Baloney Balderdash Posted March 22 Posted March 22 (edited) On 21/03/2025 at 18:56, Velarian said: Except that’s not a live recording, as evidenced by Jet stood up at the back not putting much effort into the drums. I’m pretty sure that’s the album recording. It’s still awesome though. Expand Well, it might not be live, but it definitely doesn't sound like the album version either. Edited March 22 by Baloney Balderdash Quote
Velarian Posted March 22 Posted March 22 On 22/03/2025 at 15:09, Baloney Balderdash said: Well, it might not be live, but it definitely doesn't sound like the album version either. Expand I did a quick A/B comparison between both versions and the phrasing and tone seemed to be the same to me. However, the YouTube version compared to a lossless version totally lacked both range and dynamics. Maybe YouTube’s processing rips the guts out of everything which may account for any perceived difference? Quote
Cosmo Valdemar Posted March 22 Posted March 22 On 22/03/2025 at 15:09, Baloney Balderdash said: Well, it might not be live, but it definitely doesn't sound like the album version either. Expand Sounds like typical TOTP, live vocal over the studio recording. Quote
Baloney Balderdash Posted March 22 Posted March 22 (edited) On 22/03/2025 at 15:26, Cosmo Valdemar said: Sounds like typical TOTP, live vocal over the studio recording. Expand The bass doesn't sound like the album version either, it is much more raw sounding. Try actually listening to the two side by side. Edited March 22 by Baloney Balderdash Quote
Velarian Posted March 22 Posted March 22 On 22/03/2025 at 15:26, Cosmo Valdemar said: Sounds like typical TOTP, live vocal over the studio recording. Expand Good point. Actually, thinking about it the YouTube version with its own processing on top of the BBC’s own emasculation of broadcast sound and probably a poor video copy to boot has a huge impact. I’ve often thought that the BBC tames rock music down too much. A good example of this is the theme tune to Have I Got News for You; no balls at all. Quote
Baloney Balderdash Posted March 22 Posted March 22 (edited) Maybe I just like the sound of old VHS tape rips then. You know that is actually a desirable effect nowadays, VHS quality. Or was at least a few years back. Edited March 22 by Baloney Balderdash 1 Quote
PaulWarning Posted March 22 Posted March 22 didn't TOTP's make the artist do a recording of the song earlier to mime too? I know the stories about some managers swapped that tape for the actual studio recorded one, maybe the Stranglers didn't 1 Quote
Leonard Smalls Posted March 22 Posted March 22 On 22/03/2025 at 15:23, Velarian said: the YouTube version compared to a lossless version totally lacked both range and dynamics Expand With you tube being a streaming service, they tend to normalise all audio to a perceived loudness of -14 or -16 LUFS - i.e. it gets multiband audio and digital compression so it'll never sound as good as a lossless version. Though as most folks don't listen back on decent kit they'd never know the difference. On 22/03/2025 at 15:34, Velarian said: the BBC’s own emasculation of broadcast sound Expand Not sure what this means! Back in the days of NICAM I used to take mixes home to check for rumble missed by the Rogers LS5/8 monitors they used to use... Nowadays all TV is delivered as part of a AS11 DPP file with the audio component being a 16bit wav at 48kHz, bandwidth 20-20kHz with a max true peak of -1dBTP, and max perceived loudness of -23LUFS so in theory pretty high quality, and they use Harbeth 40s which are far better. It was true that in the days of live TOTP'n'all that there was a breed of studio sound mixer (I was post production) who didn't believe in enhancing in any way, it was basically as it came, warts and all, not even reverb on vox - later trainee intakes emphasised creativity over engineering and scientific knowledge, so things have got better! However, with BBC training having disappeared largely all they have to go on is required tech specs.Radio ones here, but they're basically the same as for TV, https://www.readkong.com/page/audio-quality-information-standards-for-4418233 1 Quote
Velarian Posted March 22 Posted March 22 On 22/03/2025 at 16:05, Leonard Smalls said: With you tube being a streaming service, they tend to normalise all audio to a perceived loudness of -14 or -16 LUFS - i.e. it gets multiband audio and digital compression so it'll never sound as good as a lossless version. Though as most folks don't listen back on decent kit they'd never know the difference. Not sure what this means! Back in the days of NICAM I used to take mixes home to check for rumble missed by the Rogers LS5/8 monitors they used to use... Nowadays all TV is delivered as part of a AS11 DPP file with the audio component being a 16bit wav at 48kHz, bandwidth 20-20kHz with a max true peak of -1dBTP, and max perceived loudness of -23LUFS so in theory pretty high quality, and they use Harbeth 40s which are far better. It was true that in the days of live TOTP'n'all that there was a breed of studio sound mixer (I was post production) who didn't believe in enhancing in any way, it was basically as it came, warts and all, not even reverb on vox - later trainee intakes emphasised creativity over engineering and scientific knowledge, so things have got better! However, with BBC training having disappeared largely all they have to go on is required tech specs.Radio ones here, but they're basically the same as for TV, https://www.readkong.com/page/audio-quality-information-standards-for-4418233 Expand Interesting, thanks. I’ll have a proper read later. This could probably be a subject for its own thread so I won’t derail it any further. Quote
Cosmo Valdemar Posted March 22 Posted March 22 On 22/03/2025 at 15:55, PaulWarning said: didn't TOTP's make the artist do a recording of the song earlier to mime too? I know the stories about some managers swapped that tape for the actual studio recorded one, maybe the Stranglers didn't Expand Them's were the rules, yes... they weren't strictly followed though 😆 Quote
Cosmo Valdemar Posted March 22 Posted March 22 On 22/03/2025 at 15:33, Baloney Balderdash said: The bass doesn't sound like the album version either, it is much more raw sounding. Tyr actually listening to the two side by side. Expand It sounds the same to me. Quote
Stub Mandrel Posted March 22 Posted March 22 Well, I'm inspired to wear this t-shirt fr tonight's gig. 1 Quote
Cosmo Valdemar Posted 14 hours ago Posted 14 hours ago https://www.loudersound.com/features/the-stranglers-prog?fbclid=IwY2xjawJVR5dleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHUUnz0fc5-bWvuEJL0A7s0UhB1YMG7S9nRoLUnMZVjLbGHVdfMHrTmvSVQ_aem_Kq4_M0qsOVXITK5L8pFNmg 1 1 Quote
Beedster Posted 5 hours ago Author Posted 5 hours ago 14 hours ago, Cosmo Valdemar said: https://www.loudersound.com/features/the-stranglers-prog?fbclid=IwY2xjawJVR5dleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHUUnz0fc5-bWvuEJL0A7s0UhB1YMG7S9nRoLUnMZVjLbGHVdfMHrTmvSVQ_aem_Kq4_M0qsOVXITK5L8pFNmg Expand On 20/09/2022 at 07:08, Beedster said: And wow I'd forgotten just how bloody amazing they were, and how prog they were (certainly far more prog than the punk label they had in '77/78 would suggest). Elements of Squire bass tone and Emerson keyboards? Expand Yep, I'm sincerely hoping that my album band is going to do Rattus Norvegicus, and if so, I'm gonna play a Ric Only joking, but what I'd really hope to be able to do is to play the album in a way that the prog-esque technical and structural complexity comes through, as opposed to how I've seen Stranglers songs such as No More Heroes, Peaches etc played by many covers bands which more often than not makes them sound like Sham 69. 3 Quote
.jpg.518c69c2d9e1581799f3c11301dc2da5.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.