I wouldn't necessarily assume that the compression wasn't applied during the mix down from multi-track to make the original stereo (or whatever) master. I believe (perhaps erroneously) that the master is supposed to reflect what the artist/producers/label are striving for in terms of the ultimate nature of the sound produced by a recording. Loud is unfortunately the goal of the day, but it does make the music sound boring, that said there are plenty of excellent sounding recordings outside of the radio play/iPod targeted pop music sphere.
on a tour of a mastering studio the principal engineer said that he usually provided 2 or 3 mixes - one with high dynamics and only employing "artistic" levels compression on a few instruments - another at higher overall compression that he still felt had acceptable dynamics and one mix at the Loudness War level of compression - he is still waiting for artists/producers to choose any of the less compressed version for release - even after they've reviewed all versions and agreed that the more dynamic mixes are superior - they just not perceived as "marketable"
some level of dynamic compression is considered an artistic effect in Rock/Pop and is/was often used in analog recording and mastering for vinyl distribution
comercial broadcast radio also has compression hardware on site and adds to the compression of the source material since the largest target audience is car commuters
comercial broadcast radio also has compression hardware on site and adds to the compression of the source material since the largest target audience is car commuters
Last edited:
One of the differences between digital and analogue is that when overloaded a bit, analogue does compress the signal. Hence the old school way of recording +3 or more db into the RED. It sounded good even if a bit compressed. You cannot overload a digital processor at all, it does not gently roll off the signal , it cuts the top right off and does not sound good at all. So you must use a lower level signal , (much lower) or compress it before the digital circuitry. So compression is almost always applied first when recording digitally. And then there is the quality of the compressor itself.
Then there is the problem of keeping a cohesive sound when every single signal is compressed individually and then mixed together. They do not have the same sense of space, depth, time, phase etc. This can be a problem for analogue as well, usually less so because fewer individual compressors are needed.
Then there is the problem of keeping a cohesive sound when every single signal is compressed individually and then mixed together. They do not have the same sense of space, depth, time, phase etc. This can be a problem for analogue as well, usually less so because fewer individual compressors are needed.
I have seen analog master tape S/N speced with "0 dB" set at the level that gave 3% third harmonic distortion from saturating the tape - and as you say often analog tape recording is allowed to exceed "0 dB"
some mastering engineers working primarily in digital consider bouncing to analog tape, using tube mic preamps as artistic effects too
there is a large cultural component in appreciation of reproduced music and clear evidence that recording technology and taste influence each other - even performance changes with recording technology with tuning, tempo of even highly conservative Classical music performances changing when recordings of "great" performances became references for conductors, performers
Jamie Horwath of http://www.plangentprocesses.com/ claims a new generation of performers have a much improved timing sense, consistency due to the huge superiority of digital recording/playback in time stability over analog tape, vinyl playback
some mastering engineers working primarily in digital consider bouncing to analog tape, using tube mic preamps as artistic effects too
there is a large cultural component in appreciation of reproduced music and clear evidence that recording technology and taste influence each other - even performance changes with recording technology with tuning, tempo of even highly conservative Classical music performances changing when recordings of "great" performances became references for conductors, performers
Jamie Horwath of http://www.plangentprocesses.com/ claims a new generation of performers have a much improved timing sense, consistency due to the huge superiority of digital recording/playback in time stability over analog tape, vinyl playback
Last edited:
But with digital recording, the possible effects are literally infinite. The world's finest recording gear can be yours for the price of a download:
Abbey Road Plug-Ins - Products
We are in a world of 24 bit recordings, and even higher resolution for internal calculations, so absolutely no need to get your compression in at the recording stage.
I'm all for keeping the old gear going - I love it, and even play music over old valve radios sometimes - but I'm afraid when it comes to 'hi fidelity' digital is where it's at.
The genre has a huge influence on this too. You can get away with little or no compression on a small acoustic ensemble, if you don't mind listening to it only in environments where you can tolerate the dynamic peaks and valleys.
Rock and pop, not so much. A distorted guitar has very little dynamic range. Try mixing vocals or acoustic guitar with that and you'll find that even while riding the faders, it's still hard to keep the vocals from stabbing out and then disappearing again.
And drums. While they are perhaps one of the most transient signals in a mix, it's still almost guaranteed that there will be a bunch of compression. First, to get the kick and snare to have a longer emphasized attack, so their levels can be much higher without "sounding too loud," since they will only be there for 30-200ms or so.
That said, the additional compression used in mastering to reduce the natural ebb and flow of dynamics, and more so the brutal limiting to keep peak and RMS almost equivalent... That's another story. This, I believe is new since the mid- to late-90s.
I'm enjoying the sound of earlier stuff simply because it HAS dynamics. (Roger Waters' Radio KAOS, for example.) I was too young to appreciate the escalation for marketability, and when I mix local bands for our own enjoyment, live shows, or even MyFace distribution.. Screw 'em. I'm not releasing a rectangular block of audio. Turn it up louder if that's what you want. Your earbuds and computer speakers might distort on kick beats though.
Rock and pop, not so much. A distorted guitar has very little dynamic range. Try mixing vocals or acoustic guitar with that and you'll find that even while riding the faders, it's still hard to keep the vocals from stabbing out and then disappearing again.
And drums. While they are perhaps one of the most transient signals in a mix, it's still almost guaranteed that there will be a bunch of compression. First, to get the kick and snare to have a longer emphasized attack, so their levels can be much higher without "sounding too loud," since they will only be there for 30-200ms or so.
That said, the additional compression used in mastering to reduce the natural ebb and flow of dynamics, and more so the brutal limiting to keep peak and RMS almost equivalent... That's another story. This, I believe is new since the mid- to late-90s.
I'm enjoying the sound of earlier stuff simply because it HAS dynamics. (Roger Waters' Radio KAOS, for example.) I was too young to appreciate the escalation for marketability, and when I mix local bands for our own enjoyment, live shows, or even MyFace distribution.. Screw 'em. I'm not releasing a rectangular block of audio. Turn it up louder if that's what you want. Your earbuds and computer speakers might distort on kick beats though.
Guys...all these means that there is no reason to buy LP's?
No, not at all if you like the way they sound as compared to other mediums. Depends greatly on what the genre of music is and the label as well. I have purchased a number of recent releases on LP that had the CD bundled, the CD was good, but the LP was significantly better IMHO. (Regina Spektor, The Punch Brothers, etc.) I'm pretty sure these are all digital at the master level. As I stated in a previous post I buy almost all of my music on LP and the balance (since very recently) usually as high res 24 bit 88/96K downloads from HDtracks.. (USA and Canada only)
Instead of asking questions of people loaded with differing and often incompatible opinions why not just go and buy one or two and decide for yourself?
That's a reasonable summary of how a given master made expressly for LP would be made, but in practice the steps you mention here would be done by the engineer working the cutting lathe (or someone working with him, ideally the mastering engineer), because that's the guy who knows what can be cut and what can't.
But, also, the cutting lathe engineer also has tremendous latitude in what he puts to the lathe. If you give him a set with 16 minutes to a side, he can build an extremely dynamic LP with extended low frequency response. If you give him one that is 22 minutes a side, he has to limit bass excursion. If you give him one that's 25 minutes a side ... the practical limit ... he will have to compress the dynamic range as well as limit bass excursion and extension.
There were always lathe operators and LP mastering engineers who got the tough jobs ... making the best LPs ... and those who were skilled but not necessarily renowned, who got the majority of a label's output. And then there were cheap houses who cut the "35 Smash Hits! 35 Original Stars!" records, which were all 25 minutes a side.
You can easily compare tracks directly from those "hits" records to the original artist release LP and the original 45. The differences are stunningly obvious in some cases (and non-existant in others where the record was just pop pap in the first place).
In each of those cases, however, if he were to work on a modern release destined for vinyl and CD (and these days, they do the mp3 mix as well, and it's different from the other two) he's still working from the same basic mix for the LP as the one destined for CD, and each will be mastered for vinyl duplication and CD duplication separately. When they originally began making CDs in all analog studios (anything released in the 80's, and most in the 90's) they would remaster the made-for-LP tapes.
The strange thing is on an LP you can allow huge transients to remain in the mix and it will cut ... on a CD you would have to run a limiter on them to fit in the OdBFS hard limit of a CD. If you run normalization on a CD, you often find some tracks louder than others if they were originally meant for LP. So you run compression on them to equalize the overall volume. That may mean running more limiter on some transients.
It's entirely possible to cut an LP that no cartridge can track (and cartridge test records are deliberately made that way and stamped with no problem at all). The practical limits ... ie the music the label is releasing and what it needs for dynamic range and bass excursion ... are lower than the media's limits.
It's not an all-win or all-lose comparison; each have their exploitable qualities and each have their practical limitations. The theory (90 dB dynamic range! etc) doesn't mean you can actually find a manufactured CD that exploits that. The dynamic range you will find of the average CD from a label in 2010 is far lower than the average LP from 1980, and I guarantee if they are willing to compromise dynamic range then no large excursion transients above the "space" between average level and CD's OdbFS are going to get through the process either. That space is at best 14dB on major label catalog CD releases.
To be honest, I would not want an LP from a modern act that was identical to the CD release. I want them to exploit the strengths of each media. Otherwise, there's much less reason to buy the LP in the first place.
Last edited:
Never thought about the use of compression as a mixing tool before!
This is what is killing it for me.
I would not say that the digital approximation is the same as the real thing. I have used many such digital pieces of software said to replicate a particular vintage or boutique piece of analog gear. It has never ever sounded close. I have used them and will continue to do so, but for what they are and how they sound and the low cost.
As for old gear not being hifi ,that is pure rubbish. Most vintage studio gear had a frequency response beyond human hearing . And there are other factors that equate to hi fidelity.
Having been in more than few studios , the best engineers always opt for hard cards as opposed to software based processors, I have asked and they tell me they sound better and they don't lose computing power to operate. Also, they always have a slew of Analogue gear to make it sound right. Most would prefer to use analogue tape except for the expense and limited editing abilities. Digital is preferred for its cut ,paste and edit features and low cost. No one I know says it sounds better. Only those who are profiting from the digital media age are telling us it is better. Just like the the sub prime , interest only lenders who nearly bankrupted us.
Digital and analogue are what they are, they both have strengths and weaknesses , best to keep an open mind to be able to get the best from each.
Yes and no.
I don't know when compression was first commonly used on recordings (sometime after the beginnings of the electronic era that began in 1925), but it was surely in use in the 1950's and 1960's. But in general LPs made before the CD era are not nearly as compressed as the Loudness Wars CDs of the last couple of decades. For one pop music example, I recall the old Cat Stevens LPs as having a lot of dynamics.
If a particular LP is as hypercompressed as the average CD of the last couple of decades, no, don't buy it.Guys...all these means that there is no reason to buy LP's?
It seems people often confuse the medium with production, and blame the medium when they hear anything they don't like. The engineering and production quality of the recording has a hugely greater effect on the end product than whether there was any "digital" in the path, or whether it was all analog or all digital.* Get the best, clearest, and most dynamic recordings you can find. Ironically, with the 96dB range of CDs, most of the best recordings were only made on LPs mostly (imho) in the 1960's and 1970's.
* For evidence, read post #17 and its accompanying graph: "The only way for knowing for sure is to record the LP at 88.2kHz or higher and check it with a spectrum analyser for the tell-tale ridge at about 20kHz." If "digital" were such a horrible, audible problem, it would seem one could reliably tell the difference by, of all things, LISTENING.
Guys...all these means that there is no reason to buy LP's?
Not at all!
You pays your money, you makes your choice!
However, in terms of dynamic range in classical music, CD will completely beat LP into a cocked hat.
If you have a good LP copy of Ravel's Bolero, might I recommend buying this version;
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Debussy-Mer...=sr_1_3?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1302521397&sr=1-3
This is digital all the way and is simply stunning.
If you play it on a normal loudspeaker system, it starts off so low in volume you have to turn the sound up to be sure it's actually playing but when the crescendo is reached at the end, your windows will be getting rattled out of their frames.
The dynamic range is phenomenal and simply CANNOT be matched by vinyl.
Sandy
Thanks mnemneth,
If I understood You well, You said CD as a medium will beat LP, I would agree that can be in the bass region, about middle and highs there is no CD what can reach the quality of sound in midd and high region of a good fully analog recorded LP. (my opinion).
From my experience an overall phono can produce better sound compared to any high-end CD player. I agree that dynamic range will be better on CD, chanell separation also. But something is missing...still. Sweetnes and naturality of highs and midds from vinyl cant be reached by any CD as a medium, no matter how good is the CD player.
Either is a groove cut in metal by a lathe.
Having worked in more than a few studios for the last 20 years I can say this is just the opinion of the engineers you know. There are just as many if not more who would disagree. First lets have some historical perspective. When studios started to switch to digital recording it was on tape. One of the most popular was the 32 track Mitsubishi. The only editing was razor blade, the machines where 300K and the tapes where $300 dollars. So studios had to pay 4 times the price of an analogue machine, more for tapes and still they were buying them in droves because the engineers and producers wanted them. Why? There can only be one reason, they sounded better. Most digital recording these days is done with protools. (blah!) listen to a Mits or Sony digital multitrack from the 90's or a New England Digital Direct to Disk or Synclav if you want to see what 16 bit 48khz digital should sound like. The DAW in a box thats the standard these days is getting there but its hard to make the analogue sections sound as good when your competing against boxes that cost >$100k.
Another thing, the loudness war thing is done mostly with a limiter not a compressor. Limiting is nothing new, tape limiting has been used as long as there has been tape, its the reason some people think analogue tape sounds better.
As far as what sounds "better". If you like the distortions LPs add (a lot more than CDs (if you want to know why check the "whats better,CD or LP" thread)) than you will think LPs sound better.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.