When is the excessive digital compression applied?

But, there are NO dynamics.

 

As RevolutionDoctor pointed out here before, today's close miced instruments are more in your face from the git go. This is one of the reasons why I don't like heavily sample-sourced music.

If, when the final mix is done all of the instruments are compressed in order to 'tame' their sounds the end result is a more in-your-face sound. In other words, something quite in line with today's recorded sound trends.

 

I do believe also that compressing all the music so that all the detail is up front helps the mp3 format in that the data compression will not eliminate sounds that are more up front, just the ones that the algorithm determines will not be heard. In today's music, this means none of what is on the recording given that, due to the excessive dynamic compression, everything is noticeable. Could part of this trend be, thus, another result of the popularization of lossy algorithms?

 

I think that is a very good question. Makes sense to me.

 

Nope unless something is excessively quiet, ie no compression or peak level normalization, I don't struggle at all with volume on my iPod with stock iPod headphones.



I would appreciate it if I was PMed when my posts are deleted just like they do on, just about every other board I have ever been on, saying why its been deleted. I know they say they are not obliged to but how am I supposed to know what I have said wrong?

 

There should have been two versions released. 1) audiofile 2) mp3format

...if they really had cared about the music lover.

 

They'd probably like to, but they are pressed for time, and can't always do that.

 

Don't confuse how we listen to music and what the technology does.

For MP3 encoding there is only frequency and volume. A solo instrument is the same as an orchestra.

MP3 encoding does NOT do any dynamic range compression.

What it does do is say that if this frequency is loud, and this frequency is quiet, then the human ear and brain does not hear the quieter frequency, so we can delete this, and so do not need to waste bits encoding it.

So MP3 encoding does not delete a quiet instrument. A low bit-rate MP3 will not have the detail enabling you to hear a quiet (or loud) instrument as clearly, but it will still be there.

The higher the MP3 bitrate, the less deletion, and the better the sound.

Where a brick-walled recording sounds 'better' with MP3 is that it is of course louder than the other recordings (or just as loud). I don't think that the brick-walling makes it any easier to encode the MP3.

And of course brick-walled terrible sounding CD is not going to sound any better when encoded as an MP3.

As I said in a thread on the Bowers & Wilkins Music Club release about their first release by Little Axe, I think a 192bps MP3 which has not been so dynamic range compressed at the mastering stage would sound much better than the over-compressed but lossless encoded download they provided.

(It my overview of MP3 encoding is wrong I'm sure that I will be corrected!)

 

Other industries make more money by looking after different niches in the market (which is why a company will have many different versions of their product).

So it is a huge disappointment to me that the music industry has not done the same.

SACD and DVD-A provided a great way to offer a version without the excess compression. Instead we get people like Nick Davis giving us Genesis on SACD with too much compression.

 

I don't understand what you mean.

Good CDs sound great when listened to on an iPod, bad CDs sound bad. iPods aren't the problem. Bad CD mastering is the problem.

Which received stellar reviews in some audiophile magazines.

 

On the Genesis SACD's

It is one thing for an audiophile magazine to rave on about a product that makes no difference to the sound, but to praise something that sounds bad!!

Are there any such reviews on-line?

 

Yes it is getting to the point now where CD's are mostly bought by people who have at least a passing interest in the sound quality of their music.

 

Isn't it true that it is also easier to misuse a digital compressor? It's not possible to compress a recording with an analog compressor as severely is it?

 

Sure it is. My EMI compressor will turn sounds inside out if I wanted it to. Fairchild 670s will do the same thing. Aphex Dominators are one of the most destructive things I've heard. All analog devices.

Digital or analog... it really doesn't matter.

 

So, let's take an extreme example, Californication for instance. You mean it would be possible to smash that record as badly with an analog compressor? I thought it was the advent of the digital look-ahead compressor that allowed these extremes.

P.S. I'm not against digital compression per se, I just thought it was a tool that had to used more carefully than its analog counterpart.

 

Definitely.

THIS limiter will do that as will many others.

 

It's an obvious case of "say nice things so we continue to get free stuff".

 

No debate that compression can be a useful tool during recording and/or mixing, especially on vocals. Like any tool though, it can be grossly misused.

I detest what a compressor and peak limiter do to music during mastering. The crudity with which it is so often applied creates fatiguing, uninvolving and mediocre sound.

One thing that led me here in the first place was how natural Steve’s work and that heard on older CDs sounded. I wanted to know more about what my ears were telling me. And if I can continue to educate my friends, family and colleagues about this then maybe, someday, we will hear a change in the mainstream music scene.

 

A band that I play with came out with a CD a couple of months ago and we were lucky enough to get a track played on a local commercial radio station (WXRV 92.5 in Boston). While it was a cool to hear one of our songs on the radio, they really squashed it. After hearing it I had to play the CD right away to make sure my ears weren't playing tricks on me. We were very careful not to brickwall the disc, but the radio station did it for us.

The worst part for me is that my keyboard solo was somewhat buried; whatever they did to the track caused the rhythm guitars and percussion to come up in the mix, which obscured the piano. Ugh.

 

Hi LesPaul666,

I disagree. Let us not blame the tools for the job done by the engineer.

To my ears, a careful transfer into a decent computer program is not going to harm the sound in any way at all. On the contrary, I hear more sonic damage done by typical mixing consoles (and patch bays) than will ever occur by passing the signal through a well written computer program (and quality A-D conversion).

A lot of damage also occurs because most studios, while they have several sets of "monitors", don't have any good ones. (Look at all the dynamically starved, bass-less, etched-treble sounding "shoeboxes" out there sold as "studio monitors".) Further, many of the "professionally designed" rooms put the listening position right in a room mode (sometimes more than one). The acoustics are not properly treated, the walls "aim" the reflections at the listening position (ensuring additional comb filtering at the engineer's ears) and they use EQ in the attempt to treat the problems (which can never work because the problems are time related and not simply amplitude related).

If the engineer can't hear what they're doing, it doesn't matter what kind of gear they use. They end up working to make the sound right in that room, on those speakers. This is like mixing paint colors while wearing sunglasses. (Some say they can "work around" this but I've never heard this supported by the audible evidence.)

That's my take on it anyway.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Hi MichaelCPE,

Sorry, I can't agree.
It is appropriate if the sonic result is desired.
It is not appropriate if preservation of dynamics is a key goal.

I don't use it (for recording, mixing or mastering) because I like dynamics and consider lack of dynamics one of the weak points in most records I hear.

It certainly has its place - again, for effect, such as the "whoosh" of Ringo's cymbals, etc. Compression is one of many tools available to the engineer. Like other tools, its use is an option.

My favorite (sounding) records tend to not use it. George Piros mastered a lot of great sounding recordings without it.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Hi For The Love,

In my experience, the better sounding a recording is, the better it will sound on any playback system. In fact, a great sounding recording can be identified as such even via an eMPty3.

To my ears (and brain), squeezing dynamics does not make something sound more dynamic. It makes it sound less dynamic.

If you have 10 apples and take some apples away, you don't end up with more apples, no matter what kind of dish you serve them on. ;-}

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Hi Barry,

Maybe I came across the wrong way. I agree with you whole-heartedly on this subject, but it seems to me when it comes time to master the final product, (in this case it happens to be in software) is when many clients choose to make the engineer abuse the plug-in settings of say, a "look-ahead" limiter such as a Waves L1.

It's really hard to contend with, especially when you're there with the window open with the threshold and output ceiling, which it seems even the most non-technical people seem to know how this operates. They know when you pull that threshold slider down, everything is going to get louder. The last song I mastered for somebody had this set at around -20dB for a mix that was peaking at -0.5 most of the time! There was nothing left but a consistent blare of noise, and they loved it.

In no way would I personally accuse a piece of gear for inherently sounding bad on it's own. We all know that it's how it's used. Without the outer influence, there's been some final product that come out quite magical, in all genres. In my mind, at least I was able to hold off the malicious actions until the final stages, where it could be easily changed if desired, later on.

 

"... greater limiting depth is possible, resulting in higher loudness with maintained audio quality"

 

Hey Barry,

I'm with you. Where'd the idea of needing to compress a song to make it sound better in MP3 come from. I've always found it to be opposite of that. A heavily compressed song doesn't make a better sounding MP3 than a less compressed song does. it seems to highlight the flaws of MP3 compression more than a more dynamic track.