CD compression killing music

Yeah, like I've been saying.

 

Yes I suppose there is. That is related to compression though.

 

Compression with a view to maximizing the volume.

 

When they do that mazimising, to they compress the individual peaks so they fit in the dynamic range?

 

No. Compression, especially in large amounts, like on too many CDs, sounds unnatural. It creates a sound not found in nature.

 

Well, yes, exactly! That also has the effect of limiting the dynamic range, so things don't sound natural.

Maximizing (meaning limiting) need not clip. One can specify a ceiling for that wave to prevent clipping.

 

It's usually applied to the whole track at the time of mastering. Compression probably already has been used on individual tracks by this time.

And Grant, I don't understand what you are saying about compression. It has been an engineering tool for decades. It's the overuse of it that is offensive, but when used tastefully it can make a track really shine. All of my heroes (Brian Wilson, Phil Spector, George Martin, etc.) used compression very well, for the most part.

 

I'm a little leery of using the term "natural" when talking about pop and rock music. Acoustic naturalism is not the goal of most pop records.

 

What you don't want is a wave that comes out looking like a military-haircut! A wave that is just one big square block will sound very unnatural, indeed. Steve's masterings all feature beautiful rounded waves with peaks and valleys.

Squealy -- I agree that pop records do not want to sound natural, for the most part. The engineering becomes part of the records personality. But things are getting ridiculous when you have atrocities like the aforementioned Shania discs.

 

Yes, I don't mean to say that these things don't sound bad; just that I think there should be some other frame of reference.

 

Just to throw in my 2 cents. My wife who has little interest in my music room, ask me to put in a her Josh Groban cd. She was actually sad, because it sounded so dull, and compressed. After hearing her disappointment, she told me now she understands why I come here and search for the best sounding cd's

 

I'm just worried that 'compression' is becoming a catch-all phrase. Many factors can be attributed to a dull sound on cd. 16-bit technology is a big culprit, IMO.

Another thing is the over-recording that is so easily done these days. When you can record, say, seventy tracks for a song it seems like a lovely luxury. However, all those sounds have nowhere to go, they crush themselves together and create a flat, dull sound. And that's without compression!!!

 

I'm not saying it's wrong to use compression, or that is always sounds bad. I'm just saying that it does create an unnatural sound, meaning that compressed sound does not sound like the source.

 

I see. But I still think that a little light compression brings out detail, letting the track breath, and adding a bit of naturalness. YMMV.

 

Appreciate what you're saying and there may be a point in there. Some of these over-compressed remasters *do* sound smoother, due to superior digital gear involved and superior A/D conversion. The over-compression and other poor mastering choices unfortuanately does more damage than what the (also flawed) earlier CD masters suffered, particularly when played on a good system. Still I suppose it might be that some of the folks supposedly favoring that over-compressed sound are actually seeking the percieved "smoothness" aspect of this louder newer mastering, but wrongfully attribute the qualities they do like to the loudness and compression practices. If that were so, then what people are really wanting isn't just LOUDER, it's "analog smoothness"!

 

I think we've established we are only disgusted with digital compression added during mastering and not during the multi-track analog recording using an analog compressor. Differents beasts entirely according to Steve.

 

Really, not in my experiences.

Again, not from my experiences. You're over-generalizing as it is honestly on an album by album and mastering by mastering basis.

People seem to associate louder, boosted, clearer levels with better sound so I agree 100%.

 

I've never heard a CD that was over-compressed during mastering that I would ever describe as "smooth." They all sound f**king awful to me.

 

Granted, thus the "some." Also, I was talking in terms of "maximized" masters, not every new vs old. I've yet to personally hear a totally smashed remaster that was better than the earlier mastering, but I suppose anything's possible.

As for smoothness maybe we're not thinking the same kinds of smooth. This is very hard to describe.

When an older digital recording (with dynamics) is played on some awful systems, I can hear a certain kind of brittle effect, a "digital ice" as it were, along with quick drops into that poor lower level resolution or strangely black digital silence. The bad sides of the archtypical early digital sound. It's kind of exaggerated by some poor playback conditions. Like you'd hear in a circuit city back in the day, with the kid salesman going "listen to that crisp digital sound!" and you wondering how anyone could possibly like that. With a halfway decent system those flaws are far less pronounced.

From the dance floor to the car to the radio at work to that theater in a box fresh from WalMart though, most folks hear stuff on the awful side. When a fairly smashed remaster plays on such a system, it still sounds like that clump you barely survive sifting out of the kitty litter pan. It has some different characteristics though. Sure, there are less curves on a waveform of that song than there are on a high fashion model. Yes it's as plastic as an early 1990's Fischer rack stereo. It's as thin as the treble in a Bob Norberg remaster, as crackly as the veneer of integrity of the news media and sizzly as Jessica Rabbit. Aren't anologies fun? Anyway, it also doesn't have as much of that brittle or low level effect (thanks to there effectively being no low levels and to slightly different characteristics of newer digital gear). I'd call it harsh unlistenable garbage, but there is a steadier stream of these "louder, boosted, clearer levels" (as Dave put it) that probably sounds comparitively "smoother." Real smoothness from real quality audio would be even better but maybe the swap of bad characteristics is enough to make the uninformed think the louder is better.

We're just shooting breeze here mind you, all that can be wrong. I'm still quite unconvinced that people really want their recordings smashed. Smashed, like Beethoven's Fifth on Judge Judy.

 

I can think of only two scenarios where this would be the case:

1) The earlier mastering has some terrible flaw that makes the smashed remaster preferable by comparison.

2) The listener's judgment is totally impaired.

 

3) It's the equipment or some part there of.

 

I thought that was called 'normalisation' - increasing the entire signal so only the loudest peak sits just below clipping. I have no problem with that, because it doesn't alter the dynamic range of the signal, it just makes use of the entire 16 bits of a CD.

 

Here's a look at The Flaming Lips' "Do You Realize," from Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots...



Even though there's about 1.7db of headroom, it's still been squashed - in the final mastering it was probably determined it was too loud, compared to the rest of the disc, so it was lowered accordingly (with no increase in dynamic range, as the damage had been done). It still sounds squashed.

And now for a few examples of my own...

Here's an excerpt from my Apples & Oranges demo, "Talking Trash." Here's what the non-limited waveform after mastering at 24-bit without a brickwall limiter looks like...



There is about 2.3db of headroom. This is what it sounds like (audio sample copyright Felix E. Martinez)...

While some might think this is fine as is, I disagree. There are a handful of transients that are keeping the overall level "low." The key is to never get rid of the original elements so one can always go back.

Here's my preferred final master, with the Waves L2 limiter at -7db. Note: the db setting on the L2 means nothing as a number. I've read that the limiter sounds excessive at "X"db, when in fact the settings and results are determined by the material. Use your eyes and ears. Here's what it looks like...



And here's what it sounds like (audio sample copyright Felix E. Martinez)...

Given the limitations of the original demo recording, this is what sounds right to my ears.

And now...for those that want to hear what sonic abuse sounds like...

Here's what "Talking Trash" looks like with the L2 limiting doubled (-14db). Interestingly, it now looks like a contender in the current Loudness Wars. And yet, it's still below 0db at the industry safety net setting of -.3db...



And this is what it sounds like (audio sample copyright Felix E. Martinez)...

Yuck! Transients are slushy, and as Steve might say, the pickles, mustard, ketchup, and parts of the hamburger are starting to seep out of the corners of the mouth

But it gets better! Here's TTRash at a whopping -20db on the L2...



This, my friends, is the future of the Loudness Wars! The hamburger is now seeping out of the nose, and full-on hemorrhaging is taking place (does anyone remember Cronenberg's "Scanners"?). Here's what it sounds like (audio sample copyright Felix E. Martinez). More slushiness, grittiness, things just falling apart, and very clear evidence of "ducking" and other nasties.

So the moral of the story is...tools are tools and can be used and abused. Use your ears, use your eyes, and use some common sense. And stay musical!

 

Fantastic examples, thanks for that.

I downloaded all of the MP3 files, then MP3gained them to 89 dB, so that I could compare them at the same loudness. I personally thought the -7 dB example was the best sounding. Even the -14 was too degraded for my liking, the -20 dB example started to remind me of some recent CDs.

 

Yep, that's the final version (albeit in mp3 form here).