If you think stereo mixes are gimmicky, than we just have very different views on audio engineering and mixing. Which is fine, but no examples I would come up with are going to change your mind, that's for sure. If I were to throw something out there anyway, I'd say Storm Corrosion on Blu Ray, or Anathema - We're here because we're here on DVD-A.
If I am understanding you correctly, most of this could be done by recording with a soundfield microphone, which essentially records spatial information in 360° but is saved to only 4 channels. Making use of phase, and an omnidirectional channel, you can pretty accurately recreate an amazing number of microphone setups that never actually existed in the studio. So if the listening equipment was outfitted with a B-Format decoder, it could decode those 4 channels depending on user preference, or on speaker count or headphones. Of course this would likely result in some really unpredictable listening experiences.
I think you're misconstruing. What I mean is that for a lot of those recordings they're not putting the band together in a room and then putting up stereo mics and recording it. They're taking the individual channels from each and then mixing them into a stereo image. A lot of the specifically stereo stuff was actually fairly gimmicky early on as they played with panning sounds to different speakers. They even messed with 4 channels back in the 70s didn't they? Over time it became less about the specific panning and they worked on better ways of presenting the sound image they wanted. In my experience (fairly limited admittedly), surround is in the same stage, its about exploiting the surround panning/location more than it is about using it to present a nuanced coherent soundfield. I just don't feel like surround is that necessary. Maybe it can be, but to me, I think you can achieve that with just two speakers, and you end up with better sound by focusing costs on 2 higher quality speakers than several lesser ones.
Yeah something like that. I was more kinda thinking in terms of how games do positional audio, they place a sound channel and then apply various processing to adjust the sound as you hear it. The recording could feature placement based on how they want it to sound, but then maybe give you some control over it (kinda like how there's different room size effects you can make a lot of modern equipment change the sound, but this would have the data to be able to be more exact in how it would produce everything, and might would enable other features, like isolating single instruments and that sort of thing). With modern computing we could then adjust that. Or for live recordings you could setup several "dummies" so that a person could "change their seat".
To me, instead of making a recording with a set number of channels, it should have more generic information that our modern computing systems can then manage, such that if you have 1 or 1000 speakers, your system would adjust to provide the best listening experience it can. This way we don't get stuck with stuff like the home theater race (2 channels! wait 4, no 5.1, no 7.1, no 7.2, 9.2, 11.x and so on), and it would have benefits for headphone users as well.
Well shit, you opened a can of worms with that one.
And yes, film is, in fact, still better than digital. Sorry to disappoint.
You can make a cleaner image with digital, and many will be happy with the noise-free clarity of digital. But in the end, you MUST CORRECT digital to produce an image we want to see. You must artificially sharpen the image by adjusting micro-contrast, and you typically need to bump up the total dynamic range in post-production or it will feel too flat.
The very nature of how digital sensors capture light data, as we have it today, makes this the fact that it is.
Yes,
film still undergoes post-production, too; these days there are certain aspects of visual trickery we still demand in the final product.
Quality film stock is unreal in its range, color production, and sharpness. There is a reason many directors still use film and just secured production contracts with Kodak to ensure film sticks around awhile yet, and for the most part, it is not because of film grain; although film grain actually does help, I'll ignore that point because grain and noise and the entire concept of film is not for this thread.
It is? I thought 8K was considered the point where film transfer to digital was indiscernible from the original. Granted, the end user doesn't get 8K so maybe that's your point. But we're getting there and its something achievable, which I think is the point. Or maybe you mean how a lot of film isn't shot at that level yet? I guess yeah I'd agree with you.
The thing is you mark those as negatives (the correction stuff), but I actually think that's one of the reasons digital is positive, you can adjust it better without harming the original, and it should make calibration and consistency easier. Plus it could allow them to adjust them on the fly (take information from the display being used and adjust the color space, and things like that).
And there's the point. Hasn't film almost always undergone processing (Kinda like the argument about vinyl being the true analog when its actually processed?)? Unfortunately quite a few film theaters I've been in have been lousy too, dirty screens, poorly focused projectors, and various other issues that have made them less than ideal viewing experiences.
I listen to whatever the hell I want. What does that have to do with anything?
No, YOU'RE the one who said that "99.9" people can't tell the difference and they've been able to prove it from testing. Post links to these tests or shut up.
Which has jack shit to do with AAC or vinyl and has no relevance to this thread.
I'm not watching an hour long video because you're too lazy to find your sources. You're making nothing but very generalized claims that have nothing to do with the matter at hand. Congrats on going to Wikipedia University but try to stay on topic.
Because it kinda matters as far as you knowing what you're talking about. Hell you can't even seem to keep your own argument straight. You say pop music is like we said (telling someone to avoid it), while also claiming plenty of it is fine and acting like it clearly has nothing to do with that why your record sounds so much better. I'm saying that's not true that it is such a widespread issue that I can all but guarantee that its the biggest issue with regards to the sound quality of your AAC files (although there could definitely be other ones, but since you weren't willing to offer where your files came from or what equipment you were listening on, we only had to go with the most likely culprit: shitty modern mastering).
Again, you made the claim first that you could. No, I don't think I will shut up, and until you put up you can take your own advice.
Oh and holy shit actually, you even claimed:
I can definitely tell the difference between 256k MP3 and 320k.
But hell, I'll still be nice and would accept you being able to prove between 256k and lossless.
You also seem to be struggling with the fact that one of the tests I was talking about I already linked to. I didn't say tests specifically about lossy versus lossless, but the golden ear audiophile claims in general (so stuff like cable differences, and a host of others, many of which were touched on in that video I linked to which is exactly why I linked to it...), of which I have yet to see anyone consistently prove they can tell a difference in a thorough study.
Its exactly what I was talking about. I can't help if you can't comprehend that I wasn't not speaking specifically about lossy versus lossless tests, even after I clarified exactly that for you.
Here, I'll even go back and post again what I originally said:
If I'm not mistaken, they've even been able to prove for some tests that humans literally could not discern a difference as our ears are not capable of it.
I didn't specifiy what tests, and I was talking about the one I linked to dealing with frequencies outside of human hearing (hence why I mentioned about "our ears not being capable of it", and why I clarified that).
Then why are you asking for links if you're just going to ignore them? They are exactly on topic. Matter on hand? For fuck's sake do you need to be given whitepapers on the specifications of this stuff? This shit is all known and yet you just keep claiming that you hear it yourself so that somehow makes it 100% factual while refusing to actually back up your claims with anything at all. All you've done is spout opinions with literally nothing at all to explain for support them (while complaining that I do...and then asking for more while telling me you're ignoring the ones I provided; goddamn do you even listen to yourself?). Do I need to just quote all of my posts so that maybe you'll actually read all of them?
I already explained why the vinyl would sound better. You have yet to tell what you were listening on and I have a pretty good hunch is a big part of the issue, mixed with hearing a good old recording compared to AACs of modern versions.
Its like you think I'm disagreeing with the fact that a vinyl record could be better sounding than your collection of AAC. I'm not, at all, and have already given reasons why, and why you ignoring them (and your other claim) just makes you sound like the typical full of shit golden eared audiophile when there's an easy explanation for it.
Or, how about you provide...jack shit of anything to back up your claims? Tell us what you listened to each on (can make a big difference like I said in my first reply in this thread). Tell us what music you were listening to (you can fathom that different musical styles/genres might sound considerably different, and aim for relatively different general frequency responses, right?), or provide any proof for your excellent hearing.
Facebook
Twitter