[gloco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by moeburn Spectral analysis of the over compression of Red Hot Chili Peppers over the years: 1984 - The Red Hot Chili Peppers - Get up and Jump 1995 - One Hot Minute - Falling into Grace 1999 - Californication - Right On Time 1999 - Californication - Otherside Ugh. Thats just terrible. Its like they think speaker technology has been getting quieter over time or something.

(shrugs)

What am i supposed to be looking at? Whatever it is, it looks the same to me.

 

[james__bean]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloco (shrugs) What am i supposed to be looking at? Whatever it is, it looks the same to me.

All of the ones posted were of RHCP songs. They all essentially show the same thing, massive amounts of clipping. If you compare any of those songs to something like the tool that was posted you can see the difference.

Do you see how the spikes in the one on the left are abruptly cut off? Thats the distortion that people are complaining about.

 

[moeburn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by james__bean All of the ones posted were of RHCP songs. They all essentially show the same thing, massive amounts of clipping. If you compare any of those songs to something like the tool that was posted you can see the difference. Do you see how the spikes in the one on the left are abruptly cut off? Thats the distortion that people are complaining about.

Uh... they don't really show the distortion. They show the fact that they are alot louder (darker lines, even though they're not really louder songs), and thus overcompressed.

The reason the spikes on the left are abruptly cut off is probably because they were ripped with a lowpass 19.7kHz filter, and the ones on the right were ripped by ME without any such filter. I could be wrong through.

 

[periurban]

Having done a bit more research into this I noticed that Californication is seen as something of a benchmark for modern compression overload. It marks a watershed beyond which the kind of super-compression that we find almost everywhere now (from adverts to rock albums) becomes almost inevitable.

But I do think that Californication is an extreme example of the technique.

 

[nautikal]

It's definitly in the mastering because I have acquired an unmastered version and it sounds great. Only problem is I could only find it at 192kbps

.


Mastered on top (obviously).


If anyone knows where I can purchase Californication unmastered I will be very very grateful!

 

[SONGsanmanwah]

that's more than enough to make one cry...

 

[Rempert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by periurban /img/forum/go_quote.gif The problem with compression is that you will not know it's working until you hear it, and by the time you hear it there's too much there! The secret is to apply it until you hear it and then roll it back by ten per cent or so until it's no longer obvious. Then it's doing its job! Using meters on the input and output helps enormously too.

This is true to an extent, but also seems a bit misleading. Compression is an effect that can be used to balance or bring out certain parts of the sound, much like EQ. Maybe a sound engineer wants to use EQ to create separation between a bass drum and a bass guitar. He will most certainly be able to hear the effect as he applies the change, but it can still be transparent to the listener at home in terms of both instruments still sounding natural. Similarly, compression should be used for a reason. The person applying the effect should be able to hear it shaping the sound in whatever way he desires. It just shouldn't sound noticeable to the listener at home unless that is part of the desired effect.

I guess my feeling is that if the person using compression can't hear it improving the quality of the track/mix, he shouldn't be using it. Adding density to an instrument or dynamic consistency to a vocal or shaping transients or making things go pump/duck/whoosh... whatever. But using a limiter solely for the purpose of making the whole mix louder while trying to maintain transparency... what's the point? Now people will turn the volume knob or apply track gain to their mp3, and all they will hear of the lovely limiter is the unintended side effects (which admittedly can be remarkably subtle).

 

[judas391]

You can hear a slight crackle, what I do is just accept that it's part of the music.
It's really pronounced in Parallel Universe though

 

[nautikal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by judas391 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can hear a slight crackle, what I do is just accept that it's part of the music. It's really pronounced in Parallel Universe though

Try listening to otherside...it's not so slight

.

 

[Pars]

Just a stupid question (probably), but why is compression really necessary, at least in the recording phase, with digital recording. I mean your supposed to have what, like 110 dB to play with? In analog days, the tape media wouldn't support the dynamics, so a bit of compression was necessary. But c'mon, todays recordings sound so lame wrt what was done 20 years ago even wrt compression.

If you need to crank the volume to compete (radio play or whatever), can't this be done solely in the mastering phase?

Any good software to look at a track for compression purposes on Mac OSX? Free

?

 

[TheVinylRipper]

DC6, the forensic audio program I use has a declipping function.

And it doesn't do squat for Californication, which is severely clipped..

 

[Rempert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pars /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just a stupid question (probably), but why is compression really necessary, at least in the recording phase, with digital recording. I mean your supposed to have what, like 110 dB to play with? In analog days, the tape media wouldn't support the dynamics, so a bit of compression was necessary. But c'mon, todays recordings sound so lame wrt what was done 20 years ago even wrt compression.

Well, if *everything* is done digitally, then it only makes sense to record and save the tracks without any effects and add the compression during mixing where it can be easily changed or undone.

A lot of vintage (and new) analog hardware is still used in the recording industry. It is clear from the linked article that Californication was recorded on tape with hardware processing before it ever reached the digital domain. Then additional mixing was done on computer. Regardless, it should not be a problem to get a nice sounding recording when you have an experienced producer and top of the line equipement, whether that equipment is analog or digital.

 

[TheVinylRipper]

I have Californication..

It can be improved if not fixed..

Download and install Wavosaur, a freeware audio editor.

http://www.wavosaur.com/

Open the Californication wav file.

Select Effects, Filter, Chebyshev.

Set for 10,000 Hz, 6 pole, .1% ripple and low pass.

Run the filter.

Listen and judge for yourself.

The reason this works is that clipping creates a lot of very high frequency artifacts which you are filtering out with the Chebyshev filter.

If you don't like the way that sounds, play with the settings and get something that does appeal to you.

More poles on the filter will take out more of the clipping artifacts..

 

[mattopia]

I'm so glad to have found this thread. I remember buying Californication quite a few years ago, listening to it *once*, getting a headache from the sound quality, and never listening to it again. Always thought it was just me...

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pars /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just a stupid question (probably), but why is compression really necessary, at least in the recording phase, with digital recording. I mean your supposed to have what, like 110 dB to play with? In analog days, the tape media wouldn't support the dynamics, so a bit of compression was necessary. But c'mon, todays recordings sound so lame wrt what was done 20 years ago even wrt compression. If you need to crank the volume to compete (radio play or whatever), can't this be done solely in the mastering phase? Any good software to look at a track for compression purposes on Mac OSX? Free ?

Compression and EQ are not always absolutely necessary, but they're used to make recordings more "cohesive," especially on average listening equipment. Often, a compressed and EQ'd mix on cheap speakers sounds closer to what's heard in the studio without effects than if the mix had just been left alone.

Listen to the unmastered version of Californication if you get a chance. It's clear that the mastering engineer who eventually butchered it felt that there was simply too much space in the recordings. For pop singles, they sound sparsely arranged with a highly-present vocal that really stands out. IMO, it sounds much better than the final product, but it also sounds like it could use a slight tweak here or there, which is what the mastering process is supposed to be about (see Steve Hoffman's methodology).

Audacity is a decent freeware audio editor that has cross-platform support.