[sonick]

Edit: I also did a little writeup on my blog regarding compression in today's music, mostly for my friends but decided to put it up on Digg: http://digg.com/music/Compression_Wh...ound_like_crap . So if you're a member, please DIGG IT!

From Steve Hoffman over at his forums, http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...ad.php?t=84600

Top is the Hoffman/Gray master, digitally re-recoreded copy played back on the lathe. Bottom is the standard CD.

I can't WAIT for this album! 8 sides of clean 180g vinyl.

 

[elrod-tom]

UGH...why do CD production engineers DO this??

 

[ameyer17]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom UGH...why do CD production engineers DO this??

Because the record companies make them.
Why do the record companies do this?
Because they're stupid

 

[Masonjar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ameyer17 Because the record companies make them. Why do the record companies do this? Because they're stupid

The thing is, even when I'm making a "mix" and try to normalize the volume as compared to the other cuts, I can make it quieter, but I can't "undo" that compression. Sad.

-jar

 

[SR-71Panorama]

That pic confuses me. If vinyl is the actual copy of the music, and cd being digital copies, shouln't the bottom graph represent vinyl? It shows a larger waveform, with less dips/spikes (yeah I'm not familiar with engineer vocab). The top graph is smaller, which seems to me would represent a compressed version. I'm sure I'm missing something but....?

----edit: oh, I just noticed its 4 graphs. I thought the top 2 were one format, the bottom 2 the other. (duh)

 

[sonick]

You're getting things mixed up. Not to toot my own horn, but check out what I blogged (that is linked in the digg):

http://www.xanga.com/sonickGQ/501878133/item.html

Hopefully it'll clarify things, like the tracks (there are four tracks, but is only for the two formats: vinyl the top two, CD the bottom two.) and "compression"

 

[markl]

Yeah but... Just by looking at that wave-form, even on the Hoffman vinyl, you can see it was recorded and or/mixed very "hot" anyway. It doesn't need any extra compression, it's already very squashed dynamically, it looks like a typical modern remaster.

That's the problem with Pro Tools, at the click of a mouse, they can squish it before it ever gets to the mastering engineer. The tragedy is that when years from now when they realize how wrong it was to add all this compression, many albums recorded in the last 10 years come pre-squashed; there is just no dynamic range to restore even if you remaster it.

 

[3DCadman]

Does there exist some on-line database that exposes the CD's that are the worst?

Or, maybe expose some well known CD's that are "hot". That way, it exposes to the world how bad it's gotten and get the word out.

I've heard of several, Rush's "Vapor Trails" being one that I love, but hate the sound.

If I knew which ones were bad, I could avoid them.

Of course, if it's an artist I love, I'd probably get it anyway.

 

[Senn20]

Shift+open apple+3. Otherwise known as Print Screen on a Windows PC.

Pass it along.

 

[Zommaz]

This is quite depressing; why bother with our 120dB dynamic range rigs when most records has a dynamic range of 12dB!

Many jazz records luckily seem to be quite sensibly compressed, though. With my current rig I've found myself listening more to Keith Jarrett, and less to Keith Richards; maybe dynamics is why, maybe not...

 

[markl]

Quote:

Does there exist some on-line database that exposes the CD's that are the worst? Or, maybe expose some well known CD's that are "hot". That way, it exposes to the world how bad it's gotten and get the word out.

Go to the Steve Hoffman forums. People post wave-forms and tut-tut all the time.

 

[sonick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Yeah but... Just by looking at that wave-form, even on the Hoffman vinyl, you can see it was recorded and or/mixed very "hot" anyway. It doesn't need any extra compression, it's already very squashed dynamically, it looks like a typical modern remaster. That's the problem with Pro Tools, at the click of a mouse, they can squish it before it ever gets to the mastering engineer. The tragedy is that when years from now when they realize how wrong it was to add all this compression, many albums recorded in the last 10 years come pre-squashed; there is just no dynamic range to restore even if you remaster it.

Well, with this Chili Peppers album, the master for the vinyl is the actual analog tapes. The vinyl will be recorded, mixed and now mastered entirely in an analog domain.

 

[markl]

Quote:

Well, with this Chili Peppers album, the master for the vinyl is the actual analog tapes. The vinyl will be recorded, mixed and now mastered entirely in an analog domain.

Ummmm, with all due respect, the Peppers certainly have not re-recorded and re-mixed the entire album for Steve's vinyl copy (that will sell 5K copies tops). Steve's just been given the same master tape as the hack mastering engineer who squashed it for the CD version.

Yes, when we look at the wave-form of Steve's vinyl transfer, we are definitely looking at the wave-form as it exists from the original master tapes as he does not add any compression. I'm saying, look at that wave-form. Sure, it's a heck of a lot better than the CD version, but that ain't saying much. This CD has been recorded "hot", or more likely mixed "hot" with the aid of Pro-Tools. No I have no special information about how this was recorded or mixed, but those are my suspicions based on what we can all see...

 

[Veto]

If that actually is a song of 4 min or so than you can't tell much about just how compressed it is (the top one). at that scale it all looks like blocks.
I think that one looks good, if it sounds like crap I don't think SH would have signed of on the master.
And let's not forget that records also sound different (lot's of compression used while tracking for instance) because tastes have changed. That doesn't have to be wrong it's can be the sound you're after.

Veto

 

[akwok]

Who's gonna help needle drop this?