CD compression killing music

Maybe I don't know enough young people, but I have never met anyone personally who has expressed a preference for compression or loudness on CD. On the contrary, when I make compilations for (non-audiophile) friends, carefully selected from well-mastered sources, I often get remarks like "Great that you can turn up the volume without hurting your ears!". My conclusion is that most people would prefer the non-compressed mastering if they had the chance to compare.

 

We do. It doesn't work. We are less than 1% of the music buying public. Everyone else likes highly compressed music. The artists thik of it as compettition. The music big-wigs read this forum. They are aware of our wants.

 

I have a fantastic plugin by 4-front that can increase the power of the sound without any signe of compression. If you put the result of that next to the original, the original sounds like it needs life support. But, the weak one will have all the dynamics and transparent sound. Which one do you think most people would rather hear?

 

I would agree that at times that 'smashed, maximised sound' can work. However the problem is that everything is masterered that way. Some pounding dance tune being maximised I can live with, but when something like ELO's Zoom, which is full of freaking ballads is smashed you have to wonder WTF is going on!

That said, even for music like drum and bass, you don't need to maximise. Yes, rolled off high end and tonnes of deep compressed bass are the sound for the genre but you don't have to maximise. I have a few d&b CDs that are pretty dynamic and they sound great. The beats and the bass really hit you and the build-up works so much better. The problem isn't the genre necessarily, it's just that any music that sees the business end of the charts gets destroyed.

Some of it is also laziness. If somebody wants a really full heavy sound on a rock/metal/prog album they can make it sound that way by overdubbing extra parts and carefully setting up the guitars to create a good wall of sound, or they can just do guitar+bass+drums+vocals and compress the living hell out of it. The first gets the best results, but the second is too easy these days.

 

"Hip and Hop"?

 

Personally I prefer a bit of Rock and/or Roll

 

I don't know if they prefer compressed music, but they clearly don't care one way or another. And the bigwigs think, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Though we would say that it is broke.

 

I honestly feel that if someone takes the time to clearly explain the issues of hyper-compression, that many people do start to realise that the sound quality of many new recordings is compromised in an attempt for greater loudness. Sure there are certain people who interpret any criticism of an album as an attack on the band, but others realise that caring about the sound of the CDs is an expression of ones love for the music.

On the official RHCP I'm normally talking about these issues with young listeners, often 15 - 20 year olds, but if I provide some examples then they slowly realise that the CDs should sound better.

(For example I once compared 4 different mastered versions of the Red Hot Chili Peppers' song 'Higher Ground', showing that each successive version was more compressed, and that the most recent version on the Greatest Hits 2003 compilation is all but unlistenable, and sounds completely different to the original album version)

Also, there is actually a bootleg version of Californication floating around that is less clipped and compressed than the actual CD version. Even though the better mastered version leaked from Warner Bros. as poorly encoded MP3 files, and has been recompressed a second time to MP3, it actually sounds better than the CD! It is a very useful example to show people what more or less compression and clipping sounds like, on an album that they like.

Hence, I am excited about the release of the vinyl version of Stadium Arcadium because it will demonstrate an even greater contrast between well and poorly mastered versions of the same songs. I think providing actual practical examples to people is a powerful way to make the case for well mastered material.

 

For anyone who believes you need added compression I offer Steve's analogy for their logical mind....

 

I thought it was like pressing your face against a glass window until it was smushed flat.

 

It's like smushing your face into a fat hamburger on a glass plate.

 

And when digital clipping is present as well, it's like smashing a smushed face with a mallet.

 

On first read, I thought that said Mullet!

Ah, very interesting. So, when the first Pretenders album, on Sire vinyl said on the sleeve,

"This album has a longer running time than most average LP's, therefore to achieve maximum effect : PLAY THIS ALBUM LOUD.",

that was because of compression?

All these years, I guess I've been under the wrong impression. Or perhaps someone erroneously told me that in order to have a longer running time on vinyl, they don't cut the groove as deep, therefore lengthening the side but at the same time reducing the bass being those are the large groove fluctuations.

I certainly notice a difference in volume and overall fidelity on that particular album, but, one thing is, it sounds freakin' GREAT cranked way up! Raw brutal power on stuff like Precious and Up The Neck.

 

I have some (perhaps misguided) hope that the release of Stadium Arcadium on vinyl will be successful enough to warrant the release of Californication in the same format soon (and the same mastering engineer ). Wouldn't that be sweet.

Jason

 

Californication does need to be remastered...but the main difference is that this album was not recorded in pure analog as Stadium Arcadium was. I think it should be a LAW in music to record in pure analog first and foremost and then whatever other format they want in addition (if they want to). I mean, basically, the music is lost in a way. And what if a new analog format comes out 50 years from now?

 

No, it's because it's a rock and roll album and is meant to be cranked. A similar instruction was printed on the label of the A-side of John Lennon's "Instant Karma" 45: "PLAY LOUD." The Pretenders' first LP has lotsa dynamics.

The overcompression we're referring to here means you get "loud" whether you want it or not. The dymanic range is smashed out of the signal, so everything on the recording is at about the same (high) volume. And it's all done digitally these days, which sounds that much worse.

We really need to post some screen caps of wave files and provide links to sound clips when the RHCP LPs come out, comparing the CD vs the LP mastering. I think there are people on this forum who are just wading into this concept, and an explicit demonstration like that would help make the point plainly and clearly more than even our most eloquent explanations.

Jason

 

Yeah, that'd be good. Help the dum-dums out here.

 

where can one find a DX or other compressor so we can show off the differences to friends/etc...? It would really help
edit- a real-time plugin of some sort would be cool if it exists heh

 

I don't think anyone's a "dum-dum" for not understanding these things because, let's face it, these can be pretty esoteric ideas until you have something concrete to reference. It's not like we're all brought up being taught the difference between an overcompressed and an uncompressed recording. This is all acquired knowledge that hinges to some degree on sensitivity and attention to detail. I'm just suggesting ways of communicating all of this in a direct, easy-to-grasp manner.

Jason

 

It would be especially difficult to impart this to younger people who grew up hearing nothing but the ultra-compressed popular music of today. What does a good recording from, say, 1972 sound like to them? Weird? Hard to hear? Do young people even have a concept of what "natural-sounding" means anymore?

 

The L2 is a DX plug-in, and will play in real-time. It's a limiter, but it's good for demonstrating the point. I use it with Sound Forge, but it will work with other digital editors as well, of course. There are several others too, but they can all be pricey. Sound Forge also has built-in compression tools which would do the trick. Do the less expensive editors have compressors built-in as well?

Jason

 

To my surprise Donald Fagen's latest album "Morph The Cat" (CD and DVD-Audio versions) is more compressed than his "Nightfly" (CD and DVD-Audio versions).

It is clearly not 'overcompressed' but IMHO it is quite close to the dividing line between good compression and starting to feel uneasy about listening to it.

Has anybody here done this comparison?

 

Music big wigs read this forum, hear what we say but aren't aware of anything we said? If it's counter-productive it's counter-productive; the arguements have frequently been debunking the beliefs in favor of the practice, not any arguement about what percentage "we" are. The larger public has always (been assumed to have) bought the latest perception of what constitutes higher-fi and are going to (be assumed to) buy the next phase; I don't buy that the industry is suddenly catering to fulfill a genuine public demand. It's a "flavor" to the public, one that the industry itself helped set in place, just like the public "wanted" the characteristics of early Digital Sound and now "want" those remastered. It's catering to a trend, and the practice of chasing any trend is risky, wasteful or even harmful without descretion.

Of course folks complaining are a small percent, always been that way. If the audience is an ocean, we're an iceberg, and they only see the tip of the iceberg. How many of us have actually written anyone about it? Do we do it for every improperly mastered CD we come by?

I know there's truth to your points though, Grant. Sometimes I feel the same way. I was just posting previously to the effect that you can tell 'em 'till your blue in the face and they won't change. It's just that part in me that sometimes kicks in, thankfully, and says "yes, but try anyway." It's an essential aspect of human nature, and it has had unlikely, far reaching effects. If it wasn't for that, we'd be resigned, and the world far worse than it is. Perhaps it'd help here, or perhaps not. It just popped out

The more I look at things now, the more it astounds me that Living Stereo ever actually happened - and that it was from major-label RCA Victor, no less. But it did happen. And its success was surprising too.

That's very nice to hear It does appear to contradict the popular perception of those in the industry. And yours is based on actual first-peson personal contact.

 

Nirvana's "In Utero"'s CD liner notes has a drawing of a suggestion from the band on how to set your bass and treble knobs to achive that loud, brash sound.

 

Hippity-hop!