Luckiestmanalive Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 I thought I'd open up this topic rather than crap on BD's thread, which includes an interesting topic on who causes the loudness wars. Kingsize's posts were enlightening and I wonder... is it possible/likely that there is a tendency for the individuals responsible (whoever they are) to prefer a louder recording because they suffer from unacknowledged or diagnosed hearing loss (eg those in the business and those that have been to too many gigs)?
Guest Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 In case anyone is unsure of the meaning, a "loud" recording is where the musical dynamics are squashed so that everything is equally loud. Personally, I dislike "loud" recordings. The loss of musical dynamics (the changing of volume is a large part of a musician's expression) robs music of its light and shade and a lot of emotional punch.
got tinnitus Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 luckiestmanalive;127062 wrote: I thought I'd open up this topic rather than crap on BD's thread, which includes an interesting topic on who causes the loudness wars. Kingsize's posts were enlightening and I wonder... is it possible/likely that there is a tendency for the individuals responsible (whoever they are) to prefer a louder recording because they suffer from unacknowledged or diagnosed hearing loss (eg those in the business and those that have been to too many gigs)? In a word, No. There will always be variances but the industry is built on reputation. Anyone with cloth ears at the mastering stage, for example, won't get the work.
got tinnitus Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 MJ, I agree but there is a place for loud recordings. But not in the case of your Norah Jones', Ry Cooder et al, classical, jazz, acoustic recordings.... I'd suggest that totally uncompressed/dynamic pop/rock music would be unplayable on most systems due to the massive transients.
Nigel Beale Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 Loudness can be a perceptual thing, because hearing like vision follows a log curve we have trouble percieving louder from louder the louder the noise gets. Top this with another interesting tidbit, in the studio we had to limit the output of the main system because it could hold a accurate non distorted sound up to 130~140db. Too many listeners, loud is where the system starts to distort, the distortion seems to hurt your ears or the sound becomes a mess. Back in the studio, we had engineers, musicians all turning up the dial to the point of hearing damage, the limt of 110db sounded quiet to them. Compression is a wonderful tool to create constant loudness, you squash the peaks and bring the baseline up...including all the noise I might add. Also stops records from jumping out of the slot... Tends to be overused though.
Guest Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 got tinnitus;127071 wrote: MJ, I agree but there is a place for loud recordings. But not in the case of your Norah Jones', Ry Cooder et al, classical, jazz, acoustic recordings.... I'd suggest that totally uncompressed/dynamic pop/rock music would be unplayable on most systems due to the massive transients. There's a world of difference between the wretchedly crushed recordings released in recent years and the use of compression in recording in order to make it sit in the mix, or as a way to help sculpt a sonic landscape. There are probably only a handful of CDs released without any use of compressors in the chain. These do not include the Norah Jones or Ry Cooders that you mentioned. But I fail to see any goodness in a "loud" recording where a singer whispering and shouting comes across at the same level.
Luckiestmanalive Posted July 9, 2010 Author Posted July 9, 2010 got tinnitus;127069 wrote: In a word, No. There will always be variances but the industry is built on reputation. Anyone with cloth ears at the mastering stage, for example, won't get the work. Does that extend to the artist who has the power to demand the producer make the recording louder?
Luckiestmanalive Posted July 9, 2010 Author Posted July 9, 2010 I've always been a fan of bands like the Pixies and Husker Du and others that I thought made music that had to be loud to be enjoyed. I have noticed, however, that my old Pixies CDs have a lot more loud and soft to them than modern ones.
got tinnitus Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 luckiestmanalive;127105 wrote: Does that extend to the artist who has the power to demand the producer make the recording louder? There's no loudness conspiracy. Band/producer relationship is like any other professional relationship. Sometimes it's a democracy, sometimes it's not... When the finished product is handed to a mastering suite, brief is to make it sound as good as possible. Again it comes down to reputation so chances are the band/producer will give their chosen mastering guys carte blanche....and hope for the best. BTW, check out the issue before the current one of Tone Magazine (that's the US based online mag). It has a good article on mastering.
King Size1553552683 Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 luckiestmanalive;127105 wrote: Does that extend to the artist who has the power to demand the producer make the recording louder? Think of the artist as the customer. The customer is always... Seriously though, here are two excerpts from the previously mentioned ToneAudio article (EDIT: I see both gt and I have now referred to this article) SG: And that applies to musicians going for a more, shall we say, mature audience? Neil Young? John Fogerty? Bob Dylan? DM: Make no mistake about it. In their minds, they’re competing for an evershrinking group of people who actually spend some of their hard-earned money on music. So they’re very, very aware of the competition. Buddy Miller’s record has to be as loud as Wilco’s, and Wilco is smashing the fuck out of their stuff just like everybody else. But I think their records sound pretty good. They are doing [compression] in a way that’s a little more elegant or palatable. If the compromises are carefully done, it takes very little away from the enjoyment of the recording. SG: But unless you have a history with the band you may not really know what they want. DM: Right, you can ask a million questions, but it’s even money that what they want is exactly the opposite of what they’re telling you! That’s part of what makes mastering so interesting. Sometimes they just want you to tell them no. In the end, I only feel good about the mastering if the client is really happy with it. I can be happy with a wide variety of scenarios. BTW - My preference probably lies somewhere in the middle. If the dyanmic range is too large it can make listening difficult with some parts being too soft or too loud. Likewise too much compression results in a situation where there is no light or shade, just a wall of sound where nothing and everything stands out simultaneously. I find these records can be quite difficult to listen too for an extended period of time.
Guest Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 luckiestmanalive;127108 wrote: I've always been a fan of bands like the Pixies and Husker Du and others that I thought made music that had to be loud to be enjoyed. I have noticed, however, that my old Pixies CDs have a lot more loud and soft to them than modern ones. Music that sounds better with the volume turned up and "loud" (crushed dynamics) recordings are completely separate ideas. They're as similar as cheese and my TV. Which are you talking about?
Guest Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 got tinnitus;127110 wrote: When the finished product is handed to a mastering suite, brief is to make it sound as good as possible. Again it comes down to reputation so chances are the band/producer will give their chosen mastering guys carte blanche....and hope for the best. Not according to the mastering engineers. They're hired to do a specified job. And if that specification is to make the CD "louder" than other CDs, then they'll do what they have to - compress dynamics, chop the peaks off the music, make everything into an undefinable roar - if that's what the customer wants. Otherwise, they get no work, can't pay their rent and their kids starve. There are plenty of mastering engineers who have gone on record decrying the loudness wars and what it is doing to music. No "loudness conspiracy"? If only that were true.
got tinnitus Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Yep Michael, I think we said the said thing...in a different way...?
SONDEKNZ Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 There are probably only a handful of CDs released without any use of compressors in the chain. These do not include the Norah Jones or Ry Cooders that you mentioned. Let's get a list going... Which recordings do you reckon fit the bill as having little or no compression. [Any format, any style of music...] I will start the list with: LINCOLN MAYORGA & DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES II: Only on vinyl - A very limited Sheffield Labs direct-cut recording. Looking forward to hunting-down a few other recommendations... -SONDEK
Guest Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 got tinnitus;127071 wrote: I'd suggest that totally uncompressed/dynamic pop/rock music would be unplayable on most systems due to the massive transients. Playback limitations didn't stop Robert Fine at Mercury, Jack Pfeiffer at RCA, Bill Porter at Monument et al from making superb recordings in the 50s and 60s that weren't able to be fully appreciated for several decades.
King Size1553552683 Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Perhaps gt isn't referring to the inability of modern systems to play back the music but rather the ability? Could it be that when these recordings were made that limitations in playback technology were a factor limiting the reproduced dynamic range and that this made said recordings sound acceptable to your average listener? If this is the case, then could it be possible that modern reproductive equipment is capable of reproducing so much dynamic range that playback at realistic volume levels is impractical? Quiet passages would be too quiet and loud passages would be too loud. I know from experience that, if I am listening to a particularly dynamic recording, it is very hard to strike a balance between being able to hear the quieter pieces and having my partner complain about the high sound levels in the louder pieces. I can't be the only person who has experienced this. There aren't many of us who are fortunate enough to be able to listen to music without compromises. Just a thought thats all...
Omegaspeedy Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 sondek;127121 wrote: Let's get a list going... Which recordings do you reckon fit the bill as having little or no compression. [Any format, any style of music...] I will start the list with: LINCOLN MAYORGA & DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES II: Only on vinyl - A very limited Sheffield Labs direct-cut recording. Looking forward to hunting-down a few other recommendations... -SONDEK Compared to my usual 9:00 listening position of the volume knob, all ECM's I have played needed turning up to get the same loudness. I've found that these give a more spacious relaxed presentation than my hideous Led-Zeppelin 'Mothership' that was produced by the deaf Jimmy Page:) It was relegated to the bottom shelf due to the headache it brought on. We know doubt some of us have a 'happy position' on the volume knob which remains reasonably constant unless your in the mood to crank and you get a good feel for this position. When ever you have to push harder for loudness from this position then the recording is likely to be good I think ie uncompressed.
bluedog Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 OK just another thought if the mixing is done with a monitor speaker that has a range of say 40hz to 25khz and the sound is great nice base weight lovely top end and then in comes someone with a speaker that will reproduce a signal say 25hz to 20 khz. Does the guy with speakers that can reproduce these signals suffer from over cooked base under done treble ?
Shane Hanify Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 bluedog;127144 wrote: OK just another thought if the mixing is done with a monitor speaker that has a range of say 40hz to 25khz and the sound is great nice base weight lovely top end and then in comes someone with a speaker that will reproduce a signal say 25hz to 20 khz. Does the guy with speakers that can reproduce these signals suffer from over cooked base under done treble ? No. All that will happen is the big domestic speaker will flesh out both ends - adding sparkle to the top and weight to the bottom. It should reproduce what was mastered in the studio. Cheers, Shane.
TheBlueMushroom1553552749 Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Originally Posted by sondek: Let's get a list going... Which recordings do you reckon fit the bill as having little or no compression. "Nicely" compressed (or as uncompressed as I've found) recordings that work in my system: -John Lee Hooker, The Healer (particularly the title track) -Bonnie Raitt, Luck of the Draw -Cowboy Junkies, the Trinity Sessions -much of the Counting Crows, particularly August and Everything After -Joan Armatrading, Hearts and Flowers (and most of her other stuff) -Jackson Browne, Running On Empty -Anything by Eva Cassidy (thats any album, not an album called anything {grin}) -The Fondue Set (and pretty much anything else done by Caitlyn Smith) -Annie Lennox, Diva -Natalie Merchant, Live in Concert -pretty much everything from The Penguin Cafe Orchestra -Tanita Tikaram, Ancient Heart -Suzanne Vega, Solitude Standing Not unsurprisingly, on looking over the above, most of the albums are of fairly "simple" music-mostly a single artist and minimal instrumentation ("requiring" relatively little compression to meet "contemporary standards", I guess) Oh, and my vote for the "most compressed and horrible" production: Meatloaf: Bat Out of Hell. Pity - I really like the music!! (well, I grew up with it......)
Luckiestmanalive Posted July 9, 2010 Author Posted July 9, 2010 Michael Jones;127114 wrote: Music that sounds better with the volume turned up and "loud" (crushed dynamics) recordings are completely separate ideas . They're as similar as cheese and my TV. Which are you talking about? That was the point I was trying to make - albeit, badly?
Bevan J Posted July 13, 2010 Posted July 13, 2010 If the album is spectacular and providing the EQ is not harsh then I don't tend to mind compression so much. A case in point, Bruce Springsteen's album 'Magic'. Compressed to hell but the songs are so stunning I can overlook the bad sound.
Puunda Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 Some things I just don't understand. I've read about the loudness wars/race, but I still don't get why they do it. I know it's meant to make it so that their music seems louder than the other company's music. I'm just not sure how that helps them sell more? But I've maintained for a long time that the weakest part of an audio system is the recording. I don't listen to classical or types of music which are well recorded. I listen to the pop/rock which is subject to this loudness war, so no matter what system I get, I can't listen to it at the level which I want. I've had recordings which have sounded GREAT on my system, but the majority sound rubbish. I've just accepted that most recordings I listen to will be this way, since it was recorded/mastered this way. What I have noticed is that movies, and music in movies always sound better than CDs. I've been told it's because most movies are recorded/mastered to be played back at a high volume (normally the THX reference level ... yes I like to listen very loud). Because movies/concerts etc are meant to be played back at that level, everything sounds perfect. When it comes to music, I've been told it's been mastered for a much lower level, so when I listen to it at very high levels, everything sounds horrid.
got tinnitus Posted July 14, 2010 Posted July 14, 2010 Puunda, are you give us examples of what sounds good and what sounds crap to you?
Recommended Posts