[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beach123456 Still don't see why that seems to be the trend lately, if you want your music louder just turn the volume up!(I assume thats what people mean when they refer to the 'loudness' of a recording) Aside from that, is it cheaper or something I don't know about that seems to make it a more attractive option for so many people lately?

Very uncompressed music would likely have you constantly adjusting the volume knob... it's not a matter of "just louder" but that the quietest and loudest parts of the music are all compressed to approximately the same level. In fact, you could have a very quiet song that's still heavily compressed, but it will sound "flat" and lack dynamics.

Hope this helps someone understand the concept of 'compression' better. Of course in practice, most compressed music is also boosted to the maximum level a CD can hold, and quite often beyond (resulting in digital clipping, a truly nasty sound).

P.S. a good example of very *expanded* / uncompressed stuff is the soundtrack on DVD's. Notice the large difference between loud and soft stuff, and the enormous "punch" of explosions and such... that's lack of compression. Most music need not be that uncompressed, but the amount of compression applied these days is far more than what's necessary, and destroys punch and dynamic range. See the link at the bottom of my .sig.

 

[Nepenthe]

I can imagine one of today's youth being annoyed by a highly dynamic song. For instance, the Unbelievable Truth tune that I posted the graph of above -- you turn it up so you can HEAR the first half on your crummy car stereo or stock ipod buds or $20 PC speakers and then the last third is just blaring and you have to turn it way down again. How annoying is that?

The question is, can we still enjoy music that is obviously highly compressed?

And what about a song with a stout bass drum where the bass drum is comprising most of the bass information? It might be compressed, but the bass drum is still going to have impact, because what does it have to rise above in those frequencies? Yet the one-color, two-dimensional graphs won't show this. You'd have to go into three dimensions or colors to find this information visually.

 

[Nepenthe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch P.S. a good example of very *expanded* / uncompressed stuff is the soundtrack on DVD's. Notice the large difference between loud and soft stuff, and the enormous "punch" of explosions and such... that's lack of compression. Most music need not be that uncompressed, but the amount of compression applied these days is far more than what's necessary, and destroys punch and dynamic range. See the link at the bottom of my .sig.

Even the music can sound better. I remember I was watching the original version of Donnie Darko one day and was struck at how GOOD "Head Over Heels" by Tears for Fears sounded during the school sequence. Later I compared it to the CD version I have on the greatest hits, and I believe the DVD one (not DVD-A, just the audio that comes with the movie) sounded better, punchier, more dynamic.

The other day I watched The Incredibles with headphones on. I loved the dynamic range there. It's just a great thing. I agree music doesn't need to/can't be like that all the time -- not all of it, anyway. Stuff like Sufjan Stevens or Andrew Bird can approach that sometimes though.

 

[Tim D]

I was watching Rundown and the dynamic range is great on that movie. The thing is movie soundtrack and sound effect producers know that utilizing large dynamic range creates excitement and involvement for the audience. No idea why this same motivation doesn't carry through with mainstream music.

 

[Anthrax]

if you want dynamics, then put Siamese dream(smashing pumpkins) into the cd player.

 

[Davey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nepenthe The other day I watched The Incredibles with headphones on. I loved the dynamic range there. It's just a great thing. I agree music doesn't need to/can't be like that all the time -- not all of it, anyway. Stuff like Sufjan Stevens or Andrew Bird can approach that sometimes though.

Yeah, unfortunately the latest Andrew Bird is highly compressed too. Still sounds pretty good since it's a very nice recording and still my favorite album of the year, but man could it sound a ton better without all the needless compression to make the sound more "competitive". Party out of bounds

 

[AdamWill]

beach: one of the main reasons compression is used is to make things sound louder on the radio; the theory is that the louder your song sounds on the radio, the more people will notice it. So record companies started demanding songs be compressed and then heavily gained up to (and above, with clipping) the maximum CD volume, so that when they were played on the radio, they'd sound louder than the other songs. Of course, this leads to an 'arms race' situation where everyone compresses more and more.

Another reason is because they think it sounds good. Which is perfectly legitimate. When I emailed Ted Leo about the recording on Shake The Sheets (see my other thread on this, where I posted my initial audacity screenshots), we started discussing all his recordings, and he said he had Hearts of Oak and Tyranny of Distance compressed intentionally - especially on certain instruments - because he likes how it sounds, in a '70s power-pop kind of way. Which is perfectly fine; it's an artistic decision. Truth be told I don't _really_ mind even fairly heavy compression if it's done intentionally, it does have a distinct sound with certain types of music (though it does make the music more fatiguing); what really ticks me off is the clipping that results from over-gaining a track past the maximum volume allowed on a CD. That's what really kills it for me. Heavy compression when used on music that isn't at all suited to it is annoying too, but clipping's my number one bugbear.

 

[AdamWill]

anthrax: yeah, Siamese Dream is pretty well mastered too. The Pumpkins are a great reference over time, that's why I chose them for my comparison earlier in this thread. Gish, Siamese Dream and Mellon Collie are all mastered pretty well and unintrusively; from Adore onwards, everything is compressed and gained up the wazoo. Zwan's album is the same, that's _real_ ugly if you have a look at it.

 

[Anthrax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWill anthrax: yeah, Siamese Dream is pretty well mastered too. The Pumpkins are a great reference over time, that's why I chose them for my comparison earlier in this thread. Gish, Siamese Dream and Mellon Collie are all mastered pretty well and unintrusively; from Adore onwards, everything is compressed and gained up the wazoo. Zwan's album is the same, that's _real_ ugly if you have a look at it.

so true. its a pitty it got to corgans head, trying to compete with the pop music and all there compression.

 

[AdamWill]

Well, they were all mastered by Mr. Weinberg. So you can pick who you want to blame. Ahhh, but they're both such tempting targets!

 

[Beach123456]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWill beach: one of the main reasons compression is used is to make things sound louder on the radio; the theory is that the louder your song sounds on the radio, the more people will notice it. So record companies started demanding songs be compressed and then heavily gained up to (and above, with clipping) the maximum CD volume, so that when they were played on the radio, they'd sound louder than the other songs. Of course, this leads to an 'arms race' situation where everyone compresses more and more. Another reason is because they think it sounds good. Which is perfectly legitimate. When I emailed Ted Leo about the recording on Shake The Sheets (see my other thread on this, where I posted my initial audacity screenshots), we started discussing all his recordings, and he said he had Hearts of Oak and Tyranny of Distance compressed intentionally - especially on certain instruments - because he likes how it sounds, in a '70s power-pop kind of way. Which is perfectly fine; it's an artistic decision. Truth be told I don't _really_ mind even fairly heavy compression if it's done intentionally, it does have a distinct sound with certain types of music (though it does make the music more fatiguing); what really ticks me off is the clipping that results from over-gaining a track past the maximum volume allowed on a CD. That's what really kills it for me. Heavy compression when used on music that isn't at all suited to it is annoying too, but clipping's my number one bugbear.

I know punk rock doesnt actually sound that bad when it is compressed heavily, but everything else just sounds like crap. Thanks for the info, Ive known what compression sounded like for awhile, I just never understood quite why they did it.

 

[3DCadman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad Can anyone think of any examples (remastered vs original or something) of songs that I can listen to that are egregiously compressed, when they shouldn't be, and another version that is properly mastered?

Example of bad = Rush's "Vapor Trails"
Example of Good = Rush's "Moving Pictures" on MFSL Gold CD (if you can obtain one)

Vapor Trails has been a notorious example of compression gone mad. I believe Rush were even embarrassed that it happened because there was such a big deal made of it on the net. There was much debate on whether or not it could ever be fixed by remastering because the damage was done so early in the recording chain.

MFSL Moving Pictures (or ALL MFSL discs) are great examples of someone knowing what the heck they are doing when mastering.

 

[AdamWill]

3dcadman: You want to take a wild guess who mastered Vapor Trails?

Hint: first name H., second name W...

 

[MrCookie989]

I dunno if theres any Who fans reading this thread, but their "Remastered" CD of The Kids Are Alright is about the most horribly compressed album I have ever heard. Its a complete abomination of a remaster. The Whos latest remasters have also suffered from an extensive use of noise reduction as well (Live at Leeds Deluxe).

 

[squall2072]

Is it more the big companies doing the compression? Do smaller companies like constellation and kranky do this to the extremes that your talking about too?

So albums from "Godspeed You Black Emperor!" and "Sigur Ros" etc are they left alone or are they heavily compressed too?