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

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (729 of them)

i've had friends that have released vinyl versions of their CDs, and they had to do a totally different mastering job, it actually has to be mastered for vinyl separately....

― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Thursday, 25 May 2006 20:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

― electric sound of jim (and why not) (electricsound), Friday, 26 May 2006 01:32 (6 years ago) Permalink

So, somebody upthread mentioned knowing people who listened at home on compressors. Is this really feasible? Are they hard to adjust, how much do they cost, etc.?

― don, Friday, 26 May 2006 02:53 (6 years ago) Permalink

don - it's been a long time since i used Cubase, but iirc you can add effects to whatever comes from line-in in real time, and there is a whole bunch of free VST compressors out there, so it's certainly feasible. However quality might not be as good as with the hardware compressors.

― scnnr drkly (scnnr drkly), Friday, 26 May 2006 14:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

i've had friends that have released vinyl versions of their CDs, and they had to do a totally different mastering job, it actually has to be mastered for vinyl separately....

It's a very different discipline seeing as you're literally cutting a record, with all of the attendant restrictions on how low or hot you can go with that particular piece of plastic at that rpm and with that running time.

You don't have to worry about sub-bass or phase issues or summing to mono below a certain frequency or wild dynamic shifts when mastering for CD; it seems to be because of (rather than despite of) these limitations when mastering for vinyl that so much more care goes into making it sound as good as possible. You know the CD will take anything you chuck at it, so why not max the thing out? Shame...

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Friday, 26 May 2006 14:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

xpost Or you can just run your audio device through a stereo rackmount compressor.

That said, this:

Compression is like audio crack - sure it feels good but it can destroy your life.

Is just a weeeee bit hyperbolic.

― Eppy (Eppy), Friday, 26 May 2006 14:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

what?! i took that totally at face value!!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 26 May 2006 15:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

Eppy hasn't heard of the thousands that died after hearing the last Korn album.

― Edward III (edward iii), Friday, 26 May 2006 15:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

ha rush has an album called power windows!

― jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Friday, 26 May 2006 16:26 (6 years ago) Permalink

Audio engineers are LITERALLY BURNING DOWN HOUSES.

― Eppy (Eppy), Friday, 26 May 2006 16:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think it was Al Jourgenson (spelling?) who cackled about getting letters, " 'Your album fucked up my stereo!' Whatta they want me to do, send 'em a new one?" I wonder if the Vh-1 Top Twenty version of "One," by Mary J. featuring U2, has DRC--send the doctor, cos she try try tries, piles on the intensity, and it just lies there. There was a version she and they did, but without Bono's vocals, at a televised Katrinathon, Shelter From The Storm, and she sounded fantastic there. So it's not like she can't do better (maybe it's my TV, but some of her earlier tracks have had the same effect, on my radio.)

― don, Saturday, 27 May 2006 01:17 (6 years ago) Permalink

2 months pass...

I really liked the article, even though I’m not an industry insider who can comment on the technical aspects of audio compression. The article has intuitive appeal, especially in its observation that over-compression makes nu-metal even more grating. Also, it fits into a broader world-view, i.e., things are too loud and noisy now, people no longer have attention spans or patience, and the engineering of modern music reflects these failings.

But I’m still troubled by some aspects of the article. First, I think the article sometimes compares apples-to-oranges. Some examples of properly compressed music cited in the article seem to be more subtle and textured to begin with, e.g., the songs on Talk Talk’s “Laughing Stock,” while some examples of over-compressed music cited in the article seem to be less subtle and more blunt, flat and loud to begin with, e.g., songs by the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Queens of the Stone Age. A true apples-to-apples comparison would be two songs in the same genre, one with proper compression and one with over-compression, or – better yet – two versions of one song, with the only difference being that one version is properly compressed and the other version is overly-compressed. I suppose the latter comparison can be done by comparing a song from the original disc with the same song remastered on a reissued version of the disc.

Second, the article wisely notes that being able to hear proper compression in music is akin to being able to taste or smell individual notes in wine. If you’re a connoisseur, you can detect smoke or chocolate or earthy flavors in a given bottle of wine; if you’re not a connoisseur, it can just taste like a big, bold red. Similarly, I have trouble hearing over-compression in songs without a connoisseur’s guidance.

So what are some examples of properly-compressed and overly-compressed current music, and what tells you that the music you cite is properly or overly compressed? Since I like indie-rock, I’d greatly appreciate some examples in that genre.

― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 23 August 2006 12:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

4 months pass...

i knew this would be a nick south... no, not so much

― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Thursday, 18 January 2007 09:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

Haha, the guy did phone me to discuss it a wweek or two ago though.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 18 January 2007 10:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

Haha, note Graham Sutton quote - I told him to get in touch with him.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 18 January 2007 10:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

why di'int u write it dog?

― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Thursday, 18 January 2007 10:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

Dude pitched it before me. Plus it was in the IT section, where I don't have contacts. I saw him asking on the Steve Hoffman forum, fired him off an email, and he rang me for a chat. If I had another angle for writing about it I'd pitch it at Film & Music, but I've pretty much said everything I can at Stylus and doubt they'd be interested in a straight rewrite of something already run elsewhere.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 18 January 2007 10:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

"He has impeccable credentials, having worked with bands from the Clash and the Smiths back in the 1970s to Madonna, Iron Maiden and the Sugababes today. "

lol factual error.

― acrobat (elwisty), Thursday, 18 January 2007 12:10 (6 years ago) Permalink

"There's nothing wrong with distorted over-limited CDs per se," says Graham Sutton, a musician with Bark Psychosis and a sound engineer. "It's all aesthetics, after all. But what might suit Whitehouse or Merzbow might not be right for Norah Jones. It's now at the point where CDs cannot get any louder, just more distorted.

well said

― milton parker (Jon L), Thursday, 18 January 2007 19:39 (6 years ago) Permalink

good article

the anecdote about "this isn't as loud as the new Paul Simon" was just bonkers.

― M@tt He1g3s0n: oh u mad cuz im stylin on u (Matt Helgeson), Thursday, 18 January 2007 19:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

I heart this thread.

― sleeve version 2.0 (sleeve testing), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

the guy we record with calls the sound of over-mastered, over-compressed records "sonic meatloaf"

― M@tt He1g3s0n: oh u mad cuz im stylin on u (Matt Helgeson), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:16 (6 years ago) Permalink

It's a while since I listened to the Paul Simon album, but Eno produced, meaning dynamics are less important than texture, and it's hardly Keane. That last Keane record - jesus, I can't get over how bad it sounds.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:31 (6 years ago) Permalink

i read the article earlier today and thought that a lot of the detail had to come from an ilm'r.
keep up the good work Nick, its an important issue methinks despite not totally understanding the science. however, since reading the stylus article i understand why after a few hours with the headphones my ears just feel battered and bruised with newly mastered releases ..

― mark e (mark e), Thursday, 18 January 2007 22:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

ironically the whitehouse stuff isn't actually that squashed (although in a not too dissimilar vein i have a track by xinlisupreme that is the loudest track i have ever encountered

― jimbo (electricsound), Thursday, 18 January 2007 23:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

Indie rock tends not to be very compressed thus allowing one with very large speakers to enjoy in depth the frequency response of dull, ironic playing.

I love how the QOTSA CD is totally squashed.

--Compression lover

― Grey, Ian (IanBrooklyn), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:01 (6 years ago) Permalink

how do you play guitar ironically?

― M@tt He1g3s0n: oh u mad cuz im stylin on u (Matt Helgeson), Friday, 19 January 2007 15:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

Plenty of indie rock is super compressed. But If You're Feeling Sinister comes to mind as a record that always strikes me with how uncompressed it is. Especially the first track, Stars of Track and Field. If I'm in the car, I can never hear the first 20 seconds or so of that song because it's so quiet.

― Steve Go1dberg (Steve Schneeberg), Friday, 19 January 2007 17:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'm still amazed by how, in modern rock songs, things actually feel like they get quieter during the big choruses, because all the instruments bottleneck into the same space that was previously just verse instrumentation. It's funny -- when things get really squashed, it almost feels like a return to listening to a Victrola, where you can once again hear natural sound kinda fighting against the medium, and your brain has to fill in what it would actually sound like if it weren't squishy and distorted.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

interesting thread, and i generally agree when it comes to music with live instrumentation. whoever mastered the johnny cash "hurt" cover, where it distorts in the middle, needs to be slapped ASAP.

BUT over-compression kinda rules when it comes to hip-hop. madlib goes crazy on the compressors, to the point where the bass drum just cuts everything else out of the mix, but in his case it totally works as an aesthetic. same with jay dee's donuts and people flipped on that.

― nicenick (nicenick), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:17 (6 years ago) Permalink

Well yeah, the advantage there is that so much hip-hop is made from the get-go as a stitching together of recorded sound, and undie guys in particular have really latched onto making it that really transparent and kind of the point -- cf the way Madlib uses weird downsampled bits and leaves odd digital artifacts hanging around everywhere. That said, my ears do get pretty bothered when a giant kick drum keeps coming in and squashing everything. Especially since in some productions people seem to have set up the attack/decay times on the compressors to make this process sound as awkward as possible -- like there'll be a second where the drum sample has ended, but the rest of the mix still hasn't sprung back out to shape yet.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:34 (6 years ago) Permalink

all the "s's" on the vocals "momma i'm so sorry" by clipse sound really hissing and digitally...that record is really pushed.

― M@tt He1g3s0n: oh u mad cuz im stylin on u (Matt Helgeson), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

Oh and also, here in the digital home-recording age, things like weird compressor settings and digital clipping are just the new equivalents of lo-fi 4-track tape hiss. When it comes to anything built on a computer at home (including plenty of undie rap), that stuff is often just the artist's doing, weird decisions or mistakes that they've followed through to something that works.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

With regard to rock, my basic position is that it's never sounded good with digital recording/playback. A nuanced stereo sound field for a rock band is never going to sound as good with digital as it did with analog. I think the real reason for the dynamic range compression trend is that it's a strategy for dealing with the problem. I see it as a way of treating rock or rock-related musics more like electronic music. You get loudness, yes, but just as important is the fact that you get this modern digital wall of sound (which, when done well, I think can sound great) so you avoid the unfavorable comparisons with nuanced analog stereo sound fields.

― Tim Ellison = NUMBER ONE ADVOCATE OF YOU-KNOW-WHAT ON NU-ILX!!! (Tim Ellison), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:52 (6 years ago) Permalink

I mean, I think you can do cool things with nuanced stereo sound fields using digital recording and playback. But I haven't really heard any good strategies for dealing with rock music this way (given the genre's whole history with great sounding analog).

― Tim Ellison = NUMBER ONE ADVOCATE OF YOU-KNOW-WHAT ON NU-ILX!!! (Tim Ellison), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

Stereotypes:

Analogue:

- More tendency to record instruments together, get the mix right before comitting to tape.

- Low noise recording. Noise being both aural and visual.

- More emphasis placed on what goes in!

Digital:

- Record a million different versions in a million different takes. Recordings treated as source material rather than performances.

- Lots of distractions. Operating systems, screens, the hum and whirr of a computer. (this is just my experience, but a poor understanding of signal chains. like how to best get a mic into a computer using available resources)

- More emphasis on fucking with it once its in there.

However, I don't think these factors are dependent on whether you are using digital or analgue recording gear. Its more about the approach of a producer. You can use traditional analogue approaches using digital gear and get the same the results.

― george bob (george bob), Tuesday, 23 January 2007 12:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

i know people often get a bit *(£$^"($ when his name is mentioned. but I think jim o'rourke does some nice stuff with digital recordings.

i'm thinking of recent loose fur and some of his own stuff. very clean, seperated recordings where stuff has obviously been re-jigged, and fucked around with. he seems to strip the source material of any life and create a new ambience/soundworld when re-combining sounds. i remember people hating the drums that sound like they've been recorded in a cardboard box thing, but i love that sound. its very fake, but when done sympathetically can really re-enforce the song.

― george bob (george bob), Tuesday, 23 January 2007 12:30 (6 years ago) Permalink

George Bob is right, I think. The above differences in approach that digital/analogue generally encourage are far more significant than any perceived differences in sound quality/mixing resolution/etc.

(I know I comp vocals like nobody's business with hard-disk recording but just aim for one good, complete performance with tape).

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Tuesday, 23 January 2007 13:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think george bob is right, too.

I know I comp vocals like nobody's business with hard-disk recording

Oh yes.

― Steve Go1dberg (Steve Schneeberg), Tuesday, 23 January 2007 17:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

One of the worst examples of this I can think of was the opening song for the most recent James Bond movie; it was supposed to sound all theatrical and huge, but because of the dynamic compression and despite an otherwise brilliant opening sequence the entire theme of the film seemed really canned and unaffecting.

― deej.. (deej..), Tuesday, 23 January 2007 17:44 (6 years ago) Permalink

4 months pass...

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/06/for_editors_is_music_too_loud.html

i hate people like this.

― titchyschneiderMk2, Wednesday, 6 June 2007 14:59 (5 years ago) Permalink

she has written an article to declare her ignorance in being unable to tell the difference between new dynamically-compressed recordings and old ones.

WAHT'S NOT TO LIKE?

― blueski, Wednesday, 6 June 2007 15:02 (5 years ago) Permalink

the way shes boiled it down to the old bollocks old farts vs youngsters today argument. and all for the sake of having an opinion (at least im guessing shes just being disengenuous and knows the deal, although worse, she might actually not).

― titchyschneiderMk2, Wednesday, 6 June 2007 15:07 (5 years ago) Permalink

has been discussed on this thread: Music Into Noise: The Destructive Use Of Dynamic Range Compression

― Curt1s Stephens, Wednesday, 6 June 2007 15:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

6 months pass...

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity

― titchyschneiderMk2, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 17:39 (5 years ago) Permalink

funny, I was thinking about this thread when I read the RS article last week.

http://www.irdial.com/scum.htm

― Display Name, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 19:17 (5 years ago) Permalink

That's a rubbish article on the Irdial site - look, look, Sony are now agreeing with us that CD is crap! Yes, because they're trying to sell a new format, you divs.

― Michael Jones, Thursday, 3 January 2008 00:00 (5 years ago) Permalink

haha it also rails against 44.1 PCM and calls it unlistenable, then encourages people to illegally download (I assume) MP3s, as if they sounded any better.

― sleeve, Thursday, 3 January 2008 00:22 (5 years ago) Permalink

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity

― Scik Mouthy, Thursday, 3 January 2008 08:13 (5 years ago) Permalink

Hahaha, someone beat me to it!

― Scik Mouthy, Thursday, 3 January 2008 08:14 (5 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 629 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

xpost yes this is one of the bands I always used as a counter-example to the more rabid 'compression is evil' arguments, so it's interesting that one of the main bands that mainstreamed the creative use of sidechain compression is throwing down this gauntlet

― Milton Parker, Friday, 19 April 2013 01:05 (1 month ago) Permalink

consistent w the perversity of their stance on edm i guess

― I have many lovely lacy nightgowns (contenderizer), Friday, 19 April 2013 01:15 (1 month ago) Permalink

just played it back while watching on a loudness meter. levels safely average around -3, leaving safe room for a handful of drum transients to spike, usually around -2.5, though a couple go louder, and the loudest one is that one hit at -1.7

they did not normalize the track

totally conventional cd mastering practice, circa 1985

― Milton Parker, Friday, 19 April 2013 01:29 (1 month ago) Permalink

I was thinking the reason for the headroom would be that so louder tracks on the album could be louder, but being that this is a single edit, that doesn't stand up to reason

― sandra dayo connor (The Reverend), Friday, 19 April 2013 02:03 (1 month ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.