[Mkubota1]

While there is absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of bad recordings are because of the loudness wars, I think a few albums like the Foo Fighter's 'One By One' were made that way on purpose.  This is just a guess (no way of knowing without interviewing them or the producer/engineer/mixer) but I think a lot of these groups, especially alternative rock, want their sound to be less polished or refined.  Even though we all know they make millions of dollars and are distributed by RCA, they want the listener to think that they're hearing something from an underground garage band or something.  Just think of their music style, their outfits, their stage acts- it's all part of the package.  The blatant distortion on this album is not from the incompetence of a guy like Bob Ludwig.  Most popular groups have a sound- you knew a Van Halen song just from the sound of the snare drum even though it might not sound like one in real life.  I guess what I'm trying to say is  like it or not a lot of this is intentional artistic license.  Also, the Loudness War wiki is a must read for anyone in this forum.  It may only apply to the 'younger' crowd though. 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Say your favourite music is badly recorded. What are you supposed to do?

 

[NRWalker]

I found this interesting. After recently getting a decent set of headphones I've finally realised how important it is to listen to something better than 128kbps mp3s!

 

[sebaz]

OK, but in reality a sound that is less polished or refined will sound better than almost everything else. A band I don't like but that produces great sounding records is Red Hot Chili Peppers. It's not the most usual rock music, but it's still rock and their records sound like the instruments weren't messed with in post production. At least all the songs I listened to by them sound outstanding, even if I don't like them. The Foos on the other hand sound like the sound engineer wanted to make them sound like crap. I'm guessing that their sound gets tweaked a lot in post production, and usually for the worst, which is sad because they do great music in my opinion.
 
Quote:

While there is absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of bad recordings are because of the loudness wars, I think a few albums like the Foo Fighter's 'One By One' were made that way on purpose.  This is just a guess (no way of knowing without interviewing them or the producer/engineer/mixer) but I think a lot of these groups, especially alternative rock, want their sound to be less polished or refined.  Even though we all know they make millions of dollars and are distributed by RCA, they want the listener to think that they're hearing something from an underground garage band or something.  Just think of their music style, their outfits, their stage acts- it's all part of the package.  The blatant distortion on this album is not from the incompetence of a guy like Bob Ludwig.  Most popular groups have a sound- you knew a Van Halen song just from the sound of the snare drum even though it might not sound like one in real life.  I guess what I'm trying to say is  like it or not a lot of this is intentional artistic license.  Also, the Loudness War wiki is a must read for anyone in this forum.  It may only apply to the 'younger' crowd though. 

 

 

[Danz03]

I think you are right, another good example would be King of Leon's 'Only By the Night'; the drums on that album were so heavily compressed they don't sound much like drums at all. Nevertheless, it was still one of the top selling CDs of 2008 world-wide, so I don't think most people care about sound quality that much.
 
Having said that, 'loudness' doesn't always degrade sound quality, it depends a lot on the type of music. Music with a lot of bass content like dance or HIp-Hop music sound louder already without much compression, so therefore it can be made even louder without much distortion or degradation if compressed properly. As with Lady Ga Ga or Black Eye Peas, their music is extremely loud and have more of less no dynamic range, but they are distortion free and all the high frequencies are very well preserved.
 
With rock music, it's always preferable to use vintage, analog or tape compression in the mix in order to capture the rawness and the excitement of the music, it's not meant to sound natural or realistic, it's meant to excite the listener. The sound of the electric guitar is usually heavily distorted already anyway, I guess a bit more distortion in the mix from a vintage compressor wouldn't hurt much.
 
Classical music on the other hand is usually only compressed mildly in order to preserve as much of the full dynamic range of the music as possible with the least distortion.
 
There is a reason to try to keep the music as loud as possible, a CD has got a dynamic range of 96 dB, if the music has a dynamic range of 60 dB, then your music is only 36 dB above the noise floor, that's why sometimes with classical music, especially with the earlier CDs, one can hear the background noise during the quiet parts. 

 
Quote:

While there is absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of bad recordings are because of the loudness wars, I think a few albums like the Foo Fighter's 'One By One' were made that way on purpose.  This is just a guess (no way of knowing without interviewing them or the producer/engineer/mixer) but I think a lot of these groups, especially alternative rock, want their sound to be less polished or refined.

 

[joelpearce]

I listen to a lot of independent music, and I think we are starting to see a number of groups push back against the loudness wars.  I'm thinking about groups like Spoon, who have been involved in their own production, and all of their albums sound excellent, including the new ones.  Every year I find a number of albums that stand out as being solidly recorded.
 
Hopefully, things will start pushing that way again soon in mainstream music.

 

[sebaz]

Absolutely. "Only By The Night", a great album, sounds awful. I love the song "Need Somebody" but the sound quality in it is an abomination.
 
Quote:

I think you are right, another good example would be King of Leon's 'Only By the Night'; the drums on that album were so heavily compressed they don't sound much like drums at all. Nevertheless, it was still one of the top selling CDs of 2008 world-wide, so I don't think most people care about sound quality that much.

 

 

[WhiteCrow]

have you seen the source section of the forum?
 

 

[zmd]

Oh God.. Reading this makes me weep thinking of Californication. One of the prime examples of how stupid the loudness wars are. I really enjoy that album, but as I've gotten better cans over time, it sounds worse and worse. I tried listening to the first song on Grados and it's just painful.
Maybe if your favorite music is not well recorder/mastered you shouldn't get "transparent" gear..
Quote:

A band I don't like but that produces great sounding records is Red Hot Chili Peppers. It's not the most usual rock music, but it's still rock and their records sound like the instruments weren't messed with in post production. At least all the songs I listened to by them sound outstanding, even if I don't like them.
 


 

 

 

[sebaz]

I really didn't listen to that CD except that song on the radio at some point. I know that the CD that contains "Under The Bridge" sounds great, and my girlfriend bought their greatest hits recently and it seemed to me that it sounded pretty good overall, not with headphones but with speakers, and I have decent speakers to judge that.
 
Quote:

Oh God.. Reading this makes me weep thinking of Californication. One of the prime examples of how stupid the loudness wars are. I really enjoy that album, but as I've gotten better cans over time, it sounds worse and worse. I tried listening to the first song on Grados and it's just painful.
Maybe if your favorite music is not well recorder/mastered you shouldn't get "transparent" gear..


 

 

 

[zmd]

Most of their stuff does sound good, but that particular CD was butchered. It doesn't even sound good on ibuds..
 

 

[lejaz]

Quote:

Absolutely. "Only By The Night", a great album, sounds awful. I love the song "Need Somebody" but the sound quality in it is an abomination.
 
 

When I read about the gear that was used to record one of the Kings of Leon albums in Sound on Sound magazine I almost cried....and laughed....didn't know which to do first. It was recorded by a top notch engineer in a studio in New Orleans, I think, using all kinds of high end vintage gear.....and they still managed to make it sound like crap. I have a friend who uses behringer gear and relatively cheap mics and he could make a better recording spending 1% of their budget. How the hell does that happen? 

 

[sebaz]

Quote:

When I read about the gear that was used to record one of the Kings of Leon albums in Sound on Sound magazine I almost cried....and laughed....didn't know which to do first. It was recorded by a top notch engineer in a studio in New Orleans, I think, using all kinds of high end vintage gear.....and they still managed to make it sound like crap. I have a friend who uses behringer gear and relatively cheap mics and he could make a better recording spending 1% of their budget. How the hell does that happen? 

As usual, the technology itself plays a role but it is mostly down to the person operating that technology to make it sound good or not. It's the same as the eternal audiophile argument of CD vs. vinyl. You will find thousands of vinyls that sound better than many CDs, and viceversa. The CD is obviously a far better  technology, but there were many CDs recorded or mastered with poor quality that will sound far worse than many good vinyls. In recording technology it's probably the same, you can have the best technology but if the sound engineer has bad taste or is not good at his job, what you get is monstruosities like that Kings Of Leon's album.
 

 

[lejaz]

The funny (and sad) thing is that the engineer of the KOL album I was reading about was one of the most respected in the business....don't remember his name, but it was in a Sound on Sound mag from last spring or summer. Seems like the lunatics are in charge of the asylum when it comes to the music business....though there are exceptions, of course.
Quote:

As usual, the technology itself plays a role but it is mostly down to the person operating that technology to make it sound good or not. It's the same as the eternal audiophile argument of CD vs. vinyl. You will find thousands of vinyls that sound better than many CDs, and viceversa. The CD is obviously a far better  technology, but there were many CDs recorded or mastered with poor quality that will sound far worse than many good vinyls. In recording technology it's probably the same, you can have the best technology but if the sound engineer has bad taste or is not good at his job, what you get is monstruosities like that Kings Of Leon's album.
 

 

 

[sebaz]

I've got two more great examples of excellent recordings in the rock genre, two Steve Vai CDs, "Passion & Warfare" and "Sex & Religion" are not only excellent albums but also sound excellent and they're proof that rock music doesn't have to sound like it was recorded in a garage with cheap equipment.