fwater said:
Geez I hope it doesn't come to that ie just listing the select ones that haven't been stepped on all too bad. It's more fun to list the most outragous examples to ridicule, me thinks. I'll agree with your other toughts tho.
The Beck / Gondry video posted above says it all ... Lyrics as Beck cranks up the radio volume ...
Strange ways coming today
I put a dollar in my pocket
And I threw it away
Been a long time
Since a federal dime
Made a jukebox sound
Like a mirror in my mind
Control my worries
Fix my thoughts
Throw my hopes
Like a juggernaut walks
Now let-down souls
Can't feel no rhythm
Sorry entertainers
Like aerobics victims
Loudness wars- Compression
This is a issue that producers and individuals like Bob Ludwig and T Bone Burnett have taken on:
http://mixonline.com/recording/mastering/essay-limits-compression/
Basically the final squash/insult comes in final Mastering mix down.
Tracks originally are recorded with wide dynamic range; the nominal level is far below "red-line".
In order to make it "pop" and sound more commercial and loud compared to the competition, it is compressed until you have at most 6 - 8 db dynamic range.
To look at the waveform it resembles a square wave, with the fine subtle details of instrument tonality buried.
Compare commercial recording today vs just those done just a few year ago and you see the trend.
Unfortunately I lost the link that had demos of what happens with this insult.
This is a issue that producers and individuals like Bob Ludwig and T Bone Burnett have taken on:
http://mixonline.com/recording/mastering/essay-limits-compression/
Basically the final squash/insult comes in final Mastering mix down.
Tracks originally are recorded with wide dynamic range; the nominal level is far below "red-line".
In order to make it "pop" and sound more commercial and loud compared to the competition, it is compressed until you have at most 6 - 8 db dynamic range.
To look at the waveform it resembles a square wave, with the fine subtle details of instrument tonality buried.
Compare commercial recording today vs just those done just a few year ago and you see the trend.
Unfortunately I lost the link that had demos of what happens with this insult.
It is too bad that we can't move away from a 30 year old technology (ie. CD's). Granted that DVD-A failed, there is enough room on a dual layer DVD to store two sets of tracks, one which is dynamically compressed for earbuds, HTIB, etc... and one that still has dynamics.
itunes should sell two options, 256kbps MP3s for average joe and lossless for those who care. The lossless track could have less dynamic compression
I know... None of this will never happen
itunes should sell two options, 256kbps MP3s for average joe and lossless for those who care. The lossless track could have less dynamic compression
I know... None of this will never happen
Re: Loudness wars- Compression
Take a look at the link I posted. Message #9
BTW...This is old news in the recording forums.
The WORST offender I have is John Petrucci - Suspended Animation. The first time I played it I was just about deafened when it started. The volume was still at a "normal" level from the prior CD.
HK26147 said:
Take a look at the link I posted. Message #9
BTW...This is old news in the recording forums.
The WORST offender I have is John Petrucci - Suspended Animation. The first time I played it I was just about deafened when it started. The volume was still at a "normal" level from the prior CD.
Both mix and mastering engineers try to make music sound good on a variety of equipment: home hifi, car, ipod and even boom box.
It my not be optimized for high-end audio, but it is mixed on highly revealing nearfield speakers. The guys mixing the better stuff are highly skilled and do care how it sounds on good equipment. Good equipment shows off their work.
But user EQ and dynamic range expansion are fine too. This idea that the sound off the record or CD is somehow 'pure' is silly. The sound is a result of thousand of engineering choices. Changing some of those choices to suit personal taste, equipment, or room is completely legitimate.
Viva la tone controls!!!
It my not be optimized for high-end audio, but it is mixed on highly revealing nearfield speakers. The guys mixing the better stuff are highly skilled and do care how it sounds on good equipment. Good equipment shows off their work.
But user EQ and dynamic range expansion are fine too. This idea that the sound off the record or CD is somehow 'pure' is silly. The sound is a result of thousand of engineering choices. Changing some of those choices to suit personal taste, equipment, or room is completely legitimate.
Viva la tone controls!!!
This really ought to be in the music forum.
There's a thread there about the same issues: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53924&pagenumber=1
The article in Rolling Stone, "The Death of High Fidelity" I referred to in an earlier post has lots of info, including sample tracks (good & bad), interviews, links to other articles, the YouTube thing, and interestingly a link to an organization of producers and engineers that hopes to bring back dynamic range to recorded music, "Turn Me Up". Of course, that in turn has lots of links samples etc.
"The Death of High Fidelity": http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity/print
dzz: Yes those things at home, EQ and Expanders could help, but I say, what a shame to have to re-process things to get them to sound acceptable. They'll never again sound like some old recordings I have made with 2 microphones and then cut to an LP. That sounds like real music to me.
There's a thread there about the same issues: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53924&pagenumber=1
The article in Rolling Stone, "The Death of High Fidelity" I referred to in an earlier post has lots of info, including sample tracks (good & bad), interviews, links to other articles, the YouTube thing, and interestingly a link to an organization of producers and engineers that hopes to bring back dynamic range to recorded music, "Turn Me Up". Of course, that in turn has lots of links samples etc.
"The Death of High Fidelity": http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity/print
dzz: Yes those things at home, EQ and Expanders could help, but I say, what a shame to have to re-process things to get them to sound acceptable. They'll never again sound like some old recordings I have made with 2 microphones and then cut to an LP. That sounds like real music to me.
It is a shame that some good music is being increasingly spoiled by this over compression. I agree that alternative high end versions should be made available, but it isn't likely to happen as the audience is too small for the big producers to worry about 
I never use any compression overall on a mixed track, unless it helps bind it together (multiband if anything), but certainly not for the sake of making things louder . Can't claim to make very audiophile recordings myself though
The Beck song is pretty cool, not really listened to him before. Not noticing the over compression too much listening on fairly lo-fi PC speakers but I guess that's the idea! Doesn't seem that loud but I don't think the YouTube volume represents the CD volume? Setting it full and comparing it to WAV albums I have on here also at Winmedia full level a lot of CD albums are louder! That Metallica - Death Magnetic is the most extreme example around I think. Not a fan myself but my brother has it.
I never use any compression overall on a mixed track, unless it helps bind it together (multiband if anything), but certainly not for the sake of making things louder
. Can't claim to make very audiophile recordings myself though The Beck song is pretty cool, not really listened to him before. Not noticing the over compression too much listening on fairly lo-fi PC speakers but I guess that's the idea! Doesn't seem that loud but I don't think the YouTube volume represents the CD volume? Setting it full and comparing it to WAV albums I have on here also at Winmedia full level a lot of CD albums are louder! That Metallica - Death Magnetic is the most extreme example around I think. Not a fan myself but my brother has it.
Every studio has it's limit.
Like I said in the title, there is only so far you can go before the studios themselves need an upgrade.
My dad had a home-made amp (800W into 1ohm), which was better than some £1000-3000 amps that were around at the time.
He also had some very nice Kefs
With this set up, you could pick out the errors made in the recording studio - even pretty decent producers of music made their errors...
The sad end to the story is that the left side of the amp went mad - BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG, silence. It blew the left speaker, which was 100W, with an 800W signal.
Like I said in the title, there is only so far you can go before the studios themselves need an upgrade.
My dad had a home-made amp (800W into 1ohm), which was better than some £1000-3000 amps that were around at the time.
He also had some very nice Kefs
With this set up, you could pick out the errors made in the recording studio - even pretty decent producers of music made their errors...
The sad end to the story is that the left side of the amp went mad - BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG, silence. It blew the left speaker, which was 100W, with an 800W signal.
The magnificent 4350
Perhaps some are missing the point here.......let me elaborate.
Backing up....I found a set of JBL 4350s on Ebay at a starting price of $5K...!! Why so much?? I truely love old classic gear but I see things going to the dogs here. At Wikipedia under the title "Studio Monitors" I see a disturbing trend. READ THE TEXT. The large Studio monitor is becoming an endangered species. It is less of a conspiracy than it is a cost cutting, trendy thing. It would appear musicians are shuffled into the control room to hear their creations listening to near field monitors and not "recording room" far field monitors. Compounding to this the notion that engineers are purposely mixing for musicians tastes/venue/prospective customers, et. al., with disregard to the musical "accuracy".
Of course "truth" in recording is an undefinable term. Unless a studio is using any more than two microphones.........truth or accuracy in recording is a nebulous thing.
Another trend....Note that there is only one "passive" mid-field/far-field monitor left made by JBL. Yes JBL...once the great brand...Now with only a few models left for "Us". The rest are the common tower MTM 6 1/2" types.......every other manufacture has them...including Infinity..another that has fallen by the wayside.
Notice this remaining unit requires high amplifier power?? The 4311 'only' maxed out at 75 Watts?? The KRK large monitor "requires" a specific brand of amplifier (Bi or Tri amped) at a power rating that would make a stadium roar.
This amp stack by far is extremely expensive........and an engineer is going to do a hack job no less?
It would seem that things overall are going backwards.........The teenage kids, plugged into their MP3s, bobbing their heads to the music.........................kinda like a teenager of the sixties with his AM radio glued to his ear......Seemingly... same audio quality.
_______________________________________Rick................
Perhaps some are missing the point here.......let me elaborate.
Backing up....I found a set of JBL 4350s on Ebay at a starting price of $5K...!! Why so much?? I truely love old classic gear but I see things going to the dogs here. At Wikipedia under the title "Studio Monitors" I see a disturbing trend. READ THE TEXT. The large Studio monitor is becoming an endangered species. It is less of a conspiracy than it is a cost cutting, trendy thing. It would appear musicians are shuffled into the control room to hear their creations listening to near field monitors and not "recording room" far field monitors. Compounding to this the notion that engineers are purposely mixing for musicians tastes/venue/prospective customers, et. al., with disregard to the musical "accuracy".
Of course "truth" in recording is an undefinable term. Unless a studio is using any more than two microphones.........truth or accuracy in recording is a nebulous thing.
Another trend....Note that there is only one "passive" mid-field/far-field monitor left made by JBL. Yes JBL...once the great brand...Now with only a few models left for "Us". The rest are the common tower MTM 6 1/2" types.......every other manufacture has them...including Infinity..another that has fallen by the wayside.
Notice this remaining unit requires high amplifier power?? The 4311 'only' maxed out at 75 Watts?? The KRK large monitor "requires" a specific brand of amplifier (Bi or Tri amped) at a power rating that would make a stadium roar.
This amp stack by far is extremely expensive........and an engineer is going to do a hack job no less?
It would seem that things overall are going backwards.........The teenage kids, plugged into their MP3s, bobbing their heads to the music.........................kinda like a teenager of the sixties with his AM radio glued to his ear......Seemingly... same audio quality.
_______________________________________Rick................
Re: The magnificent 4350
This has been going on for decades, just listen to pop songs from the early to mid sixties. IMO they still sound best on old car stereos.
Yea they all use nearfield monitors with subs now.
Do you think that is a worse situation than volume wars?
If you can't beat em the maybe join them.
PS Who really decides what goes in the studios. Me thinks everbody copies the setup of the latest grammy winning producers.
This has been going on for decades, just listen to pop songs from the early to mid sixties. IMO they still sound best on old car stereos.
Yea they all use nearfield monitors with subs now.
Do you think that is a worse situation than volume wars?
If you can't beat em the maybe join them.
PS Who really decides what goes in the studios. Me thinks everbody copies the setup of the latest grammy winning producers.
In a similar vein I made a comparison of the albums of Jamiroquai chronologically. The increasing levels of compression are clear to see from these waveforms!
Also see the "re-mastered" version of the first example at the end, boosted in level to match the rest of the compilation (note: it is a slightly different version). I always find the original tracks rather than play from compilations/hits CDs because of this.
(click thumbnail, it's a large image)
These are from CD albums copied onto my PC in WAV format (for listening here at Uni without piles of CDs!)
Also see the "re-mastered" version of the first example at the end, boosted in level to match the rest of the compilation (note: it is a slightly different version). I always find the original tracks rather than play from compilations/hits CDs because of this.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
(click thumbnail, it's a large image)
These are from CD albums copied onto my PC in WAV format (for listening here at Uni without piles of CDs!)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.