imcarthur

Not a subject that I should get started on. The dumbing down of the sound quality of recordings is a topic that I have heard lamented by artists, mixing & mastering gurus & by equipment vendors. Dave Kutch (who was nominated for a Grammy for mastering Alicia Keys0 told me that the most important demand from the labels is for a louder mix. So it can win the iPod shuffle. That perceived loudness increase can be had by compressing the crap out of the dynamics. Cue . . . The Day the Music died, here. End of rant.

The weak link in the iPod (assuming you only use HQ songs with no compression = wav) is the DAC (digital to analogue converter). If you really want to hear your music at it's best, an outboard DAC can be added but it will undoubtedly cost more than the iPod.

Back to the topic . . .

Listening to both cables after a couple of days with break-in, will tell you which is best. But yes, Noel Lee (Mr Monster) is well know for his marketing savvy, not for the ultimate sound quality of his products.

Ian

Dale Gribble

Ian,
are the 32-bit DAC's that come in most alpine's and similar priced head-units any good or would there be an appreciable benifit to adding an external decoder

Christien

Interesting stuff, Ian. I think it's come full circle, though, in some respects, IMO. In my case, I'm a trained composer, which includes extensive work in digital audio. I've got as discerning an ear as most audiophiles.

Our 5-piece band went into the studio to record our first CD last year. The raw mix was pretty good - everything was nice and clear, guitars were powerful and forceful, without being overbearing. However when we went into post (I did the mastering), we all agreed it sounded much better. Most of what I did was compression - both multiband and overall, along with an overall maximizer. We all wanted to hear it sound "punchier", "meatier", etc. And this wasn't a label or anybody - this was our own ears, the artist. Even to me, the compressed mix sounded much better and more powerful than the raw mix (which did have compression on the bass and individual drum tracks).

For myself, pretty much any kind of rock music sounds better sweetened (any kind of classical always sounds better without - just the raw recording, with maybe a hint of reverb to warm it up). The only time I dislike it is the way radio/satellite adds their own compression, which is just crudely applied. Ironically, CBC radio 2 is the worst for it.

imcarthur

After rubbing shoulders with the pros (we sell Focal Pro studio monitors), there is compression & there is compression. Since I know diddly about the recording process (other than basics) I sat through several seminars at the drunken Pro show in New Orleans last May. I still know diddly but I was amazed at the way they used several compressors - tube & transistor - to pinch & squeeze & boost tiny segments of the mix. And they always improved it.

But after all of that, the labels then want them to pinch the whole mix to boost it's loudness. Think almost any pop record & it is there. A flatness in dynamics, a boost in the midbass & some top end splash. It makes the recording unlistenable on a good system.

Omar: the internal DACs are always cheap chipsets. External DACs with their own power supplies are better. We have one coming from Cambridge that should sound pretty sweet. I will get a sample in December & report. I did just get my sample iPod/computer speakers from Focal & they kick serious ***. I am buying the set & I NEVER buy hifi crap.

Ian

Christien

What do the Focal Pro studio monitors sell for? I've been using a set of Tannoys for years that, by consumer standards are wicked, but by pro audio standards are entry level.

imcarthur

I'll email you some stuff later, Chris.

I have to go put my car to bed now.

Ian