[gregorio]

And I am not the only one "clamoring" for better fidelity in mass produced recordings lately.

No, you're not the only one but unfortunately you are one of only a very tiny minority. The vast majority do not want better fidelity, they'd far rather have lower prices, instant access and convenience, fidelity is a distant fourth place! Long gone are the days of record labels giving hundreds of thousands of dollars for a band to go and experiment in world class recording studio for 6 months. In fact, most of those world class studios themselves have gone in the last 15-20 years and many/most of those which remain barely break even or operate at a loss. Along with them has gone the knowledge and experience of the engineers. Forget 6 months to record, 6 weeks to record, mix and master an album is the norm these days! Not only do consumers expect to pay far less for their music than they once did, we've now also got the big aggregators such as Apple, taking their 30% of what's left. As bad and dodgy as the record labels were, at least they reinvested a fair amount of their earnings in actually creating music recordings, Apple and other aggregators take their billions and invest absolutely nothing in creating music. That's the way it is, that's the landscape in which we have to survive! I'd love to be given the time to chase that last few percent of fidelity but there's not the money reaching the artists to enable any of us to do that. Even the very top artists only earn a small fraction of their income from recordings these days. It used to be that tours were organised as a tool to market the recordings, today it's the other way around, albums are now little more than promotional material for the tours! Maybe, one day, fidelity will come back into fashion and consumers will be prepared to pay en-masse for it but that's not in the foreseeable future.

G

 

[JaeYoon]

No, you're not the only one but unfortunately you are one of only a very tiny minority. The vast majority do not want better fidelity, they'd far rather have lower prices, instant access and convenience, fidelity is a distant fourth place! Long gone are the days of record labels giving hundreds of thousands of dollars for a band to go and experiment in world class recording studio for 6 months. In fact, most of those world class studios themselves have gone in the last 15-20 years and many/most of those which remain barely break even or operate at a loss. Along with them has gone the knowledge and experience of the engineers. Forget 6 months to record, 6 weeks to record, mix and master an album is the norm these days! Not only do consumers expect to pay far less for their music than they once did, we've now also got the big aggregators such as Apple, taking their 30% of what's left. As bad and dodgy as the record labels were, at least they reinvested a fair amount of their earnings in actually creating music recordings, Apple and other aggregators take their billions and invest absolutely nothing in creating music. That's the way it is, that's the landscape in which we have to survive! I'd love to be given the time to chase that last few percent of fidelity but there's not the money reaching the artists to enable any of us to do that. Even the very top artists only earn a small fraction of their income from recordings these days. It used to be that tours were organised as a tool to market the recordings, today it's the other way around, albums are now little more than promotional material for the tours! Maybe, one day, fidelity will come back into fashion and consumers will be prepared to pay en-masse for it but that's not in the foreseeable future.

G

That's the sad thing, the artists who create the music should make way more money than they are now!

 

[TheSonicTruth]

No, you're not the only one but unfortunately you are one of only a very tiny minority. The vast majority do not want better fidelity, they'd far rather have lower prices, instant access and convenience, fidelity is a distant fourth place! Long gone are the days of record labels giving hundreds of thousands of dollars for a band to go and experiment in world class recording studio for 6 months. In fact, most of those world class studios themselves have gone in the last 15-20 years and many/most of those which remain barely break even or operate at a loss. Along with them has gone the knowledge and experience of the engineers. Forget 6 months to record, 6 weeks to record, mix and master an album is the norm these days! Not only do consumers expect to pay far less for their music than they once did, we've now also got the big aggregators such as Apple, taking their 30% of what's left. As bad and dodgy as the record labels were, at least they reinvested a fair amount of their earnings in actually creating music recordings, Apple and other aggregators take their billions and invest absolutely nothing in creating music. That's the way it is, that's the landscape in which we have to survive! I'd love to be given the time to chase that last few percent of fidelity but there's not the money reaching the artists to enable any of us to do that. Even the very top artists only earn a small fraction of their income from recordings these days. It used to be that tours were organised as a tool to market the recordings, today it's the other way around, albums are now little more than promotional material for the tours! Maybe, one day, fidelity will come back into fashion and consumers will be prepared to pay en-masse for it but that's not in the foreseeable future.

G

And for me anyway, the biggest casualty of this loudness trend is the PAST: Remasters of 1960s and '70s R&B, Classic Rock, Pop, Country, etc have been subject to the same loudifying processes as modern releases(2000 to present).

And I understand the reasoning: It started with 5-50 disc CD changers, when consumers shuffled older '80s era CD issues with late 1990s(early loudness war era) CDs, and contiued with file-based versions of legacy artists mixed in with louder modern files. Those listeners found themselves periodically adjusting the volume - at home, behind the wheel, when exercising, etc. To get the legacy stuff even *close* to the perceived loudness of the modern stuff, a combination of compression and peak limiting had to be performed, plus anywhere from 4-8dB of makeup gain! And hence were born the first round of 'Digitally Remastered!!' classic rock, etc. CDs.

So I could care less what happens to stuff made more recently, or if artists finally come to their senses, but please, leave our classic hits alone!!

 

[TheSonicTruth]

That's the sad thing, the artists who create the music should make way more money than they are now!

They start making more money when they reject loudness as the sole criterion, in favor of fidelity, and start to sell more albums and downloads.

Nothing wrong with their art, just the way it is packaged/mastered.

 

[sonitus mirus]

That's the sad thing, the artists who create the music should make way more money than they are now!

They should!

Now to play the devil's advocate.

I generally agree, but distributing the art and finding a method to market it in such a way that it generates a profit is as much a part of the success in this industry as anything else. I fully understand that artists are oftentimes taken advantage of and those with little to no talent to create the "product" can make a great living off the efforts of many of these artists. I do a lot of technical stuff that my bosses and their bosses could probably never do, yet they make more money than I do. I also think that I could do their jobs as well or better than they do. But here I am, doing what I do, and there they are, doing what they do. Musicians are probably no different then most other people that work a job of one type or another.

In the end, it comes down to the notion that if the artists want a bigger cut of the pie, then why don't they just make it happen themselves? It's not easy. I love the artist's work, but I also love the people that are responsible for bringing it to me. I mean, think about what is involved to get a song in a format that I can play and enjoy where I want to listen. How much of that is because of the artist? You can be the greatest talent in the world, but if you only sing to yourself in the shower, it doesn't do anything for me or other people that might enjoy it.

 

[old tech]

That's the sad thing, the artists who create the music should make way more money than they are now!

There are some positives though... The entry point for artists, particularly with the indie labels, is a lot lower now than what it used to be. In the past, artists were reliant on getting a record contract or the whims of radio stations for exposure. Us baby boomers (mainly) think of the glorious days of rock in the 70s but think of how much good music would have been around but never seen the light of the day.

While it is true that most of the mainstream artists make less money from record sales than in the past, there are now a lot more opportunities for those on the periphery. Even so, those mainstream artists who are clever enough to use modern technology are able to make far more money than in the days when they were totally reliant on the whims of the labels. Think of Taylor Swift, regardless what you might think of her music, she as been quite deft in maneuvering around Apple and other distributors to make them work for her rather than the other way round, for example forcing Apple to back down on not paying royalties on the first three months of a release (a win that benefited all artists) and only sells her music on Itunes and CDs (where the margins are higher). She uses media channels unrelated to the music industry to communicate directly with her fans, a trend will spread more widely with modern technology.

The music industry is just one example of a business model that has been disrupted by technology. As with all disruptions it brings benefits as well as costs. One of the costs, as Gregorio has pointed out, is the human input to the recording is being diminished. It is ironic that the music producing technology has progressed leaps and bounds but the human element has declined meaning we don't get the benefits on the production side (apart from lower costs). The fact that many vinyl records and early analog tape recordings can sound better than modern digital because of the lack of human time in the process should be shameful and of serious concern to audiophiles rather than something to be celebrated, as is the case on some forums like the Hoffman site.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Now I am curious to hear this guy Taylor Swift. That group must be good. Which one is Taylor?

To be honest though, I could not name a single song that Taylor Swift swings or even recognize a song by her if I heard it played. Too bad that I fast-forwarded her sessions on Saturday Night Live recently. I have discovered more than a few artists from SNL over the years. There is plenty of room in this industry for someone like me that listens to over 40 songs each day, and those fans of Taylor Swift, to exist together.

 

[old tech]

Now I am curious to hear this guy Taylor Swift. That group must be good. Which one is Taylor?

To be honest though, I could not name a single song that Taylor Swift swings or even recognize a song by her if I heard it played. Too bad that I fast-forwarded her sessions on Saturday Night Live recently. I have discovered more than a few artists from SNL over the years. There is plenty of room in this industry for someone like me that listens to over 40 songs each day, and those fans of Taylor Swift, to exist together.

That's part of the point, we have easy access to a lot more music of different variety these days.

 

[sonitus mirus]

That's part of the point, we have easy access to a lot more music of different variety these days.

Maybe there are too many artists creating great music? Is the market saturated? I guess a big problem for the industry is that great music from the past is always available to consumers at a reasonable cost, and there is only a limited amount of music that consumers can "use".

 

[JaeYoon]

There are some positives though... The entry point for artists, particularly with the indie labels, is a lot lower now than what it used to be. In the past, artists were reliant on getting a record contract or the whims of radio stations for exposure. Us baby boomers (mainly) think of the glorious days of rock in the 70s but think of how much good music would have been around but never seen the light of the day.

While it is true that most of the mainstream artists make less money from record sales than in the past, there are now a lot more opportunities for those on the periphery. Even so, those mainstream artists who are clever enough to use modern technology are able to make far more money than in the days when they were totally reliant on the whims of the labels. Think of Taylor Swift, regardless what you might think of her music, she as been quite deft in maneuvering around Apple and other distributors to make them work for her rather than the other way round, for example forcing Apple to back down on not paying royalties on the first three months of a release (a win that benefited all artists) and only sells her music on Itunes and CDs (where the margins are higher). She uses media channels unrelated to the music industry to communicate directly with her fans, a trend will spread more widely with modern technology.

The music industry is just one example of a business model that has been disrupted by technology. As with all disruptions it brings benefits as well as costs. One of the costs, as Gregorio has pointed out, is the human input to the recording is being diminished. It is ironic that the music producing technology has progressed leaps and bounds but the human element has declined meaning we don't get the benefits on the production side (apart from lower costs). The fact that many vinyl records and early analog tape recordings can sound better than modern digital because of the lack of human time in the process should be shameful and of serious concern to audiophiles rather than something to be celebrated, as is the case on some forums like the Hoffman site.

That's true, nowadays we have sites like bandcamp and many many more, soundcloud, beatport where artists can upload their material, youtube and gain exposure!

Posting of live events where fans can gather!

 

[old tech]

Maybe there are too many artists creating great music? Is the market saturated? I guess a big problem for the industry is that great music from the past is always available to consumers at a reasonable cost, and there is only a limited amount of music that consumers can "use".

Interesting question, is the market saturated? I don't think so unless one is set in their ways like only listening to music they grew up with.

It is not like a market saturation of commoditised products, as songs/albums are different and appeal to different people. The issue perhaps is whether there is too much choice but again, that should not be a problem if there are various ways of accessing new music. Although I don't subscribe to any streaming services, I think the algorithms many of them have which can play new music depending on your past tastes is one way of being exposed to a broader market.

 

[Strangelove424]

And for me anyway, the biggest casualty of this loudness trend is the PAST: Remasters of 1960s and '70s R&B, Classic Rock, Pop, Country, etc have been subject to the same loudifying processes as modern releases(2000 to present).

And I understand the reasoning: It started with 5-50 disc CD changers, when consumers shuffled older '80s era CD issues with late 1990s(early loudness war era) CDs, and contiued with file-based versions of legacy artists mixed in with louder modern files. Those listeners found themselves periodically adjusting the volume - at home, behind the wheel, when exercising, etc. To get the legacy stuff even *close* to the perceived loudness of the modern stuff, a combination of compression and peak limiting had to be performed, plus anywhere from 4-8dB of makeup gain! And hence were born the first round of 'Digitally Remastered!!' classic rock, etc. CDs.

So I could care less what happens to stuff made more recently, or if artists finally come to their senses, but please, leave our classic hits alone!!

I agree that it’s a shame what’s happening to remasters of those genres. If you have holes in your collection and want to fill them with decent masters, you have to go looking for used CDs from the late 80s or early 90s. I don’t mind 320kbps streaming quality, and MOG used to have the entire catalog of releases, so you could go all the way back to the original version. Unfortunately, neither Spotify nor Tidal have that capability, and MOG is gone.

Don’t give up on modern music. I believe Daft Punk’s Random Access Memories is one of the best mastered albums ever made. The mastering on the vinyl version is incredible, but the CD release sounds good too. They’re rare, but crafted works are out there. Whether or not you like EDM or Daft Punk, this is an excellent article about the qualities of the mastering, and will give you a stronger idea of the decisions that go into the process, the compromises that have to be made, and why good work is a matter of balance:

http://productionadvice.co.uk/daft-punk-mastering/

It might not hurt to read these either...

http://productionadvice.co.uk/its-all-about-great-sound/

http://productionadvice.co.uk/how-loud-is-too-loud-when-dr-values-just-arent-enough/

 

[TheSonicTruth]

I agree that it’s a shame what’s happening to remasters of those genres. If you have holes in your collection and want to fill them with decent masters, you have to go looking for used CDs from the late 80s or early 90s. I don’t mind 320kbps streaming quality, and MOG used to have the entire catalog of releases, so you could go all the way back to the original version. Unfortunately, neither Spotify nor Tidal have that capability, and MOG is gone.

Don’t give up on modern music. I believe Daft Punk’s Random Access Memories is one of the best mastered albums ever made. The mastering on the vinyl version is incredible, but the CD release sounds good too. They’re rare, but crafted works are out there. Whether or not you like EDM or Daft Punk, this is an excellent article about the qualities of the mastering, and will give you a stronger idea of the decisions that go into the process, the compromises that have to be made, and why good work is a matter of balance:

http://productionadvice.co.uk/daft-punk-mastering/

It might not hurt to read these either...

http://productionadvice.co.uk/its-all-about-great-sound/

http://productionadvice.co.uk/how-loud-is-too-loud-when-dr-values-just-arent-enough/

Thanks for the links! But I know who they're from and I often find he talks a good game but doesn't always push hard enough. He seems to think DR8 on the meter plugins is enough for commercial releases, when thirty-forty years ago DR12-15 was the norm for chart stuff! He and I agree respectfully to disagree.

I agee with you about RAM, and own that CD. Charlie Puth's "Attention"(off his forthcoming self-produced mind you 'Voice Notes' album!) and some of Bruno's recent material also has my 'attention', not just in how good it sounds but the style and arrangement. It actually takes a b r e a t h! lol

 

[Cutestudio]

No, you're not the only one but unfortunately you are one of only a very tiny minority. The vast majority do not want better fidelity, they'd far rather have lower prices, instant access and convenience, fidelity is a distant fourth place!

Can you point to the research that indicates only a tiny minority care about the sound quality?
Additionally can you qualify that research with the method of asking, because when I play a well mastered track to anyone young they suddenly realise what they were missing and become interested in better quality. Is this one reason why the record industry suppresses decent masters today?

Your statement is also illogical because you reframe the argument as a choice between cost and quality, whereas in reality not over-compressing and clipping costs exactly the same as mastering something properly. I was looking at 'Dirty Mind' from Shakespeare's Sister, the histogram is almost perfect and the dynamic range (Peak/RMS) is around 16dB and it sounds excellent. Compare that to pretty much any similar track from 'Girls Aloud' and theres have all the peaks squashed - resulting in a DR hovering around 10dB and sound dreadful unless heard very quietly on a very cheap band limited radio.

There is no need to reframe the argument Greg, we KNOW that good mastering costs the same as a Mangled master. Probably cheaper in fact as it's a lot less work. AC/DC's Black Ice and some of A Fine Frenzy's tracks must have cost more to mangle because you can see they were mangled, then EQ'd, and then mangled again which took a special kind of moron at the mastering desk.

Between the two examples between Shakespeare's Sister and Girls Aloud there is no stylistic reason for the Mangling Engineer to be 'creative' and vandalise the sound, the Shakespeare's Sister track sounds quite realistic - as if the instruments are real and the louder it's played the better it sounds. The modern mangling has no place in HiFi, Car or MP3 player and is turning people away from music in droves. Once you have removed all dynamics and any reason to turn it up or play it again what is left? Just a loud noise with some vocals and lyrics that only a tiny minority will enjoy listening to.

I.e. you appear to confuse your role as a creative one where we are supposed to appreciate the mangling, where in reality is should be an invisible one that allows us to hear the musicians.

I think the patronising attitude of the Mangling Engineers and their industry moved into the realm of fraud a long time ago, in fact I've returned quite a few CDs now because of poor quality mastering, people buying CDs or downloads have a reasonable expectation of quality and only a tiny - but growing - minority have any idea how bad the problem is. Too much of the HiFi industry is complicit in enabling this, CD players for example are designed very carefully to avoid overloading on clips - plug in a pro-audio DAC however and the overload light and clips are obvious, a much more honest system.

These overload lights are the same ones the witless cretins at final mastering treat as a badge of honor rather than the stark warnings they are. It's simple audio engineering 101: don't overload and don't clip, which appears to have been forgotten in the Great Dumbing Down of the past 30 years.

HiFi is a shadow of what it was in the 1970s and 1980s, an industry full of charlatans pushing snake oil digital wires, in 40 years it's still using unbalanced interconnects and the lack of anything decent to play has turned many people away. I did find Chlara's version of 'Hotel California' recently though: very well mastered, so there are some people still who either care enough or simply don't know how to mangle music so the odd one slips through. The sound of that compared to the 99% of MangleMusic is of course night and day - and the extra marketing and processing cost of $0.00.

The 'still sounds good as no one cared enough to mangle it' still applied to many DVDs, often a DVD sound track will be far hight quality simply because the sound engineers are just doing their job, not the 'special' creative types who's aim in life to to reduce all sound to a solid brick shaped wall of noise. I visited a consumer electronics show a few years back and it was revealing that the DVD soundtrack to King Kong was the best sounding thing there, only comparable to some old vinyl, the 'HiFi' was just an unpleasant wall of noise that needed turning down - it seems this was thanks to people like you and Bigshot being creative and knowing 'best'.

Amirm's idea is the smartest, sell the 24bit un-mangled versions for a premium. But the record industry is terminally stupid and has constantly strived to avoid this. When SACD came out the internet was slow enough that a simple DVD density disk of 96k/24 audio would have been worth buying on silver discs, leaving the mangled 16bit for MP3 which people were downloading anyway even over dial-up. They missed that money making opportunity so here we are 30+ years later with mangled 16bit silver discs that people simply bypass in favour of mangled MP3s because no one can tell the difference after the mangling.
It's still revealing that music is on sale at Apple and Amazon. Where is the RIAA or the record companies? Go to Virgin Records today (http://www.virginrecords.com/releases/) and you'll see they've just about worked out how to make a slow clunky webpage, but you can't even buy their product direct. Doh.

With the Greg and Bigshot attitude I've been watching the 'tiny minority' of audiophiles become a self fulfilling prophecy as the 'experts' dance around the steaming pile of 'product' to justify the production of mangled 16bit for all. For what reason is a mystery besides the overarching need to be 'right'. It's not a good enough reason.

 

[RRod]

If I ask a random person at work "what do you do for music?", the answer is likely to be "I just wear whatever earbuds come with my iPhone, but I only really listen on the subway in to work, and I usually just stream whatever is on." Music that requires dedicated, low-background listening isn't the norm any more. Are you saying you have a real reason to deny this as reality?