[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] CD vs. CDRs



I don't know if anyone will value my comments. I'm one of those people
who always finds it perhaps most useful to devote some time to think
about what both relevant and not being said in a given context. 

Maybe I'm getting a false impression but one subtext no one wants to
really say is if I  hypothetically got my material mastered by a third
party and manufactured with the extra effort that entails, I don't
really want to have my work competing for people's attention spans
against a plentiful supply of DIY CD-R product.

No I can't agree with this myself but I see the most valid point here is
rather tangentially connected to the medium of delivery. The supporters
saying the CD is the superior of the two definitely have one hard to
attack point. The process of manufacture most definitely affirms someone
is confident about the work being manufactured... one could argue
exactly what is causing this confidence and if its an artistically valid
confidence but some kind of confidence is there.

To look at other people's arguments focusing on media life span, format
longevity, error rates and then imho "digital voodoo" like sounding
"thicker". In the former there are definitely some underlying truths,
but how much of these issues are really just fishing for any quasi valid
edge to ones argument where some imho primary issues I'm mentioning
above and below can be sidestepped.

Let me digress to a side topic a second. How would computer data on
CD-Rs work if they were that unreliable and chuck full of errors. How
could you back up anything  We all know some percent fail. Better
burning apps can verify a data image for a disc is byte by byte
identical. Yes, one can bring up the argument that since the material
composition is different, an audio CD player can in theory error correct
more or differently on a CD-R or in a few instances not play at all, but
what percent are we really talking about, these are real but rather
infrequent situations compared to some non-technical issues often sidestepped

I'm sure we all know how artistically satisfying the making of music is
to all of us on a personal basis. The thing that constantly strikes me
is the issue of is this work satisfying to others and in what
respect(s). Many think it's a given that the enthusiasm of the creative
process somehow rubs off the work onto others. I guess it can, but in no
way is it a given. 

I can think of lots of work I did that was a total thrill to make and
that I know darn well is nothing special to listen to. I'm not even
being overly critical or hard on myself, its just that I hope I have the
ability to judge what the work itself has going for it and appreciate
the making of process as it's own entity.   

I know its a pet peeve but some phrase along the lines of "I'm dropping
this new release" is very ironic or at least conceited if you think
about it in the creator vs. listener context.

> Agreed the trouble is not whether the label is CDR och CD.  But I have
> bought much more CDR:s with a very sloppy, harsh sound-quality than
> CD:s.  And this fact might give CDR-releases a bad name outside the
> most enthusiastic collectors. I dont know, just speculation here.

I guess its a case of responsibility. Are the people producing the CD-Rs
responsible enough to present a listening experience that does the
material justice. Is the person who takes the CD-R media as the criteria
for dismissing it unheard responsible for missing something good? The
answer to that would sort of be letting marketing and money be a layer
of filter to determine what gets listened to.  

> It's probably just me that is overly sensitive about this but I really
> enjoy a good quality recording which effortlessly presents different
> layers/strands of the music.

I think there is a connection to to what fulfills a satisfying music
experience but that's another topic to itself.

> I am not talking about frequency responses or nerdy stuff, just
> choosing good sounding equipment and a little know-how on mixing,
> mastering and psychoacoustics.  Of course there will always be special
> events/moments that will shine even through the high information loss
> of a bad-sounding release but in general there is no excuse to make it
> iunnecessarily hard to appreciate the music.

I'm sure some people are so concerned with just getting music out there
that these considerations are bypassed! To my mind there can be a good
or bad side to this. One is a kind of "don't mess with me I'm a genius".
But the other one that I can definitely understand is  a hopefully
productive asking for help. If there is a spark of excellence in flawed
work it still should be spottable and the person very well doing the
spotting might be the ideal person to help in some regard.

Regarding design and packaging. It's a factor that augments ones opinion
of a work. On the other hand one has to think of it in context. If the
music is to be considered as one of many elements in commercial product
then packaging must come to play if one chooses to critique the whole
product. But I have a bit of an artistic worry too. I think its simply
critically weak to start elevating presentation to the level of the
primary content as long as it is just that. There might be parallels to
the engineering and mastering though one has to distance it a lot more
because one can have recorded music in at least some contexts without
packaging while one can't have recorded music without a recording ;-)

> rb> Since we are on the topic of sound quality and production, I was
> rb> wondering if anybody has some really lo-fi releases to recommend,
> rb> releases that really capitalize off of 'shitty' sound quality and
> rb> some of the cheapest resources.

It's a bit of a paradox because if it works well then its only low
fidelity in comparison to something else that the fidelity in question
would not be appropriate to. The successful work in low-fi would
actually be in appropriate fidelity would it not :-) 

> I mean, yeah, mastering can really 
> sweeten the sound (though, I find it hard to believe that there are many 
> -- if any -- mastering engineers out there that would have a clue what 
> to do with microsound or idm).

Very good point. What are the criteria in so called professional
mastering if the content isn't typical. What is the point of reference?
I just say its not doing the material a disservice and  further
enhancing some chosen aspects. But I'd think the number of decisions are
compounded compared to a typical genre as the music's contents are
almost by definition not composed of typical elements and unless someone
wants to closely emulate someone else's successful work, there isn't
going to be a history of material to directly reference

nicholas d. kent

------------------------------