[iamivancb]

Just curious to see if you guys can let me clarify this unquestioned thread. If nobody doesn't speak Spanish here, please let me know to translate what's more important on the whole thread. Link: https://www.auriculares-hifi.com/foro/index.php?topic=17307.0

 

[gregorio]

Professional artists wouldn’t record their masters in MP3 format (only). “Bedroom artists” only distributing to certain free streaming platforms probably would but not professional artists using professional mastering engineers.

I can’t really understand the thread but at a guess I would say they’re probably misreading the spectrograms. Depending on the type of music, what instruments are involved and how it’s recorded, there might simply be little HF content to start with. In some recordings there can be relatively little above about 7kHz!

G

 

[iamivancb]

Professional artists wouldn’t record their masters in MP3 format (only). “Bedroom artists” only distributing to certain free streaming platforms probably would but not professional artists using professional mastering engineers.

I can’t really understand the thread but at a guess I would say they’re probably misreading the spectrograms. Depending on the type of music, what instruments are involved and how it’s recorded, there might simply be little HF content to start with. In some recordings there can be relatively little above about 7kHz!

G

What, just up to 7kHz in 21st century? I lay here my translation of my post that opened the thread:

I don't know if this is the right place for this discussion. But ever since I got into this world I've realised that there are several recordings that, yes or yes, look extremely rare. I even had the luxury of physically buying Anglagard's Hybris (a record that never comes cheap, let alone vinyl) and the spectrum always looks like this: (image). I asked an audio engineer and he said it was because Discogs wasn't a reliable site, that it had to be the band's official one -which I can't find-.

Apart from countless albums with spectrograms that don't reach 22 kHz, both older and more recent (I guess to remove the dither layer in the mastering), here are a couple of other examples that are not the most "logical": (Toxik & Jared Dines images)

I even got one musician to confess that his recordings were of dubious quality - I'll withhold the name for privacy reasons from the poor guy - however, it doesn't enter my head being all of them modern mixes and, some of them, from mid-calibre/not necessarily ultra-underground bands.

Here's honesty, and a demonstration that a lot of quality music unfortunately doesn't have the necessary resources and vice versa: (image)

Images reuploaded:

Thank you for your time. Regards,

 

[71 dB]

What, just up to 7kHz in 21st century?

Well, gregorio said some recording have very little stuff above 7 kHz. Doesn't mean even these some recordings STOP at 7 kHz. The stuff above 10 kHz is not as important as people think. 10-20 kHz is just one octave, the highest octave humans can hear (when young). People over 30 years old shouldn't worry about frequencies over 17 kHz AT ALL. It is the 21st century, but human hearing isn't different from what it was in the past. Some things just don't matter. People just assume they do.

Apart from countless albums with spectrograms that don't reach 22 kHz

At 44.1 kHz spectrums aren't supposed to reach 22 kHz because anti-alias filters aren't infinitely sharp. Spectrums reach, if there is stuff up there, to 20-21 kHz depending on the anti-alias filter and that's enough.

 

[gregorio]

What, just up to 7kHz in 21st century?

I’m not sure what the 21st century has to do with it, we’ve been able to create recordings/masters cleanly up to 20kHz from the early 1980’s and had mic’s that captured cleanly up to 14kHz from the early 1950’s, although tape wasn’t ideal up there. And, I did not state “just up to 7kHz”, I said “relatively little above 7kHz”.

Look at the colour scale on the right Y axis! The red colour is where vast majority of the energy is, which is below 2kHz on all three of the examples. Yellow is -40dB to -50dB, 100 to 300 times lower in level. Green is -60dB to -70dB, which is 1,000 to 3,000 times lower in level and about the noise floor of many studio mics, while the blue colour represents around -100dB, 100,000 times below peak, around (or below) the theoretical limit of 16bit and is purely noise/distortion (from the mics, mic pre-amps or processing).

The spectrograms are not unusual for certain types of recording. Remember that the highest note of the highest pitched instruments even in an orchestra is around 4kHz, above that it’s just harmonics, noise or distortion. The only really significant amounts of energy we commonly find above 7kHz are from struck metallic percussion instruments but even then it depends on what mics were used, where they were placed and the processing applied.

Apart from countless albums with spectrograms that don't reach 22 kHz, both older and more recent (I guess to remove the dither layer in the mastering) …

You cannot remove the dither in mastering as the application of dither must always be the very last step of mastering and why would anyone even consider trying? There’s an almost infinite amount to consider within the audible range, so why would anyone limit their consideration within the audible range and instead waste it on things that cannot be audible? The only reason I can think of, would be some bedroom producers/engineers who don’t know what they’re doing and are going on some audiophile myths they’ve read/seen somewhere.

I even got one musician to confess that his recordings were of dubious quality

That’s always been the case with unsigned/underground bands/musicians. It’s true to a significant degree even of signed artists today! From the 1980’s onwards consumers became used to the extremely high quality distribution medium of CD and all the top artists spending many months (sometimes over a year) creating recordings in the top studios with the best engineers and equipment, which became common even from the late 1960’s. Consumers don’t want that anymore, what they want is recordings that cost a few cents a track or nothing at all. With such low revenues, there’s no financial justification for spending large amounts of money hiring the best studios/engineers for many months on end. In fact many commercial studios have gone out of business and albums from the top artists typically use those facilities for weeks rather than many months.

Additionally, what is “good” vs “dubious” quality anyway? Thrash metal and similar sub-genres have their own rules, huge amounts of noise and distortion that would be horrifically bad in other genres are highly desirable in heavy/thrash genres, it’s supposed to sound “dirty”/“nasty”. Of course it’s entirely possible to sound dirty/nasty and be sophisticated/polished at the same time but that takes not only skill but knowledge/experience and the right equipment/facilities, which very few bands can afford even for a short time. The mixing on the example track is not sophisticated, it’s agricultural and indicative of somewhat inexperienced/amateurish mixing and production.

G

 

[Ryokan]

From the 1980’s onwards consumers became used to the extremely high quality distribution medium of CD and all the top artists spending many months (sometimes over a year) creating recordings in the top studios with the best engineers and equipment, which became common even from the late 1960’s. Consumers don’t want that anymore, what they want is recordings that cost a few cents a track or nothing at all. With such low revenues, there’s no financial justification for spending large amounts of money hiring the best studios/engineers for many months on end. In fact many commercial studios have gone out of business and albums from the top artists typically use those facilities for weeks rather than many months.

I know in metal some bands seek out certain producers as they're well regarded in the music industry.

Additionally, what is “good” vs “dubious” quality anyway? Thrash metal and similar sub-genres have their own rules, huge amounts of noise and distortion that would be horrifically bad in other genres are highly desirable in heavy/thrash genres, it’s supposed to sound “dirty”/“nasty”. Of course it’s entirely possible to sound dirty/nasty and be sophisticated/polished at the same time but that takes not only skill but knowledge/experience and the right equipment/facilities, which very few bands can afford even for a short time. The mixing on the example track is not sophisticated, it’s agricultural and indicative of somewhat inexperienced/amateurish mixing and production.

I've always found thrash to be generally well produced, tight, fast and clear. Other metal genres certainly have lo fi production to add to the atmosphere but not thrash.

 

[gregorio]

Even metallers want well produced music (some sub genre bands with small followings purposefully produce lo fi music which is expected) maybe it's more true for the latest pop music that is fashionable and has short lived appeal?

No, the vast majority of professional artists of any genre want well produced music. It’s not that the artists don’t want it (with the exception of some deliberately lo-fi/underground bands as you mentioned), it’s that the consumers don’t and therefore the artists (and labels) don’t have or won’t commit the financial resources to achieve it.

I've always found thrash to be generally well produced, tight, fast and clear. Other metal genres certainly have lo fi production to add to the atmosphere but not thrash.

I’ve heard a lot of poorly produced thrash, quite a lot that’s competently produced, only a small amount that’s well produced and I don’t recall any exceptionally well produced in recent years. However, I’m not a thrash aficionado and don’t listen to it much compared to other genres.

G

 

[Ryokan]

No, the vast majority of professional artists of any genre want well produced music. It’s not that the artists don’t want it (with the exception of some deliberately lo-fi/underground bands as you mentioned), it’s that the consumers don’t and therefore the artists (and labels) don’t have or won’t commit the financial resources to achieve it.

And yet there's been a resurgence in vinyl sales so many consumers are very much into their music and gear, be interesting to see the stats on what genres.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

Just curious to see if you guys can let me clarify this unquestioned thread. If nobody doesn't speak Spanish here, please let me know to translate what's more important on the whole thread. Link: https://www.auriculares-hifi.com/foro/index.php?topic=17307.0

Why do some people throw themselves off mountainsides?

There are too many dumb things in the world to wonder about

 

[Not so fat head]

I know in metal some bands seek out certain producers (Swano, Tagtgren, Chandler) as they're well regarded in the music industry. Even metallers want well produced music (some sub genre bands with small followings purposefully produce lo fi music which is expected) maybe it's more true for the latest pop music that is fashionable and has short lived appeal?



I've always found thrash to be generally well produced, tight, fast and clear. Other metal genres certainly have lo fi production to add to the atmosphere but not thrash.

IDK.. I listen to XM satellite's metal station a couple times a week, just to check it out... I rarely hear any well produced music, but I do like the Hammer of the gods, driving crazy riffs they come up with...

 

[gregorio]

And yet there's been a resurgence in vinyl sales so many consumers are very much into their music and gear,

A resurgence compared to what? Vinyl sold about 41m units and accounted for $1.2b revenue in 2021. In comparison, vinyl sales were <1m per year in the 1990’s so that is a big resurgence but on the other hand 140m records were sold in 1921 and just under 350m vinyl sales at the end of 1970’s, so not so much of a resurgence.

However, it’s not specifically about vinyl sales, artists and record labels invest in making new recordings based on the revenue/revenue potential they will earn and that’s where the picture is far less rosy. Total revenue for recording sales in 2021 in the US was $14.9b, in 1999 revenues just from CD sales was $21b and $23b in total (Statista). That’s a big drop but it’s even worse than the figures suggest because only $1.7b of that $14.9b was from physical media (vinyl and CD), the vast majority was from streaming. This is a problem because a large slice of that revenue goes to the streaming services rather than the artists/record labels and unlike the record labels, the streaming services do not invest any of their slice of the revenue in making new recordings. Worse still, according to MBW only 25.5% of that US revenue in 2021 was from new recordings, back catalogue recordings accounted for 74.5%. This is a trend going back several years, back in the 1990’s “hay day”, the vast majority of the revenue was from new recordings (although I cannot find exact figures).

Putting all the above together; the financial incentive for artists/labels to invest in making new recordings is just a fraction of what it was prior to the 2000’s, at a rough estimate no more than a quarter and possibly only a tenth and, it’s falling, not resurgent!

G

 

[Ryokan]

Worse still, according to MBW only 25.5% of that US revenue in 2021 was from new recordings, back catalogue recordings accounted for 74.5%.

So recording studios are struggling partly due to the fact sales are mostly for older music.

 

[gregorio]

So recording studios are struggling partly due to the fact sales are mostly for older music.

Partly “yes” but also due to the much lower revenue overall ($14.9b vs $23.7b) and that a very significant part of that $14.9b goes to the streaming service providers rather than back into the recording industry (artists/labels).

G

 

[Ryokan]

I buy music from Bandcamp which gives most of the money to the artist but read recently it's been bought out.
With regard to streaming services many prefer to listen to tracks from different artists rather than listen through a complete album, this way of listening must affect how much artists receive as 'algorithm's are skewed in not rewarding artists so much for use of individual tracks Vs an album?

 

[gregorio]

I buy music from Bandcamp which gives most of the money to the artist but read recently it's been bought out.

It was bought by Epic Games. I don’t know much about Bandcamp specifically, it’s a relatively small player. Other services quote quite high payments to artists but in reality they get minuscule amounts. There’s various ways the streaming services “game the figures”, gross royalty payments rather than net payment specially to the artist is common but there’s all sorts of tricks. Then of course you’ve got services like YouTube, where the income for artists is just ad revenue from views, rather than royalties.

G