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

They very definitely can be! One of the wonders of recorded music, dynamics transcend the marking on a page in a number of ways. It's what I'm saying with Skrillex, literally anybody listening to "Cinema" or whatever is going to perceive a 'quiet' verse part and a 'loud' robot part, but there's really very little qualitative volume difference between the two parts if you measure .

But some of us want actual dynamics, i.e. changes in volume, too!

I wonder about the extent to which I've always liked pop singles for having a smashed sound. Like liking Phil Spector or Motown. I wonder about the extent to which I mix my own music so that's inherently smashed (just in the mix, without even considering adding compression afterwards).

One thing that's struck me about compression in contemporary pop music is that I do sometimes like it. I like it just for stylistic reasons. Like when the chorus comes in on the big One Direction hit and it's no louder - I actually like it in that case.

yeah sometimes i feel like there can be a counterintuitive and ultimately pleasure-enhancing tension when the chorus is the same overall volume as the verse but the balance between certain elements suddenly shifts.

the compression/loudness thing probably doesn't mean much of anything to anyone listening in a car or on an ipod or a computer or a phone or computer speakers. you aren't going to get great sound from any of those things (okay if your car is fancy i guess you can get decent sound but most standard car audio/speakers leave a lot to be desired). but i listen to music on home stereo loudspeakers and if i play a cd that sounds distorted when i turn my stereo up (to a reasonable degree) i never play it again. to me its a faulty product. and a LOT of modern CDs are made this way.

overcompression is shitty and lazy but is useful if you listen to music in environments that have a lot of other noise, and music is often played these days in sonic environments where it has to compete for space. the idea that dynamic range compression might be a desirable for stuff you'll be listening to at home seems completely ridiculous, obviously you want full dynamic range when you can get it or several key musical effects will be effectively unavailable to you as a listener. unless you live above a train station or something I guess.

xp wow scott and I were thinking about the exact same thing at the exact same moment

we finally have a car with a cd player (and a dvd player! first car from the 21st century we have ever owned) and i bought the who's tommy at the thrift store this morning and put it in and i was kinda enjoying how fucked up it sounded. bonkers separation and acoustic guitars that sounded like they were made out of glass. so brittle. and very digital. i dunno, sounded like 1988 in the car. very loud and harsh and ringing and echo-y but kinda cool anyway just cuzza what they decided to highlight on the cd. like a fan-made remix.

You knew I was gonna ask: which remaster?

(there've been, literally, five)

obviously you want full dynamic range when you can get it

It's not obvious to me, though. It's not what Phil Spector was going for in his arrangements, I don't think.

Or how he recorded/mixed those arrangements, I mean.

"You knew I was gonna ask: which remaster?"

it was pretty old! like, might have been 80's vintage. so, just a stock copy, i think.

i got a bunch of old rock CDs in at the store - 80's vintage - including some paul mccartney remasters and i kinda want to test them out in the car now. i have no idea how many speakers there are in the car. 4? 10? 20? sound in the back and front and everywhere. dodge caravan. from 2007. the dvd sound is actually pretty sweet too. when the kids watch loony tunes i gotta duck cuzza elmer's bullets flying everywhere.

really wish y'all could come over and check out these unplayed first pressing sinatra records on capitol that i scored. jesus christmas do they sound nice. minimal surface noise. never seen nicer copies.

yeah sometimes i feel like there can be a counterintuitive and ultimately pleasure-enhancing tension when the chorus is the same overall volume as the verse but the balance between certain elements suddenly shifts.

I just like the TIGHTNESS of a record like "Da Doo Ron Ron," which is as flat as a pancake as far as dynamic range goes.

Dynamic range compression did not exist then

In terms of what's used today software wise, there were tube compressors etc but it's not the same thing

I'm not saying it did; I'm just saying those records are flat dynamically and comparing that to the flatness attained with compression on modern records.

it was pretty old! like, might have been 80's vintage. so, just a stock copy, i think.

Got it. Of the five remasters, one was a complete remix which isn't generally thought highly of, so I thought it might be that (there's audible digital artifacts throughout, and crazy-ass separation). One way to tell is, if the band's faces don't appear in the cover art, it's the remix.

ah, i'll look later. that might have been the one!

it definitely sounded worked on. shiny. and weird.

Just listening to the mono mix of "Penny Lane" on an old 45 - flat, flat, flat dynamics all the way through. Squashed. Sounds great.

(Sorry if I'm coming off as argumentative. I know that the mindless use of brick wall compression just for the sake of loudness is not a good thing.)

Hm, I definitely would not say that "Penny Lane" has flat dynamics on the 2009 stereo remaster of MMT.

I would like resolution regarding whether Phil Spector's stuff is dynamically flat or not. Can anyone actually confirm one way or another?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8hjtFq3vE0

50's/60's/70's music also massively distorted in so many many ways, but the type of distortion that rockists approve of so it's ok

timellison I think I read you re: Spector 'anticipating' dynamic range compression with his dense arrangements.

This is an impossible topic btw, it's like asking "how much dissonance is too much"?

I am mixing things one day out of seven and I'm amazed every time, every time! with something to do with volume, like some insane popping electronic doodles will sound so terrifyingly loud and yet be barely touching the faders. Then a snare drum will come in and be not-loud-enough but actually too loud. It's so much more complicated than can be distilled to a "compression good" "dynamic range good" kind of argument. I love compression, there are lots of records I wish were, well, I would just say "mixed better" but I do specifically mean I wish they had less dynamic range, and had some compression on the final mix. The rimshots on D'Angelo records are too fucking loud, you can't hear what's going on on those songs unless you make your ears bleed with those offbeats, i.e., call me crazy, but I'd argue that you don't know anything about that album except that beautifully recorded snare drum. The listening environment zeitgeist (and age) is a huge factor, too, of course, I was so into a lot of music as a teenager that sounds sibilant these days, with the voice mixed way too high, was it the 90s? or has my taste changed? Anyway I'm a better musician I went to a top music school etc.

looking at the waveform of da doo ron ron from the back to mono box, it's not crushed at all. musically there aren't a lot of dynamics, but the recording itself isn't crushed into a rectangular waveform.

but if you heard the song on the radio when it first came out, the radio station was probably adding more limiting (uppermississippi's claim that "Dynamic range compression did not exist then" is demonstrably false). And if you cranked it up real loud, the tube amp in your radio would compress a bit as would the speaker cone itself. there are lots of different causes of compression and distortion, and a contemporary digital master of an old record doesn't necessarily represent the experience of listening to the record when it was first released.

jak and sleepingbag otm, esp re: how this argument is being couched

it's all contextual- if you're making a three minute song to play on the radio or to listen to on shuffle on an ipod, something for casual listening, sure, compress the heck out of that puppy because it'll make it pop. if you're making an album, though, a little more attention to dynamics is necessary, because after five or so minutes some people's ears are just going to start getting tired. like, different mixes at least for single versions and album versions seems like it'd be actively a good idea here.

i think why the fogeys get upset about "ruining music" is the somewhat pernicious trend of remastering old records to make them sound like contemporary pop singles done under the tacit assumption that such a thing is superior. you know, like a subtler version of for instance zappa re-recording the bass and drum tracks on "we're only in it for the money". objecting to that isn't nostalgia gone wild by any stretch of the imagination.

after five or so minutes some people's ears are just going to start getting tired

not in my experience

"50's/60's/70's music also massively distorted in so many many ways, but the type of distortion that rockists approve of so it's ok"

uh huh whatever. anyway, i was talking about distortion that actually CHANGES the music. turns it into noise. there are poorly made records from the analog era that will do this too, but there are a LOT of digital recordings i've heard - local, big label, small label, pop, rock, rap, take your pick - that do this. and its because someone didn't take the time to do it right. you can make a cd loud as hell and still preserve the integrity of the recording. i thought this kinda thing was kinda funny and over the top ridiculous when i first heard a slipknot album - they are the new noise kings! - but then it just became normal. and it IS normal for a lot of people who grew up hearing music this way. which is why people like lex and others are acclimated to it. especially if they do a lot of listening with ear buds and computer speakers. shitty is the new normal. if every cd sounded as good as my kompakt and mego CDs i wouldn't even be on this thread. but they are exceptions, in my opinion. not the norm.

i also have no doubt that there are new pop CDs that the lex loves that sound amazing. CDs can sound amazing! but you have to know what you're doing and you have to take the time to do it right. a lot of people don't. digital recording is easier in a lot of ways, but the ease can lead to laziness.

i was listening to a remastered 70's-era record (u.k. copy of a thin lizzy record) on cd a while back and i was kinda blown away by how good it sounded. just a really good job of transferring tape onto disc and also highlighting the strengths of the digital medium/tech. so i went online and looked it up and it turned out that its a sought-after remaster. it's KNOWN as a great cd and a great remaster even though it came out years ago and people still look for this particular version online. and you can hear why. the engineer responsible took great care and time to make a great cd copy of an album recorded on tape. it really shines. in a good way. again, the exception. this is why people who love great sound seek out old out of print CDs that can be expensive and hard to find. not because they're crazy or rockist because its worth it to hear something in the best possible light. there are remastered CDs out now that are just...abysmal. the very word remaster has become a red flag. and again if you are listening on your phone who gives a shit? but i don't own a phone. things should sound sci-fi good by 2013 (and they can if you find the right stuff. i have new electro-acoustic experimental discs on dvd audio that will not your friggin' socks off they sound so insanely good) ! but people are paying a premium for CDs put out in 1989? its crazy.

The fact that some people are being so obstinate in the face of Scott's well-informed, well-researched, well-experienced, considered, obviously true posts here is kinda :-0 to me.

Over-compressed pop music is synonymous with dentist office waiting room music, or something that isn't an 80s hit when I'm shopping for groceries. Slick and flat and safe and restrained. That's the effect I hear and the association I have. The songs already have no substance and produced this way squanders any fury the performance of them may have had.

what nonsense

yeah, its silly. there are blanket statements on this thread that are all kinds of silly. and i probably made a few. i'm no expert. but i do love stuff that sounds good. TO ME. obviously. and i listen to thousands of recordings every year and i hear clunkers on vinyl all the time, so i'm no apologist. i actually just priced a classical record down from 5 bucks to 2 bucks a minute ago after putting it on for a minute or two. klaus tennstedt and the berlin phil doing mendelssohn and schumann. american angel digital pressings of the 80's not that hot and this was a record club american angel digital pressing which are even worse. klaus would not have approved if he had heard it.

its all worth it for me when i strike gold though. cd or vinyl. and it happens all the time cuz i play so much stuff. just this year alone i've heard 5 or 6 truly exceptional records. but i had to play hundreds to find them.

it's so cute when people actually drag words like "rockist" back out of mothballs

I'm talking about music with the #1 priority of being non-offensive enough to be relentlessly marketed to as many demographics as possible. Lifeless and disposable, with a process during production much like that of launching a new flavor of Oreo cookies or something. Isn't this the kind of music we're talking about?

Evan is a strawsock constructed by lex to further his position, I'm calling shenanigans

it's so cute when people actually drag words like "rockist" back out of mothballs

why would they ever do such a thing when there are so obviously no rockists left

Haha alright, never mind. I'll keep it to myself.

I know I'm blanketing but I never hear this production style unless the $$$ factor is at the top.

the thing is that there is nothing inherently "rockist" in talking about sound construction and reception. it's a neutral field. people attempting to tether it to their musical aesthetics are silly people indeed.

I know I'm blanketing but I never hear this production style unless the $$$ factor is at the top

UGH THE DOLLAR FACTOR HAS BEEN AT THE TOP SINCE AT LEAST THE 17TH CENTURY this is a non-issue here

its almost like things are the exact opposite now to how they once were. in the analog era the big companies broke ground and made jaws drop and now it seems like the tiniest labels are the ones revolutionizing digital. the experimental/mod classical/electronic niche labels. i wish michael mayer produced death metal.

No, obviously, caring about, thinking about, and talking about sound quality is somehow antithetical to the idea of beautiful pop music flowing thick, golden and democratic from cheap sound sources clutched by beaming children. Every time you complain about a squashed transient, an innocent pop listener feels a chill from your creeping decrepitude. Stop hurting people.