Music Into Noise: The Destructive Use Of Dynamic Range Compression part 2

I don't agree. Altering volumes over the course of a mix is not a distortion like stretching an image.

And I'm not clear on deej's distinction. "Compression" is "dynamic range compression" as far as I know.

I don't agree. Altering volumes over the course of a mix is not a distortion like stretching an image.

― timellison, Sunday, October 30, 2011 5:22 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

dynamic range compression is not the same as 'altering volumes'...

its 'altering them so that they distort'

No, there was a problem with clipping in some cases of mastering with extreme compression, but the use of compression does not necessarily entail an introduction of distortion.

fwiw my use of "distorted" in previous post is referring to distorting the original dynamics, not distortion as in peaking.

Right, but when I'm mixing my own music and I alter the volume level at a particular point on a given instrument, I don't feel like I'm "distorting the original dynamics." In fact, I only care about the original dynamics to the extent that they sound good to me.

"Compression" is "dynamic range compression" as far as I know.

yes, not sure what deej is getting at here.

its 'altering them so that they distort'

I guess if you were clipping then you'd be distorting, but that's not compression.

or rather i should say not the aim of compression.

I get what you're saying Tim but there's a difference between making those decisions during mixing, where you're consciously making the choice to make certain things quieter than others (or louder than others) at specific points in time, and just taking a blanket algorithm and making even the "quiet" parts sound as loud as the loud ones, no?

Saying "compression is fine" or whatever you said in your original post is missing the point;we are talking about boosting levels so they become compressed in the mastering stage - not as a tool of production, but a way of mastering something LOUDLY. That isnt fine at all, it's pretty uniformly an awful choice

Dynamic range compression does cause distortion...thats what makes it bad. It flattens relative dynamics, distorting the sound of a track. It's not the same as using compression as a tool in production

there's a difference between making those decisions during mixing, where you're consciously making the choice to make certain things quieter than others (or louder than others) at specific points in time, and just taking a blanket algorithm and making even the "quiet" parts sound as loud as the loud ones, no?

Absolutely, but I'm a little conflicted on it. On the one hand, I think flatness in dynamic range can be a positive in pop records - that was why I brought up Spector and Motown the other day. I tend to think I'd like to see something like that arrived at organically rather than "applying an algorithm," but I guess I'm open to the idea that applying that algorithm could make it sound better than what I came up with when I mixed it.

xp, I think you're using the term distortion quite liberally, it's not actual distortion. Compression makes tracks as loud as possible up until clipping starts to occur, technically I don't think it qualifies as distortion. Compression is a tool used by mastering engineers and musicians, in both cases it flattens dynamics, it's the same thing. I think we agree that the issue is the trend that governs how mastering engineers employ it.

clipping is digital distortion

I'm not convinced reviving this thread is the best idea I've ever had, but this Monolake example made me chuckle:

http://soundcloud.com/monolake/mastering-a-step-by-step-guide

Ha! That's evil.

worthy bump

I lol'd, but not too loud of course

Musley 2 days ago
WHERE IS THE DROP?

awesome

love it

Monolake is an all-time cool dude.

hope everyone is as psyched as i am about dynamic range day next month!

http://dynamicrangeday.co.uk/

wow that record that won last year is really bad

So I'm being interviewed over the phone tonight by a Brazillian newspaper guy for a piece he's writing about loudness in pop albums. Which is strange.

http://i.imgur.com/Rc4Ag.jpg

Ha!

Current Field Music album sleeve contains the message "In order to preserve sonic fidelity, this record has been mastered using significantly less compression and limiting than most contemporary records. For maximum listening pleasure, please turn your stereo system UP!"

apologies if this has already been posted

a measured discussion with the always subtle bob ludwig of gateway mastering

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/recording-tips-for-the-loudness-wars-an-interview-with-bob-ludwig-of-gateway-mastering/

He's pretty far off the mark in saying kicks and bass mixed up the middle came about as a response to earbuds. Dance music, buddy. Like from way back when.

maybe those are his own personal reasons

I remember reading the dude from Liquid Liquid saying you could tell "White Lines" was mixed for radio whereas "Cavern" was mixed for clubs because of the way the bass was mixed on each record, midrange-y on the former, and a much deeper tone on the latter.

Futher monolake goodness here - http://roberthenke.com/interviews/mastering.html - it's a discussion between him and Rashad Becker of Dubplates and Mastering about mastering and covers some issues related to dynamic range compression. As far as I can tell, this discussion seems to be assuming classic status as a comprehensible and informative guide to what mastering is and why it's important.

Shellac's Bob Weston gives his 2p here - http://www.chicagomasteringservice.com/loudness.html

http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120726/srep00521/full/srep00521.html

In the excellent interview with Susan Rogers, mid-80s Prince engineer, that's been making the rounds today, a great Q/A bit:

DRS: Speaking of recording techniques, when I listen to a lot of music these days, it seems really loud. It’s not just a matter of ‘things have progressed in technology,’ but it just seems like the music is just louder for the sake of being loud. Maybe it’s just another sign I’m getting older (laughing). Am I off base with that? As an engineer who’s been around for years, what do you think?

SR: I know what you’re saying. The technique these days involves hyper-compression where in mastering, and sometimes even before, you squash out all the dynamics. You level the dynamics such that there’s no change in loudness going from the verse to the chorus and the climaxes of the song don’t get any louder than the quiet parts of the song. The trend began in the ‘90s…it originated from radio broadcasters who wanted program levels to be uniformly loud. They didn’t want any quiet moments that might allow a listener to switch to a new station, so record makers started competing in the same way by flattening out the dynamics so that your record would be louder than the next guy’s…and it sounds great when you put your record on and it just comes in hotter than the next person’s. We know, at least here in the Western world, consumers prefer whichever audio source is louder. It can be a fraction of a DB hotter and the consumer will say “yeah, that one sounds better.” But what has happened, by reducing these dynamics we’re actually changing the emotional impact, (I’m arguing this anyway) of musical material because dynamics are what gives a song tension and release…it gives it a payoff. To take away the dynamics, you can listen longer because there’s nothing changing so you can listen for a longer period of time but you’ll probably be less emotionally engaged than you would have been otherwise. Dynamics contribute to emotion, but, that said, we are now writing and producing music such that you don’t need a lot of dynamics. It’s changing the way composers and producers are working. How we think of music nowadays we think of it as being kind of uni-dynamic.

Preach

There is no compression problem in modern music. And complaints to the contrary seem awfully close to the incident when Paul McCartney's dad suggested that Paul change the lyrics the line "yeah, yeah, yeah" to "yes, yes, yes." Because that's the way it SHOULD be.

This is one of their issues where I respect the people making the argument but I feel they're ultimately misguided (not unlike Wayne Coyne complaining about copyright infringers). The idea that "too much" dynamic range compression objectively makes music sound "bad" is kind of creed or article of faith that doesn't make sense on closer inspection. What amount of compression is "too much?" How much dynamic range is "enough?" Even the professional audio engineers can't agree on this or every good record from 1980 would sound the same as every other good record made that year.

Posting a few images of waveforms doesn't make your argument any more consistent or logical. If you posted a waveform for a orchestral classical piece, it would make most popular pieces seem sorely lacking in dynamics - even jazz would "suffer" in comparison. (King Crimson is the only rock band I can think of with dynamics even approaching the classical genre, at least in the early days).

I've met people invested in classical music who do indeed deride rock albums for their lack of dynamics. However, I think this has more to do with their personal taste than any inherent problem in rock mixing or engineering. Super-compressed recordings have a unique sound and I guess you either like it or you don't. What bothers me is when people start making claims that too much compression objectively reduces the level of listener enjoyment - "it inevitably tires out your ears, causing you to unconsciously tune out and miss any subtleties in the music." I know not everyone says stuff like that but it's pretty common in this topic.

Old records from the 1920s and earlier had virtually no dynamic range, right? And yet people still enjoyed them well enough. Also, a lot of musicians and music fans have bad hearing, which can greatly reduce heard dynamic range. Are they objectively enjoying the music less than those of us with fine hearing?

Do you really not think that bad hearing could reduce your enjoyment of music?

My friend Kevin sings and plays guitar well in a sick, sick bar band. He only has hearing in one ear but it doesn't seem to make him any less dedicated or involved in his work.

I agree with Jak that this whole "Loudness War" is greatly overblown. It is also the case that since people started talking about all this stuff in the early 2000's, digital limiting technology has gotten more transparent so you can get your loudness these days more easily. But my main issue is that this is something only audio nerds ever talk about, the public by and large completely doesn't care except for the moment they read an article that says "MUSIC IS GETTING LOUDER AND MORE DISTORTED R.I.P. THIS CORRUPT WORLD" and reblog it. After that, they can somehow go for years without caring about this HUGE PROBLEM that has RUINED MUSIC.

Do you really not think that bad hearing could reduce your enjoyment of music?

actually when I succumbed to the 4k notch that comes for a lot of musicians, it opened up my hearing of music in a weird way and suddenly the sound of a piano took on almost lysergic depth - I could hear things that I'd missed before. "bad" hearing is reduced hearing in certain frequencies and while I would for sure love to have the full spectrum back, I can basically date my ability to hear maj7 chords as huge narrative experiences that just knock me right out to four months after my right ear went haywire

It bothers me and there are records where I like all the songs and the band that I rarely listen to because of overcompression

Whenever I hear music produced like this it just sounds so "safe" and radio-ready due to subtlety being completely smoothed over for the listener's convenience and the climaxes don't have any effect either and end up sounding timid as to not offend. I definitely think this isn't some audiophile hang-up because it is easily equatable with other mediums in which mass appeal is #1 priority. Of course, this is pop music, but when you accomodate for the sake of mass appeal in such a widespread manner, it changes the standard of what companies and audiences consider too unsafe in marketing terms. Eventually pop music for the radio (or general mass consumption) and pop music for music fans will have a discrepancy in sound too large for the musicians of the latter category to attain deserved success as easily. No?

soundwise, it's hard for me to listen most things from the past decade. it's grating and fatiguing to listen to a song where the drums are LOUD, the vocals are LOUD, the guitar is LOUD, the synthesizer is LOUD. It's overwhelming and the subtlety is lost. Maybe it is a taste thing, but I do not care for it, sir.

Agreed! Sorry Jak/sleepingbag, I know anytime there is pushback to something that compromises "purity" in art there are those that accessorize with that opinion to be on the cooler side of the issue (after reading an article about it), but in this case the issue isn't overblown on its own in my opinion.

I guess just a difference of opinion here, that's cool. Most of the complains I've heard about the loudness war conflate/tie in to "Music these days, it ain't what it used to be" etc. and I really think that most of the talk about it mixes up the program material with the technical discussion. Maybe I'm just not privy to actual music fans being dissuaded from listening to something they would otherwise listen to anyway because of loudness. Still, it's not an issue for me. If anything, I feel compression often brings out the subtle details that would otherwise be lost just as a function of being too quiet.

it is demonstrably true that music these days "ain't what it used to be". whether you enjoy music these days is a matter of opinion, and is a separate issue.

yeah no doubt, but that's a good thing