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

"notable air and rhythmic drive"

wtf does that mean

i have never owned a dedicated cd player, by the way! i know you all were curious about that.

Lossy MP3s isn't really the issue, I think; lossless rips of stuff that sounds shit in the first place are still not at all desirable to me.

So the records sound shit, the CDs sound shit, the lossless files downloaded from the web sound shit, etc, yeah I can see how that would be undesirable.

i would def take a 256 MP3 of a good sounding record over a SACD of a bad sounding one.

i think people are specifically mastering for MP3 now which may be part of why stuff has been pushed in a bad direction

Pretty sure this trend precedes MP3 by a good few years but maybe that's just me.

i was hanging with an engineer/musician friend in nyc over the weekend, he was saying that pretty much any conversation with his go-to mastering guy ends up being about compression. when his own band got their new record mastered, the dude gave them a jazz-style version with minimal compression, a brick-wall pop version, and an inbetween one that tried to balance loudness with dynamics, and they were able to compare the three. it would've been interesting to hear the difference that directly.

Why buy that Marantz when you can get an Oppo DVD player that does the same thing AND has DivX AND USB 2.0 inputs for like $169?

http://www.oppodigital.com/dv980h/default.asp

thank you crazy eddie

i dunno, i go to the stereophile forums sometimes (nerd alert) and one of the dudes their said that the marantz was one of the best values at $500, let alone $249, better than the oppo.

i'm not going to use it as a DVD player, it will be in a room where i don't have a TV

Oh, well then in that case. I just cherish the divx support.

I do wonder, if I ever decided to flog all my audiophile gear, whether the CD-only player would have any takers at all. The amps would still fetch a few quid (judging by eBay), but a huge hulking thing that only plays one format?

i've been looking at used stuff and certain cd player models are still in demand used...what do you have?

back on topic, I'm hoping that overcompression is a production fad associated with the 00s, like in the 80s when everything was drowned in echo/reverb.

In the 80s, it was mainly guitar based music that as drowned in echo/reverb. Today, it seems all kinds of music is.

But props to some people who steer clear of it. Steely Dan and Becker and Fagen's solo albums have not been overcompressed, and this is a very important issue to them (and to their fans, one might suspect). Also, largely anything Eno, Lanois or Nigel Godrich have been involved with haven't suffered from the overcompression.

I also wonder why this is why I have enjoyed more Norwegian music in the noughties than ever, because Norwegian acts are less hard on the compression than UK/US based acts.

Anyway, what one might hope for is that the mobile phones and PCs and internet connections of the 2010s will be so big/fast that compression is not needed. Then sound quality will become better again.

Nigel Godrich have been involved with haven't suffered from the overcompression.

??? OK Computer is smashed to fuck!

Geir never has a fucking clue what he's talking about, just ignore him.

hail to the thief even more so (doesn't bother me though)

xp

plus nigel doesn't master his own stuff (or i would imagine he doesn't) so i don't necessarily put it all down to producers anyway.

Kids Prefer Poor Quality MP3

Not at all surprising that perception of "good sound" is a learned behaviour. I've always said I prefer CD to vinyl because it's what I grew up with, how I got into music.

What confuses me is... I like big speakers and a powerful amplifier (or high-end headphones), and I like to turn it up reasonably loud; if you do this with stuff that sounds "bad" (as I perceive bad), it physically hurts me and gives me a headache. That seems like something more than just learned behaviour to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

Could we arrive at an Orwellian future where any critical listening or observation of sound quality is treated as an adverse psychological condition?

i agree that people who prefer mp3s are fucking retards, but, well, you know.

more detail needed praps: what kinds of music was the guy playing? with music that uses a lot of compression at the production stage, eg ringtone, idk if there's a whole shit-ton of difference between mp3 and cd.

That's the other thing, the two different kinds of compression. Animal Collective sound shit on CD and on MP3.

and live and on vinyl ahahahahahaha dys

Something interesting I've noted, though; if you change your ripping /importing preferences on iTunes, it affects the bitrate of stuff you buy from them as well as what yu rip from your own CDs. I dunno if it's all the time, but I've bought stuff and it's come through at 256kbps same as I rip it, and one time as 128kbps when I'd forgotten to change settings after ripping something lower.

don't think animal collective sounding shit is anything to do with compression

i think stuff you buy from "itunes plus" is 256kpbpbbpbs and normal itunes is 128?

Something interesting I've noted, though; if you change your ripping /importing preferences on iTunes, it affects the bitrate of stuff you buy from them as well as what yu rip from your own CDs. I dunno if it's all the time, but I've bought stuff and it's come through at 256kbps same as I rip it, and one time as 128kbps when I'd forgotten to change settings after ripping something lower.

― Sickamous Mouthall (Scik Mouthy), Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:06 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

there's a little '+' symbol next to the higher bitrate tracks

Ah. I don't buy stuff off iTunes anywhere near often enough to have noticed that.

??? OK Computer is smashed to fuck!

"OK Computer" is around the average volume of 1997 albums. Which may be slightly too much, but not even remotely like the madness of today.

Beyond its average loudness though Geir, it just doesn't sound that good. Radiohead records don't.

I was put off buying things from iTunes after I bought the entire 2007 UGK album and it was virtually unlistenable - I have a HIGH tolerance for bad sound but this was just utter shit - every time the bass drum hit, there was a mysterious lack of any bass yet this lack also managed to crunchify and degrade all the other bits of the track as well. the whole thing sounded like it had been chewed up, spit out, left to bake in the sun for several weeks, been vomited on and then covered with a hard candy glaze, eaten again and then shit out into a steel bucket

xxxpost

Yeah, the iTunes Plus tracks are DRM-free, 256-kbps AAC. They don't sound bad at all, provided the source track is listenable in the first place.

What depresses me is that even with cheap storage and ever-faster broadband making lossless music files more practical for the mass market, I doubt there'll ever be enough demand for an major online music retailer to offer any.

but yeah, Tracer, the old 128-kbps stuff, yuck

My understanding is that music labels are responsible for encoding the tracks they submit to the iTunes store, not Apple. Seems like there's a lot of variance in quality for some stuff.

Yeah it's weird, I have tons of 128K files and most of them sound pretty OK to me - I don't know what the hell they did to that UGK album

i've been looking at used stuff and certain cd player models are still in demand used...what do you have?

Copland CDA 266.

Audiolab amps have retained some of their value (esp the original UK-made gear, before Tag McLaren took them over) - a pair of 8000M monoblocs and an 8000Q (sans remote control - lost that years ago) could well fetch £500+ on eBay.

I have these idle notions of flogging the lot from time to time when completely broke. I barely get a chance to listen to anything at home now but I know Pam & the kids have music almost all day (but some kind of streaming device plus the Cyrus amp and B&W monitors we've got in the loft would more than suffice for that; in fact, it would be miles better in terms of sheer convenience and footprint).

I can't really imagine moving all this stuff (or the vinyl/CDs) ever again, so, at some point in the next 5-10 years, it'll all go...

By the way I think we all need to stop and appreciate the greatness of this image, which accompanies the audioholics article linked above (I hope this displays properly):

http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/kids-prefer-poor-quality-mp3/image_mini

it must be really awful to notice music sounding 'shit' the way some people here do. my sympathies.

i've pretty much switched to VBR when ripping so wouldn't mind buying tracks with varialble bit rate either as long as the average was high enough (256 probably OK)

It seems to my ears like the sound check feature on iTunes compensates for differing loudness to some extent (as it's supposed to). For instance, it makes the peaks from an Esquivel disc mastered in 1994 sound louder than tracks from Sleater-Kinney's The Woods. It's not quite the same as a built-in compressor, but it would theoretically make it possible for music to be mastered dynamically while allowing listeners to have relatively consistent overall volume among different tracks.

But maybe mere consistency of volume isn't what people actually want, if they do prefer the overtly harsh sound.

Since this thread is about both kinds of compression, a good example is something like an early Who single. Kit Lambert and Pete Townshend would have compressed the hell out of it in the production stage as an artistic choice for impact, punch, sound good on a transistor radio etc.

Afterward, it would be mastered for 45, LP, comp LP, early CD, remastered CD, digitally remastered audiophile vinyl, SACD, original analog tape proper digital remaster/remix, surround sound HD DVD-A.

All I want is the full dynamic range high resolution reproduction of what the band heard in the playback the day they sent their final mix off. Or maybe I'm looking for an exact reproduction of what the 45 sounded like on a normal record player.

I don't know how anybody could even determine if Radiohead sounds bad or not, it's a completely manufactured music. The only thing that could sound wrong is if someone at the factory messed up what the creators sent out. Or if the label destroyed the sound during a format shift. Meaning, unless I hear a band member complaining about a failure, I assume every sound on an OK Computer CD including compression artifacts is an artistic choice and only right or wrong as a matter of taste.

A low bit-rate after the fact reproduction, on the other hand, diminishes the intent, and I think it is too bad that many people don't know the difference or care. Ipods will play higher resolution music either through itunes or third party software, and can still hold and play more music at one time than any one can listen to in a reasonable time period. You bought it though, so use it as you like.

OK Computer is supposed to have a flat shiny modernistic plastic sheen over the whole sound. That's kind of the point.

Indeed it is. Sadly a lot of people copied it without realising the semiotics of it.

In Rainbows though I would say is simply too loud, too bright, mixed with elements in odd proportions. To me it's a pretty standard example of what's wrong with modern mainstream rock sound. There's delicacy inherent in many of the tunes, melodies, and arrangements, but it's really not there in the actual physical qualities of the sound.

Johnny Greenwood has been very keen to point out at various points that he's not an audiophile, that they're not a band into high fidelity sound. This is not surprising.

Not sure if anyone cares, but I know Mouthy enjoyed 'Open Season'. Encouraging news on BSP's 'Man of Aran' soundtrack:

http://yanbsp.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/further-notes-that-i-don’t-mind-if-anyone-reads-or-don’t-reads/

"Basically turn up your volume. Because it sounds quieter but is in fact louder."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/arts/music/28pare.html

Current R&B is “crushed” for radio play, Maxwell said: “It’s made to have no peaks, no valleys. And we wanted, like, landscape. I wanted the music to sound like, ‘Oh my god, I’m looking at a vista, like I see a mountain over here, and water, and some clouds.’ “ As the album was about to be mastered, Maxwell decided that it had already grown too compressed — its ups and downs leveled out — and sent it back for a remix.

!!

nick do know retribution gospel choir? (sparhawk from low's new band)

anyway that record is BIZARRE sounding...i'd be curious if you've heard it

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b276/oliver8bit/comparison_powerless.jpg

I did a needledrop recording the 2xLP vinyl "Embryonic" and at left is the vinyl and at right is the CD. The vinyl sounds much better to me, and as you can see above is less compressed. If you're curious you can find my rip on the d3m0n01d.

Were you trying to post waveforms there?

The new retribution is mixed by a guy who has also mixed britney spears, vanessa hudgens, avril lavigne. I think Alan is friends with the guy and thought it would be fun to have a more glossy amped up sound as RGC is his more 'rock' project. fwiw i think it kind of sounds like boston in places - and i mean that in a very good way, it's a really fun lp although the mix probably goes a little too far in the compressed direction for my liking.