SNOOP DOGG - MISSIONARY (Official Discussion)

[astra4322]

no anderson paak on this album was a huge mistake

considering that the choruses are lacking according to most reviews, anderson paak would have really fixed that issue

BJ The Chicago Kid has replaced him I dont know why.

[.:Hercy Buggz:.]

BJ The Chicago Kid has replaced him I dont know why.

BJ did a great job!

[astra4322]

Bi did a great job!

I agree. It was good choice IMO.

[Sccit]

BJ did a great job!

he’s not bad… but paak and even october london >>>

[So Much Style]

he’s not bad… but paak and even october london >>>

Facts… wonder why PAAK wasn’t involved…

[.:Hercy Buggz:.]

Okay, after listening to this album all weekend in different setting, I must say that it's an excellent body of work. Although there must be a multiple version of this album (Anderson Paak, October London and Eric Sermon contributed and not featured) it is well executed.

My only issue is that the album lack of listening experience, it feels rush, especially the ending. Also, you can definitely tell which songs were not made organically.

It is a grower though, and the more we listen the more we catch a few elements. I also like the fact that he references most of his albums throughout this project.

As a Dr.Dre presents The ICU featuring Snoop Dogg, it is well done. 7.2 out of 10

[jman91331]

no anderson paak on this album was a huge mistake

considering that the choruses are lacking according to most reviews, anderson paak would have really fixed that issue

It what make sense being Anderson is also on Aftermath too but who knows. I guess Dre and them had they own vision of the direction of the album.

[Matty]

vinyl sounds more alive

think of live instrumentation…. the bass is never overpowering when u got a live band playing.. that’s what vinyl is good at replicating

vinyl sounds great but i think in the more modern era where producers (eg Dre) have gotten really good at manipulating low frequencies, much of which is electronically generated by synths, it struggles with low lows. if we were talking about a guy playing a bass guitar on a record sure but that's not what we're getting on something like Missionary. it's a kinda complicated issue cause you've got various factors like recording process, mixing, mastering, pressing and ultimately listening equipment as to whether a vinyl is going to sound really good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

[Safe+Sound]

I love vinyl but still prefer CDs.
A 16-bit WAV file on a CD sounds closer to the studio version than vinyl due to the following reasons:

1. Dynamic Range: CDs have a wider dynamic range (96 dB), capturing both quiet and loud sounds more accurately, compared to vinyl’s 60–70 dB.

2. Frequency Response: CDs consistently reproduce the full range of human hearing (20 Hz to 22 kHz), while vinyl can lose details in bass and treble due to physical limitations. Not everyone has a perfect vinyl setup.

3. Noise-Free Playback: CDs are free of surface noise and distortion, unlike vinyl, which can have crackles, pops, and wear over time.

4. Precision: Digital recordings (even when mastered in 24-bit and reduced to 16-bit for CD) ensure consistent and precise sound reproduction.

In essence, CDs provide a cleaner and more faithful reproduction of the studio recording than vinyl.

From a purely technical and theoretical standpoint, the provided reasons are generally accurate. CDs can deliver a cleaner, more consistent, and more technically faithful reproduction of the studio recording than vinyl. However, whether this translates to a subjectively "better" sound can depend on personal preference, the mastering process, and playback equipment.

Dynamic Range:
A standard 16-bit WAV file on a CD can theoretically provide a dynamic range of approximately 96 dB. In contrast, the dynamic range of vinyl generally falls between about 60 to 70 dB. This means, in theory, a CD can handle extremely soft and extremely loud passages with less audible distortion and compression than vinyl can. This statement is accurate in general terms. Of course, the actual realized dynamic range depends on the mastering choices and how the music was recorded, but the medium itself (CD vs. vinyl) sets these inherent limits.

Frequency Response:
CDs sample audio at 44.1 kHz, allowing a consistent frequency response up to about 22 kHz, which covers and slightly exceeds the upper limit of human hearing (around 20 kHz for most people). While vinyl can reproduce frequencies above and beyond 20 kHz under ideal conditions, real-world playback on vinyl often involves more variability. The physical process of cutting grooves, the quality of the vinyl, the stylus shape and alignment, and the turntable’s setup can all influence the frequency response. Bass frequencies on vinyl are often deliberately reduced and then equalized (via RIAA curves) during playback to fit physical limitations. High frequencies may suffer from groove wear and distortion. Not everyone maintains a perfectly aligned and clean vinyl rig. Thus, while a top-tier vinyl setup can sound excellent, the statement that CDs more consistently reproduce the full audible spectrum without the same level of physical interference is broadly correct.

Noise-Free Playback:
Surface noise, pops, and clicks are part of the vinyl experience because you are dealing with a physical medium that can collect dust, degrade over time, and is susceptible to damage. CDs store music digitally, so there is no inherent surface noise. Unless the CD is scratched to the point of causing data reading errors, the playback remains essentially identical every time. This point is entirely accurate.

Precision:
The claim that digital recordings—captured in 24-bit (or higher) and then dithered down to 16-bit for CD—retain a high degree of fidelity is true. Proper dithering preserves the essential details of the sound, reducing quantization errors and noise. Every time you play a CD, the data read is identical (barring damage), resulting in a precisely consistent playback. Vinyl, being an analog medium, will vary slightly with each playback and is affected by numerous physical factors.

Your given reasons are solid from a technical standpoint. A CD, by design, is capable of providing a more "accurate" reproduction of the studio master. Vinyl's appeal often lies in its coloration, mastering differences, and the tactile/nostalgic experience. Some listeners prefer the warmth and character vinyl can impart, even though, on paper, vinyl is more susceptible to noise, distortion, and frequency response variation. So while your statements are accurate, subjective musical enjoyment may still lead many to prefer vinyl’s sound.

[Safe+Sound]

Also, the notion that vinyl or tape inherently replicates a studio experience better than CD is subjective and not supported by technical fact. Preferences differ from listener to listener. The statement is more personal taste than objective truth. It’s just not broadly accurate. Statements like these are largely subjective opinions rather than objective facts. While some people prefer the “warm” character they perceive in vinyl or tape, this doesn’t mean those formats inherently replicate the studio experience better than CDs, nor that all audiophiles agree with such a hierarchy.

Studio Experience vs. Playback Medium:
Modern recording studios often use high-resolution digital formats as their “master” reference. A well-mastered CD created directly from these digital masters can very closely represent what the engineers and musicians heard during mixing. Vinyl, on the other hand, requires a specialized mastering process that adapts the music to the medium’s physical constraints. This does not automatically bring you closer to the studio sound—it just presents a different, often more colored interpretation.

Warmth and Coloration:
The “warm” sound attributed to vinyl commonly comes from subtle distortions, harmonic enhancements, and the playback chain (turntable, cartridge, phono preamp). While these colorations can be pleasing, they are not necessarily more accurate. They’re a signature of the format and the playback gear, not a direct reflection of the original studio tracks.

Tape vs. CD:
Analog tape can impart its own sonic signature—mild compression, saturation, and a softer top end—which some listeners find appealing. However, tapes are also prone to noise, wear, and degradation over time. CDs, being a digital medium, do not degrade with playback, providing a cleaner and more consistent sound. Whether this is “better” or “thinner” is subjective, not a matter of fact.

Audiophile opinions vary. The claim that vinyl > tape > CD is not accurate. Audiophiles have widely differing opinions (any audiophile will tell you this), and many appreciate high-quality digital formats for their clarity and stability (I am in this camp). Others prefer vinyl’s tactile experience and distinctive character (I can certainly appreciate this but am not interested in having two separate hardware setups to oblige vinyl). The only thing any audiophile will tell you with confidence is that there is no universal consensus.

[haliaeetus albicilla]

With all respect but the differences between vinyl, cd, wav and mp3 are minor to me.
Vinyl has a little more warmth, but more cracks.

The problem with missionary (at least to me) is that it sounds fucked up (too bright) on Apple Music streaming. You have to put an equalizer setting on the low end to fix it. Same for Compton.
When i switch to other albums on Apple Music (Life after death for example, which is sonicly a great album to me) they sound way better without that equalizer. 

[PLANT]

Does anyone else hear Doggy Dogg World in the baseline on “Gangsta Pose” after the beat switch on the second half of the song?  The baseline sounds very similar to Doggy Dogg World to my ears.

[haliaeetus albicilla]

Does anyone else hear Doggy Dogg World in the baseline on “Gangsta Pose” after the beat switch on the second half of the song?  The baseline sounds very similar to Doggy Dogg World to my ears.

It sounds like satisfiction to me (the part when Snoop starts rapping) without the aerosmith vocal sample.

[Sccit]

Also, the notion that vinyl or tape inherently replicates a studio experience better than CD is subjective and not supported by technical fact. Preferences differ from listener to listener. The statement is more personal taste than objective truth. It’s just not broadly accurate. Statements like these are largely subjective opinions rather than objective facts. While some people prefer the “warm” character they perceive in vinyl or tape, this doesn’t mean those formats inherently replicate the studio experience better than CDs, nor that all audiophiles agree with such a hierarchy.

Studio Experience vs. Playback Medium:
Modern recording studios often use high-resolution digital formats as their “master” reference. A well-mastered CD created directly from these digital masters can very closely represent what the engineers and musicians heard during mixing. Vinyl, on the other hand, requires a specialized mastering process that adapts the music to the medium’s physical constraints. This does not automatically bring you closer to the studio sound—it just presents a different, often more colored interpretation.

Warmth and Coloration:
The “warm” sound attributed to vinyl commonly comes from subtle distortions, harmonic enhancements, and the playback chain (turntable, cartridge, phono preamp). While these colorations can be pleasing, they are not necessarily more accurate. They’re a signature of the format and the playback gear, not a direct reflection of the original studio tracks.

Tape vs. CD:
Analog tape can impart its own sonic signature—mild compression, saturation, and a softer top end—which some listeners find appealing. However, tapes are also prone to noise, wear, and degradation over time. CDs, being a digital medium, do not degrade with playback, providing a cleaner and more consistent sound. Whether this is “better” or “thinner” is subjective, not a matter of fact.

Audiophile opinions vary. The claim that vinyl > tape > CD is not accurate. Audiophiles have widely differing opinions (any audiophile will tell you this), and many appreciate high-quality digital formats for their clarity and stability (I am in this camp). Others prefer vinyl’s tactile experience and distinctive character (I can certainly appreciate this but am not interested in having two separate hardware setups to oblige vinyl). The only thing any audiophile will tell you with confidence is that there is no universal consensus.

[.:Hercy Buggz:.]

Instrumental version is now on Spotify