Music Into Noise: The Destructive Use Of Dynamic Range Compression

Was it Nick who introduced the metaphor of a normal face vs. a face squished up against the glass? Cause that really is the perfect way of describing what this does.

Yeah, I know what multi-band compression is. But that just allows different frequency bands to be dynamically compressed with different settings. It doesn't, as Curt1s seemed to be implying, mean that the frequency range gets lessened.

But mp3 compression, if not taken down too far, doesn't necessarily squash the soundspace in the main way we're addressing here... is that right?

Face into glass wasn't me, I'm afraid!

oh steve g i just changed the view hmmm yeh now it all looks a lot messier

xp

No, any kind of lossy audio data compression shouldn't have a big effect on dynamic range (although depending on the material and the algorithm and the amount of data compression any number of weird artifacts can be created). Although I guess it kind of does in the sense that you lose resolution on quiet sounds, like reverb tails and cymbal decays and stuff.

The multiple common meanings of the word "compression" certainly don't help to make this issue clear.

no it doesn't...

dynamic range compression simply squashes peak volume, leaving the frequency range intact. mp3 compression actually does omit certain frequency ranges on the principle that the louder signals are more important than the quieter ones, and the listener won't miss the quieter ones -- so it subtracts out bass & harmonic frequencies, simplifying the signal -- that's why certain music sounds 'thinner' on mp3 -- there's actually less there. also you get raspy aliasing artifacts at lower kbps rates.

Autoditacker & Radical Connector are two great examples by the way -- Autoditacker is a fantastic headphone album with dozens of quiet details bouncing around and lots of creative use of dynamic range, and Radical Connector is just a huge monster truck

but I think it was meant to be that way, that was their intent. same with that Flaming Lips album you lead your article with, which was produced and mastered by the same person -- you may not like the aesthetic, but it was pretty clearly chosen. a lot of electronic & hip-hop music does not suffer from this approach because they are going for sounds that haven't been heard yet, and you have to admit, the sound is new. the problem is when other genres have to compete and albums are destroyed by mastering them to the same volume levels.

There's also a principle, the name of which escapes me, that puts a ceiling on the maximum frequency you can represent digitally - I believe the it's equal to half of the sample rate. So if the sample rate is 44.1 kHz (standard CD quality), you can represent frequencies up to 22 kHz, which is fine for almost all purposes, as the upper limit of human hearing is 20 kHz.

But a funny illustration of this principle is the dog whistle at the end of Sgt. Pepper's. I grew up listening to the CD version, and the sound was always clearly perceptible. But I'm told that on the vinyl version it's much less audible to human ears, and that due to the above principle the sound on the CD actually consists of subharmonics of the original sound.

I'm not quite sure at what point or in exactly what manner mp3 compression further limits potential frequency range.

You know, I dunno if it would be legal to do such a thing on Stylus or wherever, but Nick or someone should post a DLable mix (high bitrate by necessity of the subject) of tracks exemplifying the different points to be made.

There's also a principle, the name of which escapes me

Nyquist Frequency - http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NyquistFrequency.html

as for something that makes what we're talking about audible, this post from upthread (already rolled into concealed messages) is perfect -- listen to what happens to the drum intro when you squash the track, the reverb on the drum tail suddenly becomes huge, and the 1989 production suddenly sounds like a 2007 production, and it's entirely due to the mastering

great illustrative video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

-- Johnny Hotcox, Wednesday, June 6, 2007 12:39 AM (21 hours ago) Bookmark Link

well as lots of people who know about audio are on one thread, a question: i made the mistake of recording an interview in a pub. halfway through the interview the bass of the background music starts getting in the way of the voices, what is the best technique, using audacity hopefully, to turn down the bass? isolating speach would be great but i think that's a bit of a pipe dream. this is a WAV file btw.

acrobat, that's what equalizers are for. Try using a highpass filter around 100 or 120 Hz (i.e., cutting everything below those frequencies) and see if that helps. Although I think the audacity EQ is pretty awful.

is there any other freeware that would do the job better?

I was just talking to my dad about the Olympics logo and the epileptic thing, and logos in general and why the Olympic one had to be 'evolving', etcetera, and he said "it's because people are so obsessed with technology that they forget what they're meant to be doing". And I thought, that's what's happening here.

acrobat: well, I'm thinking of the default EQ plugin that comes with Audacity. There are links to other Audacity-compatible plugins here. I can't recommend one specifically, but I'm sure there are some good freeware EQ plugs out there.

this was mentioned on another thread, but since it hasn't been mentioned here yet, the logical solution is: car stereos and iPods with built-in compression algorhythms which the user can switch on & adjust themselves, so you can listen in your car to classical or jazz or chamber pop records that normally you'd only be able to listen to at home

the algorhythms are already out there (Volume Logic was initially called Octiv -- company was way ahead of their time, founded by people who used to work at Orban, who invented the sound of FM Radio compression in the 70's/80's with the Optimod, but Octiv was too ahead of their time so the company keeps getting sold off, but their time could still come).

It doesn't, as Curt1s seemed to be implying, mean that the frequency range gets lessened.

this isn't what I was implying, but I didn't word my post very well at all.

The Best of Fad Gadget, or at least the copy I have, clips horribly. I'm not even sure it's compression that's the problem, they just got careless with the volume!

This article in IEEE Spectrum is a good overview of compression abuse -- its history in the recording industry, vinyl vs. CD, and implications for non-CD digital formats.

those three MoM albums are like apples & oranges in many, many ways and trying to squeeze their differences into being all about compression seems rather unhelpful....

Those waveforms examples are extremely misleading as well. Trying to make a point by comparing random waveforms from "the late 80s/90s" with "a waveform from now" is pointless. I've been using programs like Audacity to mix songs sets for radio broadcast for years and there is a huge range of waveforms from every decade. Without knowing details like how long each of those tracks are it's impossible to compare them meaningfully. They are obviously very dissimilar songs though. Having said that, a lot of guitar bands from nowadays look like the second example. But so do the Buzzcocks.

Is this what is going on with Justice/Ed Banger etc? If so, then I might actually be really into it.

Yeah, it's a knee-jerk reaction to assume it's all bad. I don't give a fuck about Green Day anyway - it's unlistenable garbage to me as it is. I've put the Simian Mobile Disco tracks on Audacity and it's obviously compressed in this way. Plus you can just tell by listening to it. Still sounds good to me though. Why even compare something like that with Dark Side Of The Moon?

I suspect the number of GOOD albums that have been negatively affected in this way is pretty miniscule actually.

you're both wrong

explain?

Considering that, like, 90% of albums are affected this way, my guess would be that the proportion of good albums affected is about the same as the proportion of good albums to total albums (no matter what your definition of good is).

UNLESS your definition of "good" is "highly compressed, lacking in dynamic range, lightly dusted with digital clipping, and a bit tiring to listen to for more than a minute and a half."

Upthread someone posted a waveform of "Umbrella" which clearly shows what we're all talking about here. Bearing in mind this song is probably the most loved song on ILM this year, what, exactly is the problem? "highly compressed, lacking in dynamic range, lightly dusted with digital clipping, and a bit tiring to listen to for more than a minute and a half" just doesn't really describe it.

(a) "Umbrella" is not the only song in the universe
(b) Folk records should probably not be mastered like "Umbrella"
(c) So long as you're looking upthread, please read extensive discussion of why this kind of mastering can work for short radio singles with small numbers of moving details, but is a very poor technique for giving people the opportunity to comfortably enjoy albums
(d) The fact that people like a song does not mean that every single thing about its production and mastering are necessarily good ideas, even for the song itself, much less for the entirety of recorded sound
(e) "Umbrella" IS highly compressed and somewhat lacking in dynamic range -- it's just lucky that, like a lot of similar singles, it's built for that, that's the intent from the beginning (I have not noticed any digital clipping on it, but again, please read discussion upthread of why a song like "Umbrella" is not going to clip the way a modern-rock song might)

Fair enough. But I do think that the amount of good tracks that have been negatively affected by this is fairly small. I recognise the phenomenon but it's just not that big of a deal to me because the bad side seems pretty rare, plus the fact that good songs like "Umbrella" are "built for that" is great. They probably sound best on laptop speakers or headphones. It's the current way of producing music, just like Brian Wilson trying to make records that sound good on monophonic car radios, or Pink Floyd making records that sound good on stereophonic record players. It defines our times.

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2581958/2/istockphoto_2581958_exasperation.jpg

you guys aren't getting it. Mastering isn't the music, its what happens after the music has been recorded.

if you were in germany in world war ii, nazism defines your times but it doesn't make it good

lol nazi reference in internet argument

I don't mean this in a mean way, but I'm skeptical that you recognize the phenomenon if "Umbrella" doesn't sound compressed to you! It's a "current way of producing music," yes, and it suits some types of productions, but it's also a "current way of producing music" that a massive number of the people involved don't want to have to do, one that intensely diminishes the quality of huge chunks of recorded music, one that in most cases everyone will admit means trading the best treatment of the music for the demands of marketing and iPod volume settings. Even your timeline underlines a problem with it: Brian Wilson recording for mono car radios, Pink Floyd recording for stereos, and those same people today optimizing their recordings to ... sound loud on shitty laptop speakers? To keep up with everyone else by making music loud enough that you don't have to go through the inhuman ordeal of turning a volume knob? This is not just audophile bullshit: the standard level of mastering today blares and pounds to an extent that it can be rough and tiring even to listen to music you enjoy, whereas I can pull out a quieter 90s mastering job, turn the volume WAY up, and be drawn into the sense of space and definition and clarity even in music I don't particularly like. It's not some arcane, subtle thing -- there's a world of difference.

I love nabisco.

I've probably only heard "Umbrella" two or three times ever actually - in a mall or something like that, so I've not really listened to it close enough to hear what it sounds like. I'm just judging that waveform upthread and I've had tons of experience looking at these waveforms and know what the sound on the tracks will probably sound like. I am very familiar with the sound of modern over-compressed recordings. I hear it clearly on things like the Fratellis (who make music I dislike anyway). The thing is that their audience don't give a damn. They listen to it blaring out of their laptop speakers and like it. Stuff like that is very popular (though weirdly no-one on ILM dares defend it).

There's an enormous great meme, on here and elsewhere, that says 'song is all', and within that, that it doesn't matter what you do to a song, there's some kind of platonic essence of the song's greatness that will withstand it. Now the popist and rockist might disagree slightly as to quite what comprises that 'song' (popist says production, hook, vocal performance, rockist says chord progression, guitar solo, whatever), but they're both broadly in agreement that a good song is a good song, and you can bend it, compress it, limit it, overdub it, reduce it to an acoustic strum, whatever, and as long as the basic essence is still there, the song is still good. Well that may be the case, but I'm increasingly of the attitude that there's a LOT of songs, and for most of them, in terms of the platonic essence of how good they are, there's not that much in it, to be honest. So the key thing for me becomes how well I can listen to it. The form of it. The physical form. Sod the platonic. To a degree. And if that means that... the difference in qualitative terms between Radical Connector and Andorra is that Andorra is easier to listen to, and I listen to it more, and enjoy it more, as a consequence, then to me it is better. Likewise Electrelane and Queens Of The Stone Age or LCD Soundsystem and Simian Mobile Disco or Guillemots and Keane or 65daysofstatic and Muse.

xpost

I think this issue has been particularly nagging to me in part because of the type of music I was listening to during the 90s period of really dynamic mastering* (though I wonder, often, whether the types of music popular then might have had a lot to do with the possibilities of mastering). A lot of the indie stuff at that point had a hell of a lot to do with sound. There were the height and the tail end of shoegazing, and endless attention to perfectly blurred guitars. There was the point where efficient, rough-and-tumble rave music spawned home-listening stuff that was really interested in the sonic field, making strange noises and textures dance around each other. (Not just IDM, but the sound of proper dance stuff, turned up nice and loud, could be amazing.) There were all kinds of comfy, drawly slow-ass bands, and others who used recording to create precise, dreamy pop worlds (like late Stereolab or Pizzicato 5). Most of these things put a lot of attention into sounding great. The mixes would be clear and tactile and full of space and definition, to the point where the elements of it seemed to have a distinct spatial arrangement in front of you. I can remember hearing a Spring Heel Jack EP turned up loud on a good hi-fi -- possibly the first time I encountered anything coming out of the jungle or d&b lineage -- and feeling physically amazed by the sound, which was this distinct, complicated presence in the room, airy and deep and crisp and solid where it counted. A lot of what I got out of listening to music was listening deep into mixes like that, being amazed by the organization of them, the way it felt like you could step into them and look around their depth.

I rarely get that from any record these days. I like good songs and interesting ideas, but it's rare to hear a recording I'm actually drawn into that way. And it's because they're not about drawing in -- they're about bursting out, loud and flat. I'm not begrudging the loud, flat burst to exciting radio singles (they often sound fantastic), or brash modern rock bands (that can capture an energy, too), but as a industry standard it's acutely painful -- even the records that want to sound natural, that have poured thousands of dollars into studio time to make their music rich and deep and inviting, wind up shouting you back to arm's length, all flat surfaces and squeezed-together messes.

(* = also because I record music -- I'm not great at it, but I do -- and that makes you interested in the possibilities of how things sound, and familiar with the tools that get them that way, and I'd bet nearly anything that if you had the knobs in your hand you would never choose for the music you're working on to get squished, I swear it!)

You've got me there. I completely identify and agree with what you're are saying in the first paragraph. I still hear that in newer recordings but really only in more house music or some electronic things. Guitar music is pretty much dead for me, partly because of what you're talking about, maybe?

I record music too and never, ever use any kind of compression. But the music I'm recording doesn't lend itself to that kind of thing. Maybe if I was making techno music I'd use it.

There are occasional new records that do it, that have space that you can climb around inside of. But not enough. I blame Tony Blair. And Noel Gallagher.

Compression's great and indispensable during the recording and mixing processes -- it's when you're brick-walling it to pump up the mix that it starts to seem like a really lousy plan.

But ha, yeah, Everything, I'm glad we can agree on that thing that's been a little lost there. I'm just hoping the kinds of acts that want to make That Kind of Album will just get comfortable with fighting for their music to be mastered a lot quieter than, you know, "Umbrella" -- I mean, if you're a laptop folk act, or something, and aren't planning on breaking Clear Channel, there's just no good reason to be chart-loud anyway! So maybe people will get annoyed with iPod volume readjustment and take you off shuffle -- you'll still have made the album that sounds head-and-shoulders above the others when they're listening at home.

Face into glass wasn't me, I'm afraid!

-- Scik Mouthy

The face-on-the-glass analogy, which is good for explaining compression to people who can't conceptualise it easily, is engineer Steve Hoffman's:

"Finally, think of compression visually like this. You are standing on one side of a sliding glass door. Someone is on the other side, and as you watch, starts pushing their face against the glass. The face doesn't get any closer to you, it just starts to look squashed, like a good 90mm camera lens will do. You don't want the person's nose to look really long and unnatural, see? You want the perspective to be "flattened" so it flatters the person's face. Well, same with music."

I think Tim didn't like the analogy much, but it is a good place to start, in the sense of directing attention towards the effect in a piece of music.

how does this impact on playing music in clubs?

Depends what kind of club. If you're playing shiny vocal pop/r&b/hip-hop singles, it works out fine, because they blare out really hot over club PAs, and they hit you very viscerally and make the whole place feel loud and chaotic and bursting with energy, which is not a bad thing in a club playing pop/r&b/hip-hop singles. Very "serious"-type dance music, on the other hand, has held back a little on the loudness, at least in spots, because it's still interested in the music being tactile and filling space in interesting ways, and having some rises and falls -- plus if you're talking about an 8-hour night out, the music can't blare at you too much. (There are also some differences involved w/r/t vinyl mastering.) But maybe someone who spends time in Berlin and such could say more about how that one works.

Keep in mind that overcompression works somewhat differently with "artificial" sounds like synths and samples, because there's not a lot of extraneous natural sound information to get flattened out. (The producers also have control over all the sound they're using, so they can work with a loud sound in mind from the beginning.) The place where you notice the hell out of this is when it comes to familiar instruments -- say, when an acoustic guitar or a natural-sounding drum recording has been all squished up to the point of sounding just ... off.

If you're playing shiny vocal pop/r&b/hip-hop singles, it works out fine, because they blare out really hot over club PAs, and they hit you very viscerally and make the whole place feel loud and chaotic and bursting with energy

i dont know that i necessarily agree ... a lot of times it prevents them from impacting as viscerally as they should

Well, I'd usually prefer them airier, but just saying: if you're playing three-minute pop singles in a loud, crowded bar, people are a whole lot less likely to mind if they come out brash and blaring. (Though you may in fact give them the impression that your pricey club sound system is actually really crappy.)

This isn't really about dynamic range compression but Nick's penultimate post seems rather disingenuous. For a start there is a lot more than the song to I think the majority of listeners, I think both the popist and rockist positions are both based on abstracts rather than actual musical content. I mean your one time peer Dom Passantino has made a career of never talking about an artist's actual music. And just saying it's about "how well you can listen to it" well to a degree, sure it works in the present but it seems like this stuff is the only thing affecting your choices. I came across an old thread where you were saying you didn't see the appeal of The Velvet Underground which struck me as odd as to me they are one of the best sounding bands ever: that beautiful distortion that make it sound like your speakers are collapsing in on themselves, the vocals on the 3rd album that seem to be a couple of feet away from you, the crispness of the fourth album. Digression much. You know I agree with you on this, but you seem to be suggesting it's the only factor dictating what you listen to. Which seems odd, odd, odd.