I just can't decide whether you simply don't get the point or whether you're deliberately evading it.
Either case does you no credit.
Why don't you get out your full vocabulary and call them untermenschen?
I am a little concerned that you are painting a picture with a street sweeper, and doing the mix and mastering community a big disservice. Recording a solo act without compression is really really, easy. Try doing that with a 1,000 voice choir, 110 piece orchestra, a 15 piece electronic band, and soloists as well(yearly Easter program at my church). No matter how well I record it, the dynamic range would make the recording unlistenable, as you would spend more time riding the volume control than listening to the recording. Anytime you use a bunch of electronic instruments(or a bunch of singers), you need some level of compression. Yes it can be over used, and sometimes it is. However the picture you are painting here says that most all recordings out there are not very good, and that could not be further from the truth. It really depends on what genre of music you listen to. Some musical genre's lend themselves to processing abuse more than others.
So you understand how commercial recording works - we audio engineers do not have the final say on how a recording or album is supposed sound before it is released. The marketing department has that privilege. For two decades now recording and mastering engineers have made great recordings, only to have the marketing department ruin it by deciding it needed to be louder. The mastering engineer had to take the fall for the decisions of the PR folks, and that is not fair at all. It is not fair that we have to take the fall when some artist brings in a recording they did in their garage or on their noisy computer based DAW, and we could not turn that pig into a model. There worst thing that happened to audio sound quality is when the artist(in an effort to save money) does the project themselves on equipment that is not up to snuff. When we get it, it is overly compressed, and processed to death because the artist has no experience with recording, and thought his DAW could fix it later(you know, the fix it in post mentality). They bring it to us, and we work like hell to clean it up, and sometimes we can't and yet we are blamed for the end result.
Having a purist approach to recording is admirable, but is not always realistic. When you marry yourself to this philosophy, and think everything else is inferior, that is a sign of arrogance, not the state of the recording and mastering.
And yet, no-one does. I'll disagree about the "easy" part, especially if you want to capture space and tonality accurately.
I haven't recorded a 1000 voice choir, but I've recorded several bands. My soloist stuff was an example, and one I was able to post publicly.
In any event, "unlistenable" depends on the venue- in a car, I'll agree with you, in an audiophile listening room, I will disagree. What's the max SPL of an orchestra going full tilt from, say, row H? What's the standing noise level at that seat? From my measurements, it's 105-110dB and 30dB (for a very quiet hall)- would you disagree with these numbers?
And, in any event, when the dynamic range of popular recordings is squashed down to a 10dB window, I'm sorry, your excuses for the industry ring hollow- and compressed. 24/96 masters of crap like that are useless exercises.
We are ill-served by the recording industry.
Agreed, but it is a bit of a stretch to say that ALL compression is bad compression.
I have heard decently recorded albums with compression that kept most of the detail.
And I must say I really like compression by distortion: compression as a result of distortion. Provided it is intentional and kept under control. Like with a decently played guitar on a hard blues recording.
Still in the thread btw, just trying to sort out several GB of renderings, conversions and results (Out of one simple tune...). Not entirely finished yet either.
And I didn't say that, so we agree.
But if you want music that sounds real and natural, that compression must be kept very small (maybe subtle peak limiting)- the industry has gone crazy with loudness war crap, and it burns me every time I buy a recording from artists I love and the sound is just horribly canned and shrieky. It's the rule, natural recordings are a rare exception.
For a post or two there, several pages in fact, it seemed like a discussion about quality would get the better of us (myself included). It is very nice to know we actually agree for the most part, and let the tiny details derail us instead.
I guess that is what we (at least I) really want, the tiny details.
It is not that difficult...really
Unfortunately the microphones are not sitting in row H(which really does not describe a specific distance). They are on the stage with the performers. I would not disagree with your numbers if that was where we actually placed the microphones. You can easily exceed 110db at FF at the edge of the stage with a 110 piece orchestra. Add a choir and a band to that, and the levels are pushed much higher. Considering most "audiophile" systems don't do well as they approach even 100db(and we have not even talked about the room's NC level), there is no way in the world you could release a non-compressed track without distorting the playback system.
Are you making the statement that ALL popular recordings are compressed down to a 10db window? Have you actually measured this in ALL popular recordings? Probably not. If one is being honest with themselves, they would not condemn the entire industry using hyperbolic generalization.
YOu are ill served by record company executives. The recording industry does not decide what get's released to the public, or how it will sound when it get's there.
There are some engineers out there who make terrific recordings who can easily say back to you " we are ill judged by consumers and their playback system".
YES PLEASE! My brain and ears are nearing climax when my eyes are reading your post! It's probably very difficult to play back properly, and my room sucks, but I am VERY willing to give it a go!
It is not that difficult...really
And yet, of the hundreds of recordings in that genre that I own, exactly zero are done in a natural, uncompressed, non-EQed way.
You mean... multimiking? Unnaturally close up sound?
Mine has no problem at those levels, nor do other good ones. Folks with tiny rooms, flea power amps, and minimonitors can certainly help themselves to compressed, eviscerated recordings.
Did I write that? Nope. Best to argue with that made-up person in your head rather than this real person who makes more qualified and nuanced statements. Popular recordings are generally a compressed mess made for the lowest common denominator. Fine for my car or when I go out hiking with my iPhone as a source. In my living room... awful. Some of the worst offenders are recordings that audiophile magazines praise. 24/96 isn't going to fix that. Ordering from companies that sell 24/96 versions of crap recordings isn't going to fix that. The only thing that can possibly fix it is the new ways of music distribution, without the barriers to entry that characterized the LP and CD eras, and the commercial success of natural recordings.
A pessimist might think that natural recordings will always be only a tiny niche and will never have major commercial success. I would have trouble arguing against the pessimist.
then you are sillier than I thought
eg. I have (somewhat more than) 2 different headphones that I use, 2 very different sensitivities and a digital volume control. digital volume control is excellent, I love it and wouldnt have it another way, but you need DNR to burn.. even with decent gain structure you cant cater for everything.
Dither can do a good job with most things, but it still only does it because it has 24bit+ to do it with, the material is made on gear with 24bit or higher tracks, squeezing it down to 16bit only to be redithered up to 24 is stupid. then you have the issue of some recordings being hotter than others.
and no, I dont think I protesteth too much, I know how you work, there is a word for it that I wont use now.
youve filled in your own scenario of what i'm saying again and judged me on it...again.
In the past i've generally been an apple fan, being a designer and desktop publisher from a family of designers and desktop publishers, the ipod was a marvel and I had the first one, but the headphones are and always were utter crap, even the new ones... the fact that most still use them and those that dont, buy beats.. says it all.
no I think I was just a convenient poster you chose to quote, take your own meaning, make a false judgement and go on a rant, you are still doing it...
see above, they can so be wrong. that and many of them are sending themselves deaf because the ibuds isolate so badly they have to crank the volume up to get anything approaching bass and get over the sounds of the environment, there are class actions ongoing. the ipod, iphone are popular partly because of marketing, but also because they are beautifully made objects that generally work quite well, the ibuds do not fit this picture and anyone that continues to use them cannot care all that much for sound. they just want a background, something to distract and most in public anyway are doing several other things.
if they really care about image..erm I mean sound...they buy beats, which have their own hardwired EQ to boost the hell out of bass and highs, thats when they arent listening to car sound with 4x more power in the subs than anything else so the whole neighborhood can hear the 'rhymes' of hate and a displaced culture that is not their own...
Do I? see this is why I protest, you read, but you insert your own dialogue.
your words, what elite? where did I mention elite? this sort of false characterization pisses me right off.
and again
and? nice story...
look, I dont need YOUR canned philosophy, YOUR arrogance, or YOUR judgement.
hypocrisy at its best...
Last edited:
THAT YOU OWN, and those are three key words. There are most likely thousands you don't own. When you use the word "genre" that only defines one type of music. What about the dozens of other genre's out there? Can you make this same judgement on those recordings as well? I don't think you can.
You mean... multimiking? Unnaturally close up sound?
Not all close up sound is unnatural(more generalizations
) Do you really think you can capture close to 1200 performers with just two microphones? I don't think so. Do you think you can use that few outside recording that many performers? I don't think so. When you only do one kind of recording(solo performance types and small bands), then you are oblivious to the types of issues you run into when you record many types of music in many different environments. Minimalist techniques only work well with solo acts, and very small ensembles in a highly controlled environment. This represents a miniscule (not even niche) amount of the kind of recording that is done yearly. So you are telling me that your system can playback 110db cleanly over the 40-55db average NC level of a typical room? Keep in mind, the lowest volume begins when the lowest signal fades to inaudibility - it is not a 0db, because no room has a NC level of 0db. So, let's add this up. I will give you the lowest NC level of most rooms at 40db's. Are you going to tell me your system kicks out 150 db's during peaks, and does that with very low distortion as well? Really Sy, I don't think so. I have five Dunlavy SC-V's and two TSW-V subwoofers and a thousand watts of power going to each in one of my mixing rooms(which has a NC-20 rating), and that system cannot reach 150 db's. I don't really think you understand just how loud 110 db's is.
I am not going to argue with anyone, it is a waste of my time. Funny how two people can read the same words, and come out with highly different impressions of those words.
And, in any event, when the dynamic range of popular recordings is squashed down to a 10dB window
There is no nuance in that, and nobody is qualified to make that statement until they actually measured the dynamic range of all of the popular recordings released. So unless you have done that, then you statement here is neither nuanced or particularly qualified - it is an unqualified assumptive generalization.
A question(well maybe a few) to more of your generalizations. What audiophile magazine reviews popular recordings? What popular recording are released in 24/96khz? And lastly, who in their right mind would listen to a recording mastered for the radio and Ipod (because that is what most mainstream recordings are listened to whether in the car, at home, or on the internet) on a "audiophile system" and think they are going to get a good result? Personally I know nobody who expects that result.
A natural recording means different things to different people, much like the words "minimalist microphone technique". Until the word natural or minimalist is tightly defined within the audio realm, it is just another meaningless set of words thrown around. I want to know how to naturally record live hard rock, or a studio manufactured pop song. I can tell you this, crossed figure eight ribbons, no compression or eq is not going to cut it.
Last edited:
but, when I see/hear people like Jamie Lidell using technology, his voice and his environment to create modern pieces that are very much live and with a voice that rivals greats like Stevie Wonder, it warms my heart a little.
please do him the favor of letting it play all the way through, really struts his stuff at the end.
yes everything is him, looped live
here showing his stuff live, the guy loves looping and uses/abuses technology, but..well just look at what he can do RAW
soulful as hell! little, pretty, white English guy
please do him the favor of letting it play all the way through, really struts his stuff at the end.
yes everything is him, looped live
here showing his stuff live, the guy loves looping and uses/abuses technology, but..well just look at what he can do RAW
soulful as hell! little, pretty, white English guy
Last edited:
Live music has peaks of 100-110dB SPL, not referenced to the room noise, but rather referenced to 20uP. No recording venue, no concert venue, no listening room has 0dB noise. So indeed, some sounds are buried under the room noise- that's what live music sounds like. And it's a good thing- would you expect to hear the clacking of the keys of a brass ensemble or the scritch scritch of the third violinist in an orchestra scratching himself from out in the hall?
Since I never argued that all recordings should be done with single point mikes or crossed figure 8s (which is a mike setup I like to use for soloists and small ensembles), again you're arguing with the voices in your head, not with me. I can say that the very best orchestral sound I've ever heard in my living room happened to be done just that way (the engineer used a Royer stereo ribbon mike), but I also own excellent recordings using other techniques.
What I do argue is that making excuses for bland and dynamically eviscerated recordings is a guarantee of continuing sonic mediocrity. And I argue that 24/96 or other hi-res formats are a waste of time as long as this "common wisdom" grips the minds of engineers and producers- and as long as that's what satisfies the mass market.
In order:
1. Most of them. Start with Stereophile. Online magazines, there's Enjoy the Music.
2. Go to HD Tracks who sell thousands of them.
3. All of us have to, since we don't have the choice. And that's what this thread is about, the lack of choice- and the industry people who want to excuse the mediocrity. Where I depart is the root cause- it's not the 16 bits or the 44.1 kHZ sample rate, it's the dynamic compression, over-EQ, and the dazzling array of studio electronic effects.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.