Hi orgers

I thought my SOOT copy was the only one with a terrible quality sound...

Now I just read another orger complaining about the same...

Does anybody know why this album, being so good, sounds so bad???

Wasn't there any technology at that time to give it a decent treatment????

Was it intentionally?

If so, why??

tritoncin said:

You probably need to dust all the ash off of it and get rid of all that "soot". Still "SOTT's" quality isn't that great either

.
[This message was edited Tue May 11 9:44:33 2004 by Universaluv]

Universaluv said:

you beat me to it.

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

You know I was typing real fast too

tritoncin said:

On CD It's just mastered real quiet. I've no idea why. It is his quietist album by far. Somebody back then needed firing.

Nothing wrong with my vinyl though, that sounds great.

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

Crap!! Ya beat me too.
Ah, what the hell:


Dang blasted SOOT!

i prefer the sound on TEG, though ATTWAD and CWICNPOOP are pretty decent to my ears.

Anxiety said:

I have three theories:

1) Little magical elves have invaded your disc, putting their magical little cookie crumbs on the information layer. This causes what is called "delamination," or "CD rot."

2) It was that damn sasquatch again.

3) It was a crappy, early CD produced in the Reagan adminstration, for fuck's sake.

The reason SOTT sounds like that (and its not that bad!) is because it was not mastered for cd... ever! It was mastered for pressing to vinyl, and the specs are different for that, and they sound good on vinyl after the physical process of making the record.

ufoclub said:

At last a real answer...

Thanx UFOCLUB!!

tritoncin said:

"At last a real answer?" Hey, don't dismiss the sasquatch!!!

The reason is that pre-Batman were all analog. From Batman on it was "AAD," or digitally mastered.

KingSausage said:

ok




Yeah, but even For You sounds better... The volume on SOOT is really low and it has some noticeable hiss...

sro100 said:

Well maybe someone went back and did ATWIAD and Parade over because they sound better but were released before SOTT. Even Lovesexy sounds better. I'm not complainin tho, I just crank it up!

It's an 18 year old cd.
Ever put new cd's in your player with old ones and hit random. You won't hear one song and the next will blast you out of your chair.
Maybe someday they'll remaster it.

ufoclub said:

That's the absolute truth you just spoke - the vinyl version of SOTT sounds fantastic, the CD sounds anemic.

tritoncin said:

It always worries me that even if people are corrected about something they keep using their misconceptions anyway - listen buddy, it is not "SOOT" it is SOTT - as in Sign "O" The Times. Where did you get that extra "O" anyway?

Besides, that hiss as you would call it could be just as well caused by your lousy hi-fi, which has really bad noise levels when the volume needs to be cranked for albums that were mastered before the days of modern limiting technology. There is nothing wrong with the sound quality of the album, it's just not sparkly and shiny as all the new releases. Live with it, it's how music should sound - as opposed to that overtly distroted square sound of today.
[This message was edited Tue May 11 20:11:39 2004 by Novabreaker]

Technology!.All first edition cd's usually sound bad today.

...that's good to know because I just ordered my copy today and would've been just as puzzeld...

Novabreaker said:

So sorry for the "O" instead of the "T"...

You shouldn't worry so much about that.

By the way it was not a "misconception" it was a "misspelling" or an "metathesis" mistake, you know that. I'll try not to use the acronyms people use here next time.

tritoncin said:

i know misspelling is NOT that serious..its just a forum guys got damn.

Anyway, i just bought it on CD 3 weeks ago. I turned up the sound on all the songs on my computer and reburned them. Sounds good now. I even added extra photos in the booklet.

The worst sound CD? HAS GOT to be "The Time" OH GOD! The Stick is like.....hardly hearable

I love it on vinyl!!