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

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

Going back and listening to A Series Of Sneaks shows up Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga massively; the songs are stronger, arguably, but ASOS is just so much more pleasurable (on CD at least) to listen to.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article5847674.ece

Effortless slip from one sort of "compression" to another midway through that article without any attempt to explain the difference. Kind of expected really.

He suggests that iPods may have changed our perception of music, and that as young people become increasingly familiar with the sound of digital tracks the more they grow to like it.

He compared the phenomenon to the continued preference of some people for music from vinyl records heard through a gramophone. “Some people prefer that needle noise — the noise of little dust particles that create noise in the grooves,” he said. “I think there’s a sense of warmth and comfort in that.”

Cannot fathom why anyone would listen to vinyl because it sounds like crap. I also don't see any correlation between the two "phenomenons" he points out.

What he doesn't realize is that except for music nerds most people don't give a shit how well their music sounds enough to tell the difference anyway.

Cannot fathom why anyone would listen to vinyl because it sounds like crap
Badly phrased;What I meant to say is I don't believe there are people out there who listen to vinyl for the "noise" or whatever.

also it often does sound like crap. well pressed records are harder to find than most people are prepared to admit

A lot of recent records have often been mixed differently for vinyl. Then, why don't they just use the vinyl mix on the CD version too? It will probably sound better than the version mixed for mp3 players.

A lot of recent records have often been mixed differently for vinyl. Then, why don't they just use the vinyl mix on the CD version too? It will probably sound better than the version mixed for mp3 players.

From the comments:

Encoded at high bitrates, I'm not so sure there's much apparent difference between a digital copy and a CD. What is grating, as the report says, is the brash loudness and lack of dynamic range in new recordings.

Actually this is kind of OTM. I have also noticed that - even if they are just as loud - remasters of old 70s/80s albums usually sound less flat than the recent ones. It isn't only about making the music louder, it seems today's music is compressed even more than just what it has to be as a result of getting louder.

But there is a backlash against this thing now, at least in part of the music scene. A lot of fans reacted very much against the clipping on the recent Metallica. Also in the trend indicated in my thread about Acts with LESS compression on their most recent release than the one before

“Now there’s a constant race to be louder than other people’s records,” said Stephen Street, who has produced records for Blur, the Cranberries and Kaiser Chiefs. “What you are hearing is that everything is being squared off and is losing that level of depth and clarity. I’d hate to think that anything I’d slaved over in the studio is only going to be listened to on a bloody iPod.”

God forbid we hear a Kaiser Chiefs album on anything less than pristine, crackly vinyl!!!

Ken Nelson, producer of Coldplay’s first two albums, said: “An example of overcompression is the last Green Day album. If you try listening to it from beginning to end it’s hard work. After three songs you need to put something on that’s been recorded in the 70s.”

Because those first two Coldplay albums are shining examples of proper, listenable production... right???

The only Coldplay album that has obviously way too much compression is the third one. The first two are not at all bad sounding.

Makes this cd labeling system a bit difficult

http://lovelypackage.com/music-cd-labeling-system/

While we're on the topic, has anyone heard the vinyl pressing of "What's the Story (Morning Glory)"? Is it mastered any better than the CD?

A tru fan would just own it on both media.

More of the same:

http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-sizzling-sound-of-music.html

While we're on the topic, has anyone heard the vinyl pressing of "What's the Story (Morning Glory)"? Is it mastered any better than the CD?

I sincerely doubt so. Oasis want to sound that way. They even sound that way live. So that is their own wish, not some wild idea by some guy in their record company.

I've said this time and time again, Geir; most artists who make big loud compressed records are NOT made to do so by "some guy in their record company" - they choose to do so themselves because they're dickheads. Show me the evidence otherwise; I researched this, wrote about it extensively. It's not an Artist vs The Man dichotomy; it's uneducated artists not knowing what they're doing.

so you're in agreement!

Argh, no; Geir always blames the record company guy, hence why he's used Oasis as a counter-example in this example.

OK, gotcha.

Where are 65DOS when you need 'em, eh?

Actually, I'd be well up for a new 65DOS album. I'd imagine they're currently working on it.