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

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.

lol factual error.

well said

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

I love how the QOTSA CD is totally squashed.

--Compression lover

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Oh yes.

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

i hate people like this.

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?

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).

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

Hahaha, someone beat me to it!

The answer to this and the post about Virgin and other record stores closing is the same: Ban all iPods, iPhones and similar!

geir OTM

Burn down churches and gas Jews while you're at it?

http://turnmeup.org/

That's ancient, Geir, and been posted before.

I also think you don't actually understand this phenomenon AT ALL or you wouldn't be so fucking dumbstruck by the likes of Coldplay. You LIKE compressed, shiny, smooth, undynamic music. You fucking love it.

You waste. You little man.

the vinyl vs. CD of "ga ga ga ga ga" by spoon still blows my mind how different that record sounds, i honestly cannot listen to the CD, but it sounds good on vinyl

Still tempted to pick it up on vinyl.

Yeah, it sounds amazing on CD so I'm wondering how much better it'll sound on vinyl.

i mean, it's a well produced record....i just think there's so much more space and less of that harsh hi-end on LP