Members Crescent Seven Posted March 8, 2009 Members Posted March 8, 2009 Most of us have heard of The Loudness Wars, where producers are digitally compressing the music so it appears "louder" to the listener. Here are a couple of examples I thought I'd throw out there that demonstrate it; one clip shows the difference between the waveforms from Guitar Hero compared to the CD, for "The Day That Never Comes", the other is a Nirvana track from 1992 that was re-mastered for the box set in 2004. [YOUTUBE]DRyIACDCc1I[/YOUTUBE] [YOUTUBE]sTBoMlsw-0I[/YOUTUBE]
Members s4001 Posted March 8, 2009 Members Posted March 8, 2009 Vapor Trails was {censored}ed out of the box. Can't wait 'til this trend is over.
Members bassment zombie Posted March 8, 2009 Members Posted March 8, 2009 Can't wait 'til this trend is over. +1 I might be mistaken - please correct me if I'm wrong - but I think this is increasingly being done due to the proliferation of portable MP3 players; catering to listeners using earbuds, and even ringtones.
Members Crescent Seven Posted March 8, 2009 Author Members Posted March 8, 2009 Vapor Trails was {censored}ed out of the box. Can't wait 'til this trend is over. What gets me is that the "professionals" know how silly this {censored} is, yet they do it to every CD released today. I don't need the CD to be loud, I have a volume knob on every piece of audio gear I own. Some of them have TWO knobs to control volume. I also have controls for bass, midrange, and treble response, and I know how to use them. They need to make the music sound awesome, with incredible clarity and dynamics, and let ME handle the loudness. C7
Members Crescent Seven Posted March 8, 2009 Author Members Posted March 8, 2009 +1I might be mistaken - please correct me if I'm wrong - but I think this is increasingly being done due to the proliferation of portable MP3 players and listeners using earbuds. That's supposedly the reason, but I can't listen to music through headphones anymore, especially earbuds. It wears my ears out, even at reasonable volume. It's like being assaulted non-stop for the entire song.C7
Members bassment zombie Posted March 8, 2009 Members Posted March 8, 2009 That's supposedly the reason, but I can't listen to music through headphones anymore, especially earbuds. It wears my ears out, even at reasonable volume. It's like being assaulted non-stop for the entire song. C7 I know exactly what you mean. Fortunately for me, not as much of the music I listen to is compressed in this manner. Thinking out loud - maybe two versions could be offered: the 'audiophile's' uncompressed version, and the 'portables' scrunched version for a reduced fee.
Members Crescent Seven Posted March 8, 2009 Author Members Posted March 8, 2009 I know exactly what you mean. Fortunately for me, not as much of the music I listen to is compressed in this manner. Thinking out loud - maybe two versions could be offered: the 'audiophile's' uncompressed version, and the 'portables' scrunched version for a reduced fee. The issue is that the CD's are this way. I could see if they offered the squished versions on iTunes, and left the CD's alone, but it appears that producers are competing for who can have the "loudest" sounding record. This is like Coors telling me that Coors Light is the coldest tasting beer. How does something "taste" cold? C7
Members hasbeen Posted March 8, 2009 Members Posted March 8, 2009 +1I might be mistaken - please correct me if I'm wrong - but I think this is increasingly being done due to the proliferation of portable MP3 players; catering to listeners using earbuds, and even ringtones. you are correct. Here's another, inside one for you- Some bass amp manufacturers do it too. When I was talking to a famous, high-end bass builder once about the challenges of bringking pro product to market, he made the comment "we're raising a generation of people that think MP3's sound good".
Members Crescent Seven Posted March 8, 2009 Author Members Posted March 8, 2009 you are correct. Here's another, inside one for you- Some bass amp manufacturers do it too. When I was talking to a famous, high-end bass builder once about the challenges of bringking pro product to market, he made the comment "we're raising a generation of people that think MP3's sound good". You're saying that amp manufacturers are building compression into their amp's sound? That's weird, man. Is it Ampeg? I always thought their sound was squished at any setting. C7
Members bassment zombie Posted March 8, 2009 Members Posted March 8, 2009 The issue is that the CD's are this way. C7 Yes, I agree. I intended for it to be implicit in my suggestion: my idea that 2 versions of the music can be offered - the uncompressed & the compressed. I'm aware that this is simply asking too much.
Members bassment zombie Posted March 8, 2009 Members Posted March 8, 2009 you are correct. Here's another, inside one for you- Some bass amp manufacturers do it too. When I was talking to a famous, high-end bass builder once about the challenges of bringking pro product to market, he made the comment "we're raising a generation of people that think MP3's sound good". Amazing... Amazingly shameful, that is!
Members 78pbass Posted March 9, 2009 Members Posted March 9, 2009 that's great! here's a good explanation with visuals for laypeople [YOUTUBE]3Gmex_4hreQ[/YOUTUBE]
Members hasbeen Posted March 9, 2009 Members Posted March 9, 2009 You're saying that amp manufacturers are building compression into their amp's sound? That's weird, man. Is it Ampeg? I always thought their sound was squished at any setting. C7 no...not Ampeg.....far from it. Far too people test amps for dynamics and feel though. If dynamics are important, I always suggest to set an amp and your bass volume. Then, hit a not soft....steady eigth notes. Then, start to progressively hit the note harder. Now, see if the note gets louder and louder or, does it just squish. Now, does that squish turn into what we call "huffing".
Members 82Daion Posted March 9, 2009 Members Posted March 9, 2009 +1I might be mistaken - please correct me if I'm wrong - but I think this is increasingly being done due to the proliferation of portable MP3 players; catering to listeners using earbuds, and even ringtones. I'm sure that the listening medium has something to do with it, in part, but that would generally be dealt with as part of the mixing process rather than as a motivation for using the "brickwall limiting" techniques outlined in this thread. As an audio engineer in training, I've always understood the process to be done so that the music sounds "bigger" and "louder" to grab the listener's attention, no matter what they're using to listen to it. Either way, the result kills the dynamics of the performance and sounds like ass, as the videos posted in this thread demonstrate. This treatment of popular music disgusts me both as an engineer and a listener, but I've generally found that the music that this stuff is done to isn't music I'm interested in listening to anyway. It's a real travesty, though, when it's being applied as part of a "remastering" process, as in the case of the Nirvana tune that C7 posted. While I'm not a huge Nirvana fan, the original version sounds really dynamic and primal, and I really dig the energy it conveys. The "remastered" version sounds ponderous and dull by comparison. I hope the trend turns around eventually, but it's hard to say what will happen.
Moderators ThudMaker Posted March 9, 2009 Moderators Posted March 9, 2009 ......As an audio engineer in training, I've always understood the process to be done so that the music sounds "bigger" and "louder" to grab the listener's attention, no matter what they're using to listen to it......That's my understanding as well. It's too bad. Cool little details get lost in the loudness.
Members L. Ron Hoover Posted March 9, 2009 Members Posted March 9, 2009 Both things are going on. In terms of MP3s and such, greater dynamic range requires more bandwidth to resolve it so compressing the dynamic range makes sense in terms of that. Unfortunately, it doesn't do anything for sound. But the key driver in the loudness wars is indeed getting your recording to be louder than anyone else's in order to make people pay more attention to it. However, it's really unmusical sounding. Things are pretty bad when a recording with 12dB of dynamic range is considered "dynamic." Boo! Even in those examples above, the difference is astounding. The less squashed ones really do sound more alive than the more compressed ones. Don't get me wrong, compression can be a very useful tool when used tactfully (no matter what GZeus says ), but brickwall limiting recordings so they have no dynamics is compressor abuse if you ask me. Even worse is the guys who try to do this at live shows. I get a charge out of so-called "sound engineers|" compressing the nuts out of everything, then cranking the makeup gain on all the compressors and wondering why everything feeds back between tunes when the overall system gain goes up by 10+ dB. Can you say "flailing?" And while we're at it, how about autotuner wars? Another potentially useful tool wrecked by inappropriate use. If you can't manage to sing in tune in the controlled atmosphere of a studio, then perhaps you should look at a different career.
Moderators ThudMaker Posted March 9, 2009 Moderators Posted March 9, 2009 And while we're at it, how about autotuner wars? Another potentially useful tool wrecked by inappropriate use. If you can't manage to sing in tune in the controlled atmosphere of a studio, then perhaps you should look at a different career.That's a good mention, LRH, although I'd look at it in another way, too. There were singers in the 60's and 70's who weren't always singing in tune and it was considered "character." There's no more character thanks to autotune abuse. Would Dylan have made it in today's environment? Petty? The Motels had a singer with a unique voice. I wouldn't consider it always being "in tune," but I really dug the character her voice gave those songs.
Members L. Ron Hoover Posted March 9, 2009 Members Posted March 9, 2009 That's a good mention, LRH, although I'd look at it in another way, too. There were singers in the 60's and 70's who weren't always singing in tune and it was considered "character." There's no more character thanks to autotune abuse. Would Dylan have made it in today's environment? Petty? The Motels had a singer with a unique voice. I wouldn't consider it always being "in tune," but I really dug the character her voice gave those songs. That too. Absolutely. They're taking out everything that humanizes a recording, these days. Anything major label anyway.
Members Mytola Posted March 9, 2009 Members Posted March 9, 2009 +1I might be mistaken - please correct me if I'm wrong - but I think this is increasingly being done due to the proliferation of portable MP3 players; catering to listeners using earbuds, and even ringtones. It's still quite daft if it is, though. I can hear a HUGE difference in these comparisons with the earbuds that came with my iPhone. A HUGE difference.
Members i_wanna_les_paul Posted March 9, 2009 Members Posted March 9, 2009 That too. Absolutely. They're taking out everything that humanizes a recording, these days. Anything major label anyway. I blame two-year cell phone contracts. Otherwise, I could be gleefully butchering chickens while my non-compressed pop music comes out of my AM radio - that would still have tubes!
Members L. Ron Hoover Posted March 9, 2009 Members Posted March 9, 2009 I blame two-year cell phone contracts. Otherwise, I could be gleefully butchering chickens while my non-compressed pop music comes out of my AM radio - that would still have tubes! It took me a few minutes to figure out what you were getting on with here... A bit of crossthread derailment! I was thinking of taking up slugging baby seals, but my phone won't work at all out on the ice floes.
Members collinwho Posted March 9, 2009 Members Posted March 9, 2009 Part of me absolutely hates this whole loudness wars thing. They really are taking away from a lot music by shooting for volume. At the same time, there is a part of me that really doesn't care. I don't listen to music for the quality of the recording, I listen for the quality of the song. If its a good song, any {censored}ty recording should be able to convey that.
Members L-1329 Posted March 9, 2009 Members Posted March 9, 2009 Vapor Trails was {censored}ed out of the box. Can't wait 'til this trend is over. Easily the worst produced album I've heard, which is a real shame because there is some very cool music on it. That record is just begging to be redone properly!
Members Super_Donut_Man Posted March 9, 2009 Members Posted March 9, 2009 I do not understand this at all, but from what I heard on those clips its pretty lame.
Members L. Ron Hoover Posted March 9, 2009 Members Posted March 9, 2009 Easily the worst produced album I've heard, which is a real shame because there is some very cool music on it. That record is just begging to be redone properly! It's pretty bad, but I wouldn't go that far with it.... I heard somewhere that they were planning to remix and remaster it. Maybe CBC. Can't remember right now.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.