could this mean that the physical production process itself introduces error that sounds better to the human ear because the randomness it introduces is more “natural” than the randomness that arises though purely digital processing?

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 00:58:33 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Wayne Myers
     • elle mundy
     • Bai Shen

     @baishen @exchgr @conniptions @mekkaokereke This is exactly right. And in a good space! Most people who spend thousands of dollars on speakers would be better off putting that money into acoustic treatment.

   • Embed this notice
     Bai Shen (baishen@mastodon.online)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 00:58:35 JST Bai Shen

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell
     • Wayne Myers
     • elle mundy

     @exchgr @inthehands @conniptions @mekkaokereke I can't speak to if there's a difference, but I think the fact that most people don't actively listen on good equipment in a quiet setting renders it fairly moot.

     That said, I prefer CD quality and lossless digital files so that at least I'm starting out at a good baseline even if I won't notice most of the time.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 01:13:45 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Wayne Myers
     • elle mundy

     @exchgr
     It’s controversial, but the argument is that our ears hear some transients in a way that’s not well modeled by raw frequency response, and thus much higher sample rates capture transient features that are still perceptible even if they exist in parts of the frequency domain that are not.

     Not sure how true that is, or if it’s well-researched, but it’s at least a credible hypothesis.

     @conniptions @mekkaokereke

   • Embed this notice
     elle mundy (exchgr@mastodon.world)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 01:13:46 JST elle mundy

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell
     • Wayne Myers

     @inthehands @conniptions @mekkaokereke i can understand 48, but what’s the argument for 96?

   • Embed this notice
     Paul_IPv6 (paul_ipv6@infosec.exchange)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 01:14:25 JST Paul_IPv6

     in reply to

     • Julie Webgirl
     • Paul Cantrell
     • Wayne Myers

     @juliewebgirl @inthehands @conniptions @mekkaokereke

     audio engineers have learned a lot and the new software and remastering stuff are incredible.

     the original master tapes really did capture a bunch of stuff that didn't make it to the records/cds we originally bought.

     definitely worth getting some of them.

   • Embed this notice
     Julie Webgirl (juliewebgirl@mstdn.social)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 01:14:26 JST Julie Webgirl

     in reply to

     • Paul_IPv6
     • Paul Cantrell
     • Wayne Myers

     @paul_ipv6
     @inthehands @conniptions @mekkaokereke

     Reminds me of the time a local record store owner had the new remastered Elton John CD (by Gus Dudgeon, the producer (god) of the original vinyl album) 11-17-70. Record store guy told me, (I was heavily collecting Elton at the time) that I *had* to get it. I told him the unremastered CD could not be improved upon. Thought he just wanted the sale. Much back and forth and I finally bought it.

     1/2

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 01:16:26 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Julie Webgirl
     • Paul_IPv6
     • Wayne Myers

     @paul_ipv6 @juliewebgirl @conniptions @mekkaokereke
     It really does come down to the skill, taste, and constraints of the people mixing and mastering — far more than the medium or the tools, I think.

     One of the best audio engineers I’ve ever known (http://www.mikeolsonmusic.com) has always been curiously uninterested in the latest shiny tech for exactly this reason, and I have to say, the results he gets suggest he’s correct.

   • Embed this notice
     Denis (constantorbit@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 01:18:50 JST Denis

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell
     • Wayne Myers
     • Tormod Halvorsen

     @inthehands @airwhale @conniptions @mekkaokereke this is such an interesting thread! ??

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 01:26:47 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Julie Webgirl
     • Paul_IPv6
     • Wayne Myers

     @juliewebgirl @paul_ipv6 @conniptions @mekkaokereke There is no deeper rabbit hole!

   • Embed this notice
     Julie Webgirl (juliewebgirl@mstdn.social)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 01:26:48 JST Julie Webgirl

     in reply to

     • Paul_IPv6
     • Paul Cantrell
     • Wayne Myers

     @paul_ipv6
     @inthehands @conniptions @mekkaokereke

     For sure. Especially when remastering your own stuff. lol

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 01:27:05 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • elle mundy

     @exchgr Me too!!

   • Embed this notice
     elle mundy (exchgr@mastodon.world)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 01:27:06 JST elle mundy

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell
     • Wayne Myers

     @inthehands @conniptions @mekkaokereke i would love to see some listening test data on this if it exists

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 01:28:25 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Donnie Hyxos

     @macbraughton There is definitely something too this. It may be innate psychoacoustics, and it may be cultural: LP distortion is nostalgic!

   • Embed this notice
     Donnie Hyxos (macbraughton@infosec.exchange)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 01:28:27 JST Donnie Hyxos

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell

     @inthehands maybe that is exactly why it sounds better, because the way our brains percieve the sound is “smoothed out” by the audible noise in a way that is missing with the digital? i don’t know, obviously something is going on here on the perception level of our senses that isn’t easily explainable from a reductive viewpoint regarding fidelity.

     many people describe the difference is “something missing” in the digital version, sounds a lot of wha it’s missing is the noise to me

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 01:33:14 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Gen X-Wing
     • Wayne Myers
     • Rufus J. Cooter

     @breadbin @RufusJCooter @conniptions @mekkaokereke I believe it was Reierson who said to me that compression is like salt: a sprinkle in the right place can make everything better, but too much and it’s the only thing you can taste.

   • Embed this notice
     Gen X-Wing (breadbin@bitbang.social)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 01:33:15 JST Gen X-Wing

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell
     • Wayne Myers
     • Rufus J. Cooter

     @RufusJCooter @inthehands @conniptions @mekkaokereke To be fair, Paranoid was written and recorded in something like half an hour (according to legend) :)

     Doesn’t invalidate your point as such though. Overly compressed music is just a big fatigue on your ears:(

   • Embed this notice
     Rufus J. Cooter (rufusjcooter@mstdn.social)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 01:33:16 JST Rufus J. Cooter

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell
     • Gen X-Wing
     • Wayne Myers

     @breadbin @inthehands @conniptions @mekkaokereke The tragedy of it is, it doesn't have to be like this!

     First of all, the Loudness War was won, decisively, by Prince, in 1995, when he was then the Artist Formerly Known As Prince, and he released The Gold Experience. Still the "loudest", and best orchestrated, best mixed, best mastered, recording that I own. (SRSLY! Listen to it side-by-side w/, say, Paranoid, by Black Sabbath. Man knew what he was doing.)

   • Embed this notice
     Gen X-Wing (breadbin@bitbang.social)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 01:33:17 JST Gen X-Wing

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell
     • Wayne Myers

     @inthehands @conniptions @mekkaokereke Oh the loudness war just pains me. The lack of *dynamics* is just not fun. Even for stuff like punk or extreme metal. Snare drums just sounds muffled for instance.

     And I do not have any impressive listening skills at all.

     A friend in college had a great sound system. He basically told me that now the issue was to find any music that wasn’t mastered bad so his system didn’t sound bad.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 02:08:52 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Wayne Myers
     • elle mundy

     @exchgr @conniptions @mekkaokereke The argument is that process error accumulates: reduction at every individual processing step introduces more cumulative error than computing at higher precision and then reducing at the end — just like rounding floats to int and then summing ≠ summing floats and then rounding to int.

     This is trivially true for bit depth, and almost certainly true for sample rate.

   • Embed this notice
     elle mundy (exchgr@mastodon.world)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 02:08:53 JST elle mundy

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell
     • Wayne Myers

     @conniptions @inthehands @mekkaokereke yeah, i think that’s not really true. when sampling, it goes through a low-pass filter that discards frequencies above something slightly lower than half the sample rate. i think the same is true for downsampling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz#Human_hearing_and_signal_processing

   • Embed this notice
     Wayne Myers (conniptions@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 02:08:54 JST Wayne Myers

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell
     • elle mundy

     @exchgr @inthehands @mekkaokereke I believe the idea is if you record at 96, mixing and processing there brings things into the perceptible range which remain present when downsampled later on, giving a fuller and richer sound than if you just started at 48/44.1. Not sure how true that is.

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 02:31:39 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • Wayne Myers
     • elle mundy

     @exchgr @conniptions Yes, exactly. DAWs these days even use 64-bit floats in their internal busses, which is probably overkill, but why not? But certainly having source recording at a quality that far exceeds human perception is a reasonable precaution.

   • Embed this notice
     elle mundy (exchgr@mastodon.world)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 02:31:40 JST elle mundy

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell
     • Wayne Myers

     @inthehands @conniptions @mekkaokereke just so i understand what you’re saying, for instance: 24/96 would be useful for mixing and mastering, and then only at the final bounce step would it be wise to bounce to 16/44.1? i would tend to agree, since in the daw, one is constantly fiddling with levels, effects, panning, and even slowing/speeding, operations that would require higher precision than the end listener

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 04:26:46 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • elle mundy

     @exchgr There’s a very solid case for 48 kHz, and also a solid case for 24-bit just for high-dynamic-range (e.g. classical) music. There •might• be a case for 96 kHz for listeners with young ears on high-end equipment. Beyond that, I agree.

   • Embed this notice
     elle mundy (exchgr@mastodon.world)'s status on Sunday, 02-Apr-2023 04:26:47 JST elle mundy

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell
     • Wayne Myers

     @inthehands @conniptions @mekkaokereke yep, that makes a lot of sense. but i think distributing the end result at anything higher than approximately cd quality is just kind of a waste of bandwidth

   • Embed this notice
     Jon Hendry (jonhendry@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 03-Apr-2023 12:26:17 JST Jon Hendry

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell
     • Wayne Myers

     @inthehands @conniptions @mekkaokereke

     How early?

     I’ve long thought the Invisible Touch album by Genesis was, in addition to generally being a war crime, ear-shreddingly shrill.