CD compression killing music

Good article!

 

Two of my poster children of heavy compression and limiting ruining the music, is Amy Grant's "Lead Me On" and "Saved By Love" as they appear on the Greatest Hits 1986-2004 CD. The CD and the LP of the original album are both very dynamic and the album is a great representation of digital recording, mixing and mastering in the late 1980s. The Greatest Hits CD mastering is horrible.

 

I think any built-in compression plug-in on a decent DAW will let you approximate the ultra-smashed sound of typical CDs nowadays. I mean, it's not like you have to worry about preserving any sound quality or anything.

 

Being an "indie musician" myself, my own personal experience was that after having mastered our CD, every "professional" we played it to said it was not loud enough, that it sounded like it hadn't been mastered at all, we got screwed by the mastering engineer, that every other bands' CDs sounded better etc... Clearly, to them, mastering means nothing more than making it louder. Some of them were saying "When I play your CD, I have to turn the volume up!" to which we answered "So? Just turn it up then."
The sad part is that our manager got so insecure about it we ended up mastering it again, louder, basically as loud as the other CDs, which is as loud as it can get. That made us very frustrated. Fortunately, the vinyl will be cut with "our" mastering.

 

I'm just curious, what sort of equipment were you able to audition this CD on? A tiny boombox, or a reasonable hifi system?

 

A little OT but I recently transferred to DVD several 1973 BBC In Concert shows that were captured off-satellite digital-to-digital fashion. The soundtracks were not even normalized.

Any guess on why is that?

On topic: My favorite singer-songwriter latest album is so compressed that I cannot listen to more than 3 or 4 tracks without taking a rest. Perpetrator was Brian "Big Bass" Gardner at Bernie Grudman Mastering.

>Isn't it odd that some folks think they can increase dynamic range by compressing dynamic range?

I think there is a busine$$ reason for the ultra-compressing remastering. It is an additional step that is made to look as a tricky affair that magically generates more sales. My guess is that it is no more that applying a few digital routines automatically. I presume that engineers also compress and congest in excess during recording, as it is much easier that balancing a mix and having good taste.

I suppose that if the bands and managers are stupid or deaf enough, anything is possible and they deserve it.

It is so sad that the biggest advantage of CDs for listeners, a wide dynamic range, has brought the opposite result.

I'm so glad that 99% of the music I enjoy and listen to is in Lp or in mostly-uncompressed CD.

 

I have been using George Yong's W1 limiter, which is a virtual clone of the Waves L1. The W1 is very gentle on the sound and ears. It's virtually unnoticable at many decibels. I have also been using the C3 Multi-Band Compressor, amond several others I can't remember.

 

One of my disapointments recently was the Marvin Gaye at the Copa CD released by Hipo-Select.

I can't fathom how they could go to all that trouble - finding the tapes, mixing them (for the first time apparently), making a nice 'of the period' cover design. Getting some nice liner notes written. Only to butcher it during the mastering.

 

Hip-O is horrible with the compression. Almost every one of their releases, except for most of the Ultimate collections. suffer from it. The worst I have is the Captain & Tennille Best of from them.

 

I use the L2 as well, and with great care. Do you find that it boosts the highs ever so slightly, but in a pleasing way, not harshly?

Jason

 

Perhaps there is an inverse relationship here between the increase in cd loudness and the decline in cd sales. Modern loud cds lacking dynamic range tend to be an uninteresting and uncomfortable listen, even on inexpensive playback equipment. Because of this, consumers might unconsciously be deciding with their wallets not to buy. Of course there are many other factors involved in declining cd sales (derivative new music, lack of exposure to interesting new music, downloads, etc.), but lousy sounding cds may very well play a significant role as well.

 

Any compression plug in (VST or DirectX) is capable of creating that smashed sound. The L2 previously mentioned is definitely capable of it. I avoid that plug in at all costs. This is the nasty combination.... An Aural Exciter+Gobs of a Compression/limiter+Normalize back to 0db=smashed lifeless music.

Frank R

 

I've felt that way for a long time. Personally, I don't buy many new cds as I find I just don't listen to them. They're either lifeless or blatantly annoying.

I think the average consumer, who used to buy a lot of cds, looks at their shelf of CD's they've purchased over the last couple of years, realizes that they never actually listen to them, and have focused their attention on other things; figuring that they've outgrown listening to music.

I do know that I could count on one hand, perhaps even one finger, the new release CD's I've bought over the past 5 years that I actually "listen" to. However, my records are played daily. Also, older cds are not as objectionable to my ears but are fatiguing during long listening sessions.

 

You just can't get these maximizing lemmings to comprehend that the practice is counter-productive. Explain the facts and demonstate the results for 1000 days and on the 1001st they'll go right back to believing what they wanted to believe before. If for no other reason then a perception that "everyone else" is doing it.

So many people are believing those are characteristics of "better" sound that some would probably tell you the EQed, NRed and smashed samples sound better Especially as their playback systems are turned waaay down for that latest top40 song...

 

You don't need to use all that other stuff. Used as a simple limiter, it should work quite nicely.

 

May I make a suggestion: instead of us foxes holed up here complaining amongst ourselves, tell them. Write and/or call to every company every time you hear a smashed CD or download and complain. Tell them you are their buyer and you do not want them to degrade your product in such a manner. Point out that selling inferior product must be costing them sales: ask them how their CD sales are faring this year. Request a return for a quality product, because this is obviously not (you won't get it, but make the point). When they tell you it is industry practice, clearly repeat you are their buyer and you do not want them to degrade your product in such a manner. Every one of us, every time. Maybe one person among them will get some half-notion that might help in some way down the road.

Yeah I know. But anything less and we're just shootin' breeze. Not that I don't enjoy chatting with everyone. Just saying. If we want to be counted...

 

I've heard Kelly Clarkson's 'Walk away' a few times. It sounds like it wasn't compressed, necessarily....just sounds like someone tried to push a DAT to +4 on the drum machine beats. (And we all know what happens when you try to go over 0--splat, splat, splat!)

 

You make an excellent point...as a starting point.

The problem is...who is "them"? The labels? Producers? Artists?

What would really do my heart some good would be to see a nice, clear, concise, spell-it-out-so-anyone-can-understand-it "open letter" to the industry as a whole...but not in an audiophile magazine or stereo "review" publication. Rather, on a really "public" stage like Billboard magazine or Radio & Records. Any chance that they would publish it? How many members do we have? We must have some clout - and some connections too! Write it in a way that will grab their attention...lay it out in a logical, "for Dummies" type of style...but not nasty.

Like it or not, I understand the attraction of all this futzing in a download & mp3 world. But this is 2006 - why can't there be both? Nice CDs AND loud digital files?

And of course the other place to hit 'em is in their own backyard - artist forums & online reviews. I wonder how a major artist would react to negative reviews (or at least negative comments about the sound) on their own website forum and on Amazon?

Terminology like: "ear-bleeding", "tinny", "shrill", "bright", "fatiguing", "too loud", "harsh", "hard to listen to"...in the right places...could prove to be very interesting.

It's about our musical heritage & history. So much of it is gone forever...and what's left is being mis-treated & abused. It's not right to "colorize" these masters for 21st century audiences...but lovingly "restore" them to their full glory (to use a film analogy).

Complaining to the labels is pointless...changing attitudes, well...

Just my 2 cents....
Dexter

 

I try to spread the truth on various other forums, including some where audio engineers visit. I annoy a lot of people, but I think I have converted many as well. Go to a Beach Boys forums and ask what the preferred CD for the mono mix of Pet Sounds is. You might be surprised how well-regarded and well-known the DCC is now.

 

That's great of you Andreas.

I'm sorry for ranting at anyone. I was just "spouting off" I guess. Heck I even bemoaned the futility of trying to get through to them - the suits instructing the engineers to make it LOUD, and encouraging the whole industry culture to that mindset - in a post above. But when things get too "down" that spark thankfully goes off and kicks my rear end to do something. Maybe some word can be put in some "right places"? Still won't change the overall picture, but it may help. All I know to do though is write the label of a smashed CD I just heard (who just might throw it away unread for all I know) and the producer of the record (who may never get the letter or also might throw it away unread for all I know) to tell them this paying customer expects better quality professional audio and do not want their services rendered in this way...

 

I was writing about something totally unrelated to this discussion on another forum & while pulling up a page on the following site for that forum, found this description (scroll 1/2 way down) for a homemade CD, 5 Animals At The Zoo Eating Grass:

Hmm......

 

I think you'll find that a lot of people LOVE that smashed, maximised sound. It's "modern" sounding, it kinda suits some types of "music" such as "hip and hop" and "drums and bass". In a club, the constant assault of unrelenting deep bass and consistent, flattened out highs really suit the atmosphere.
It's just what you're familiar with. People that only listen to drum and bass music don't want life-like ambience and dynamic range, they want the aural assault that only digital maximisation and EQ can give. These people also spend thousands of pounds on their sound systems, but instead of going for an improved soundstage or accurate frequency response, they go for f**kin ridiculous woofers and more **kin ridiculous woofers.
You could try explaining why dynamic range, accurate frequency response, realistic soundstage blah blah blah is better, but not to them it ain't. Whaddya gonna do?

 

Yeah, I sure wish it had been that way 8-9 years ago when I saw it in the store (new) for about $32. I asked in the Beach Boys newsgroups if the sound quality was good enough to make it worth spending twice the price of the regular CD and no one really had much to say about it.

 

I agree. I remember discussions from around 1999 or 2000 on the Cabinessence forum, and the consensus was that the Pet Sounds remaster (mono&stereo) has made the DCC Gold CD superfluous.

 

Hip Hop & Dance music...OK. I can almost buy into that. (I'm not a fan of it, so I'm not really qualified.) But trying to apply the same style to 30 - 40 year old recordings...even 20 year old recordings is insane. If someone wants their new release CD to sound that way from the get go, then that's their choice and they will have to live with it. I picked up the latest Sara Evans CD several months ago & rarely listen to it. I like many of her songs...but this one is really painful to listen to. Obviously, it was recorded, mixed & mastered with that goal in mind...that's the way the music was intially presented to the public...and the way it will be remembered. (Personally, I don't think that a country CD...even a country-pop CD should sound like dance music...but what do I know?)

I think you have to pick your battles...and the really serious crime is what has been done & is being done to our musical heritage. These are the folks that we need to convert.

I'm curious...are we seeing this kind of thing in the classical & jazz genres? (Trying to imagine a violin sounding as loud as a trumpet... )

Dexter