CD compression killing music

As ShowsOn says, it is peak normalization that is where the peaks reach a certain defined maximum level.

Now, there is also something called RMS normalization, where you normalize the average volume of a wavefile. This is most often used when trying to get all the songs sounding of equal level. Depending on how the threshold is set, and how dynamic the audio content is, a limiter (which is a form of peak compression) may or may not kick in to action. Set the threshold low enough and the limiter will certainly kick in. One can minimize the effects of limiting (also known as a look ahead compressor in digital) with carefully setting the attack and release, depending on the material.

A few limited peaks here and there probably won't be noticable unless one is intimately familiar with the material and has a good playback system. The problems come when the limiter is set to the point of acting on the main musical content, or if the peaks are allowed to exceed fuul scale digital zero.

 

I have yet to find one that sounds the same--I've tried quite a few compressors, but none give me that same "smashed" sound, no matter which extreme settings I've tried. I can make the track ultra-loud, though.

I really haven't noticed a difference between Waves L1 and L2, as I use them very lightly. As for the others, I have Waves C1 and C4 compressors, but haven't actually tried them.

I haven't really noticed a boost; I sometimes got the feeling it dulled the sound slightly, but I've never heard them both in a comparison, side by side, to see if there are any ill effects. In fact, the way I end up using it, it turns out to be more like a peak limiter of sorts. IOW, I can boost the track a bit to make it sound as loud as some more recently recorded tracks, and not have to worry about tripping over the 0dB mark.

 

You know one of the ironies about a compressed CD? In squeezing everything to the fore, everything gets lost.
Today I picked up a CD of Michel Pagliaro, a Montrealer who had a few good records in the seventies, and was almost sure it'd sound good because my experience so far with Canadian discs has been pretty good. Wrong-o, Seany boy. I cringed at the first note. Squisho city, baby. Pure violence for the ears.
One time at my father's house I played a Buddy Holly disc that is quite compressed, and he barked to turn down the sound. I then played a BTO Joseph Palmacio remastered CD at the same volume and you know what? He didn't mind at all. And this is a guy who is in no way a fan of the electric guitar, and is way less offended by Buddy Holly than BTO screaming Roll On Down The Highway. I knew right then that this seventy-six year old man who thinks audiophiles are a bunch of nuts is actually an audiophile himself. I bet any sensitive person with their hearing intact is an audiophile, and would find what 'we' feel to be an outlandish offense (maxo-compressed CDs) to be just as awful if given the chance to hear the difference.
Compressed music is bad for the head. I'm convinced of that.

 

There is value in these comparisons but I believe there would be much greater value in being able to compare them after they have all be carefully and precisely level matched.

The louder version of almost anything will appeal at first. Only with precise level matching however, can one really tell the sonic price that is being paid for each increase in level.

Barry
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

 

Barry, unfortunately I don't think there is a better mastered recording with which to compare the Flaming Lips albums. They are all super-extra-compressed/limited.

For me this has meant a very short time of infatuation with the "Yoshimi Battles..." album before disregarding the DVD-Audio on most of the more recent occasions on which I've considered playing it again. To me, this is a pity. I am totally sure that I would be a more ardent fan of the group if they didn't make the 'flaming' part of their name a part of their recordings.

 

Hi Metoo,

Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I meant was if we are comparing several different versions of the same song (as is the case in Felix's post), the true effects of mastering for different levels will be much more easily demonstrated if all of the various versions, at their different levels, were then level matched. Any sonic comparisons would then be done on the level matched versions.

Without the added level to "grab" one's ears, it becomes much easier to see if the louder ones really do in fact have "more punch" (I contend they have less punch) and more detail (to my ears, they have less). And with level matched examples, all the true effects from the compression come to the fore.

All except for one anyway... and that is the effect of turning down the volume control in your playback system. Volume controls are often among the most colored components in a signal path and turning the volume down in effect, puts more of the volume control in the signal path. Conversely, a record with less recorded level will make you turn up your volume control to achieve the same perceived loudness. This results in "less" of the volume control in the signal path and I find this quite audible. I don't believe it a coincidence that all the records I consider to be great sounding have in common lower than "average" recorded levels on disc. (Anyone who has bypassed their volume control, with one of the few records where this can be reasonably safe, knows how much damage the volume control does to the signal.)

Sorry for all the words. I hope I was more clear this time.

Barry
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

 

David Crosby said all this in a recent interview and some people in this forum crucified him over it ???
I agree with him and most of you. Some of todays singers sound like cartoon characters, Brittiny Spears comes to mind. (I spelled her name wrong, I don't care) Christina Aguilera
has a good voice.
Too me good music is like good food, it's nice if it looks good, but how it taste is what really counts.

 

If one has a digital workstation, one can easily level-match two files using RMS normalization, and editing the two together at some point.

 

Its easy to see why a lot of people think that all new music sounds the same. Its all the same volume, its all clipped and its all way over produced.

 

Yeah... hence my pleasure when I put on a nicely remastered Jazz album from the 1960s - I get to hear the sound of real musical instruments for a change.

 

Hi Barry,

I understood your point the first time around and totally agree with you

It was me who, it seems, didn't get his point across. What I meant to say was that in the case of the Flaming Lips albums there is no 'better mastered' version to compare the ultra compressed/clipped versions around. Thus, even though your comparison pointers are valid with many other albums that have several existing mastering versions, it is something - unfortunately -impossible to do with the music of this group.

 

I guess you could run the CD through a compressor to make it even worse, then feel contented that it isn't as bad as it could be.

 

I put at least one of my needle drops through a multiband compressor because I felt that it didn't rock in it's original state. Now the thing ROCKS!

 

Get thee behind me

 

Nick Gilder's "City Lights". You know it? Compress those guitars a bit and the thing smokes!

 

I've been thinking...surely it would not be difficult for CD player manufacturers to put a compression button in their players for those people who want all their CDs to be the same volume and have that "in-your-face" sound? Then those of us who like dynamics can enjoy modern CDs again as future masterings won't have to involve horrible digital compression and clipped waveforms.

 

You should be working at Philips or Sony man. This is the best idea I've heard in years.

 

From "Declaring an end to the loudness wars" (at www.barrydiamentaudio.com/loudness.htm ):

"Why not have a 'compress' button on the player, either in the car or at home and leave the record itself whole for those occasions when we want all of the music?"

Seems the idea is spreading.

Barry
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

 

I think the idea is already in use. My Denon 3910 disc player has a "compression on/off" option buried in the setup menus somewhere. I believe it's stated purpose is to make sure dialog is always audible when watching movies...but the principal is the same.

best,
Jon

 

Yeah that's it, most AV recievers have a "Night Mode" to perform the same function, and I assume it could be used for playing back CDs as well, though I've never tried.

 

I've been thinking that for decades. It would be more logical to have this control on the amp or receiver so that people can compress whatever the heck they like. Manufacturers can even have the default setting on "stun," as long as the control can be completely bypassed for people who don't want compression at all.

But even if dial-in compression becomes a standard option on home audio systems, they probably won't stop making compressed CDs anyway.

 

You can't re-widen the dynamics back to what they originally were. You may get lucky and come close, but no way can you corrretc the damage.

 

Hi Grant,

I'm with you. Once the peaks are gone, the original dynamics are gone. One can expand the difference between the noise floor and the clipped peaks but in my view, that isn't the same as taking the dynamics back to what they originally were. And this isn't even mentioning the sonic price the processing itself will exact.

The question was once asked (with regard to digital but it applies here as well):
"Once you've made hamburger out of it, can it ever be steak again?"
I believe that one day it will be possible... once we're able to cut the pieces small enough (much tinier than we currently can). But today? I'd have to say "of course not".

That's my take on it anyway.

Barry
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

 

Not to be a contrarian, but I don't totally agree with this. I do agree that it is pretty much impossible to rewiden the dynamic range of most overly compressed cd's, but this is IMO mainly because the compression is not linear. Granted, many don't like DBX or Dolby A noise reduction, but many have no clue when these have been used in production. They use compression and expansion as reciprocal functions. One may hear a slight pumping or gating sound with these processes, but the dynamic peaks should be restored to pretty close to what they were originally. Were they not, who would ever use these types noise reduction? In fact, I'm pretty sure if one looked at an uncompressed waveform, did a linear compression and reciprocal expansion (companding) and remade the wave form, most would not notice much a difference as far as the appearance of the envelope.

I will also mention that the peaks are not really clipped off with compression. They are just reduced in amplitude. Peak limiting is an extreme type of compression and I think this is what most people are thinking of when them mention clipping of peaks. I would agree that the effects of limiting are much more challenging and in most cases impossible to restore. OTOH, in many cases linear compression should be somewhat reversible.

 

I've tried this once, on the Anthrax forum, about their CD Greater of Two Evils. It's one of the most offensively compressed and maximised CDs I've ever heard, as I've posted on this forum before.

Anyway, Anthrax dictator Scott Ian posted about the remastered tracks on last year's "No Hit Wonders" and said, "Louder, better/tighter low end. They really pump."

I responded that they don't need to be louder, that the original dynamic should be preserved, and that they will be "loud and clipped" like Greater of 2 Evils.

Scott's response?

I'll have to post a waveform of Greater of 2 Evils. Scott's response shows me that he didn't know what the hell I was talking about. Not at all. LOUDER = BETTER, THAT'S THE WAY IT IS, GET WITH THE TIMES, MAN!