Mike Shinoda, alongside the likes of Slash, Dan the Automator, and many more will be featured in a new documentary entitled The Distortion of Sound. The documentary is centered on the different ways in which we all listen to music. The movie is set to premiere online on July 11th. According to the website: Up until this point, two clips from the documentary featuring Mike have been released. In the first clip, Mike discusses the intention of artists - specifically addressing his concerns with how audio products are focused on making a fashion statement rather than providing a quality listening experience. You can watch this clip below. [video=youtube;1M4xX-StvZ8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M4xX-StvZ8[/video] In the second clip (shown below), Mike discusses the value of listening to music together - specifically alluding to the LIVING THINGS Listening Party that took place during that album cycle. [video=youtube;cchFnI_cpqU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cchFnI_cpqU[/video] You can also check out a trailer for the film here, which features Linkin Park's "Holding Company." The 2011 LIVING THINGS demo is the third track on the LP Underground XIII CD. Would you agree with Mike's thoughts? Do you plan on viewing the documentary on the 11th? Come and discuss in our forums! Source: Distortion of Sound via The Joesen One and MKH
This post is sponsored by HARMAN® - Premium audio and entertainment for automotive, home, and professional. Speakers, amplifiers, headphones, microphones, home theater and personal audio.
They aren't wrong though, regardless of it being sponsored. If you use beats then you're one of the people they are talking about.
I have nothing in my house capable of playing music at it's best possible quality, and a lot of LP's recent songs are compressed and terribly mixed anyway.
saaaay whaaaat? I didn't find it to be "awful." I actually thought it was quite good. Are you confusing THP with Living Things?
I think that, at least to a certain degree, this statement could be considered erroneous. There are moments on The Hunting Party where certain elements included within the production might be subjectively considered quieter or louder, more background or more prominent as compared to other elements than an individual listener may have otherwise desired, but therein lies the issue: Subjectivity. I do often prefer mixes that sound modern, clear, up front, punchy and sometimes straddle the razor's edge right before "over-produced", but Linkin Park isn't a hands-off kind of band. Chances are the mixes sound how the band subjectively wanted them to. It isn't to say that a given listener might not have an opposing preference, but there's plenty of tracks by bands like Tool (as an off-the-cuff example) where the vocals are mixed decidedly quiet during a section on purpose because that's how the band wanted it. It can't be objectively judged as bad because the band wanted an early nineties (maybe even grunge-era) -like mix. Once in a while I listen to a record that I think I could have mixed better than the mixing engineer who did it, but that tends not to include mixes where there is reason to believe the artist intended it to sound how it sounds. Generally speaking it involves mixes that sound really disconnected, or where something was edited terribly, or where I can tell, based on expertise, that things were done wrong, not differently than I would, just wrong. Which brings me to the larger point: TL : DR: While I don't think THP's mixing is objectively bad so much as subjectively different or garage-y: this documentary looks like it has absolutely nothing to do with mixing or the whole "loudness war" thing. I'm pretty sure its focus is on the fact that MP3 files all sound like crap (even 320kbps) when compared to .wav or flac, and about the fact that younger generations don't seem to care about the terrible quality of the MP3 format, the fact that ipod earbuds sound like white-noise through a dog whistle and Beats sound like the trunk of a tuner's car (awful), or that what they're experiencing is most often not analogous to what the artist believes they created. It lacks the depth, punch, width, clarity, dynamics, warmth, and often times the feel that the original finished product posses. It's about the compression of data (bits), not the compression of audio (decibels).
An amazing point raised here is that when an album is made the band knows how its supposed to sound like but when they listen to it how their fans listen to it i.e youtube/ youtube download mp3 conversions the little things they add to the song and they work possibly the hardest on are not heard or its muffled up with the rest of the mix. and i think thats what the disappointing thing is for artists.
#9Paragraphs I'm also assuming it's to do with data compression AKA file formats. Still doesn't mean that The Hunting Party's shitty mix will be saved by lossless compression.
I think one major issue is storage. As in storage on mobile devices. Who has enough space, to cram all of their music, in a lossless format? If I could fit it all on my iPod, I would rip every single one of my CDs at lossless. Instead, I have to be choosey with which albums I do it with, since I only have 57.2 GB capacity. I realize there are devices with higher storage capacity, but I imagine the average person, has only 32-64GB.
I think what the market is missing right now, and what would resolve the "size vs quality" issue, is a lossless format with a small file size. Right now, by default FLAC files average 25-40MB a song, which unfortunately is too big for most portable music players. When you combine that with the fact that most 'cheap' headphones that come with said players totally destroy the overall sound of the music, you discover the problem that exists with music downloads today. Despite advancements in technology, sound engineers still haven't developed a format that is lossless with a tiny file size, and that astounds me. We now have cellphones that have more computing and processing power than the computers that sent astronauts to the moon, yet we can't figure out a way to get 'lossless quality audio' in an mp3 file size. Maybe I'm being ignorant here, but surely there must be a way?
Yeah, and it doesn't help that most "deluxe" or "luxury" high priced earphones are designer earphones which advertise great sound, but in reality are super bass heavy and not really that great for a true audiophile (here's looking at you "Beats").
When Mike was talking about those fashion-ish audio products, Beats came to mind.. And, I remember in one of the LPTV episodes Chester is wearing a pair of white Beats Studio...lol
A very interesting and important theme, but if it's important for them, why for example Lockjaw came out in mp3 160kbps?! and the others... but the guys really cares about the quality in the studio, but the end of the process is a cd quality which is far from a DVD or vinyl etc.
I think I've actually seen a band member using beats headphones somewhere... But I don't remember properly. Edit: Oh Starkinator already mentioned it... At least I know now that I was remembering right. Edit2: @Topic: I'm regulary using 35$ circumaural headphones to listen to my music and I am considering them to have good sound quality. Though I probably never heard music through thousands-of-dollars-speakers... I know that cheap speakers or poor quality ruin songs - for example I hate listening to music with simple, cheap earphones or notebook speakers. But on the other hand I can't really make a difference between my flacs on the PC and my MP3s on my phone while using my headphones. But I like the quality of my headphones. I can hear many details and no distortions or missing sounds or something like that. I guess I just don't know the "real shit" We have to always remember the deep wisdom of Lupe Fiasco: "Ya know I'm sayin'? The seven thousand dolla headphones for this one here"!