When is the excessive digital compression applied?

I would say Nevermind is very loud, but in the right way, still plenty of Dynamic range, its loud in the perceived way, not in the compression way.

 

Condemnatory (or laudatory) opinions can be unwarranted if they are based on erroneous premises. For example , someone confusing the two meanings of 'compression' in digital audio, could come up with an unwarranted opinion about either. (Not saying you have done this, but I've certainly seen it happen)

 

The suits and focus groups at record companies, and radio stations, listen to a 30 second snippet of song to decide if it will get a 'push' or not. In this kind of situation, the louder one will tend to win. At minimum someone should at least make it fairer by using some sort of playback level matching during such triage sessions -- but this is a level of intelligence far beyond what the industry supports.

 

Hi ajuk,

Ah, but did you buy it because it is loud? Or because you like the music, which you might happen to like listening to loud?

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

 

Let's face it, Nevermind is compressed, in the Andy Wallace style, analog SSL, since he mixed it. It's squashed, but not in a un-listenable manner.

I like to listen to it loud, because it sounds good that way.

 

I read a letter to the editors of Stereophile. In the letter, the artist/musician said they sent their 2-track to be mastered at a big-name L.A. mastering house. It came back squashed. The artist complained. They squashed it again!

What i'm wondering is if: 1) did that artist specify no compression, and 2), who, and why was the decision made to squash the recording?

I have been led to believe that it is the artist or the management that orders the compression. Though it is light on details, it seems that the mastering engineer made an arbitrary decision to crush the dynamics.

Could the mastering engineers be adding to the problem, compressing out of the fear of losing business? It seems that the practice is so routine that it is just automatically done.

 

Grant, can it be true?..... Are you finally coming round to my position - that is, ultimately the mastering engineer is to blame for an overly compressed finished product?.....

 

I had been told by a few recording engineers and producers that it is usually the artist's fault. I think Jamie was one of them who told me. I believe the other one was Bob Ollsson.

 

In my experiences it's usually the artists that gets things out of control. The labels don't care as long as it's not too quiet and is somewhat competitive.

But... to speak for Mal's thought that it's the mastering engineer's fault I have to say without any instructions most (not all) of them will automatically make it loud. Even if you tell them you're not playing in the loudness war they will still crank the level up a bit until you tell them to turn it down.

 

Isn't it best to give the mastering engineer explicit instructions on how the client wants the album mastered anyway? That's the first thing I would think of if I sent someone some mixes.

 

I think I mentioned this particular fact earlier on(the artist)...

This is the case 90% of the time, in my particular circle.

 

Strange that a musician that would not like dynamic range. No wonder today's music is so horr-uh, not the same.

 

Well, most musicians are not audiophiles!

 

..and that's being a bit polite about it.

 

Just bought a very decent CD & DVD combination album: Eric Clapton / Sessions For Robert J. (CD + DVD)

While the CD is quite good as CDs go, there is a significant difference in the audio of the DVD video. The CD is obviously overly compressed, especially on the "big band" sessions with several musicians competing for audio authority = a good example of an unintended "loudness war" right in the studio.

The DVD audio tracks are a vast improvement (IMOP) over the CD tracks (24 bit v. 16 bit too). BUT that "competition" between the musicians is still there. Later in the album the musicians get winnowed down to four, then two, the Eric does several solo songs (all Robert Johnson tunes, of course). Each set is also with different engineers and in different studios and settings. There is a duet that takes place in one of the original rooms where Robert Johnson originally recorded ... and it sounds fantastic, mostly because the engineer uses a minimalist approach to compression and distortion ... of course Eric is, well almost god.

Point is that even DVD audio tracks can be abused by the engineer and the musicians are equally to blame in this case ... A very fine album IMOP, especially after the fourth track is resolved ...

(Incidentally this is one of Billy Preston's last works in the studio. The time frame is around the "Concert for George" period ... IMOP, Billy was the one of the best entertainers from the '70's on. RIP, Billy.)

 

Well surely thats a moot point if its not that compressed anyway, but I never really thought about it.

 

Hi ajuk,

On the contrary, it is precisely the point: Many record execs believe there is a better chance you'll buy a record if it is loud.

That's why I ask the question: Have you ever purchased a record because it was loud?
I don't know anyone that has.

I am confident that the majority (if not the totality) of the folks that purchased "Nevermind" did so because they liked the music (or they were record folks who wanted to know what music others were liking enough to purchase).

No one has ever shown me an example of a record where folks said "Man, that is so loud, I just have to own it." Yet this is the twisted "logic" that brought --and continues to bring-- us the loudness wars.

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

 

But in the RMS way NM is quite quiet by todays standards, I would say its been compressed to the extent where they have used all 16 bits making best use of signal to noise without ruining the sound quality.
Its hard to describe its loudness, its like even when its quiet it sounds like something thats loud only its far away!

 

" .. Many record execs believe there is a better chance you'll buy a record if it is loud. ..."

These are the same guys who never even listen to the music before release and clam up when the musician asks why their CD sounds so bad and isn't selling. You know the type = his nephew runs the studio mixer board 'cause he needs a summer job.

 

Record execs are less likely to be audiophiles than musicians are. I am a musician, and many musicians I know are audiophiles and don't like brickwalled CDs. I see the record execs as the majority in causing the loudness wars. Mastering engineers are just doing what they're told. Young bands, and musicians are more likely to take the advice of these record execs and accept the compression on their albums. Do they even have a choice??

Frank R.

 

Again, the record companies need to get some music lovers in there!

 

" ... Young bands, and musicians are more likely to take the advice of these record execs and accept the compression on their albums. Do they even have a choice?? ..."

Of course they do:
1) bands/musicians can retain the ownership of their master "tapes",
2) bands/musicians can ask for and almost always receive permission to record at a studio of their choice (example: http://web.mac.com/zonerecording/Site/Zone_Recording.html )
3) bands/musicians can ask for prior release editing = if you don't like it, you can do it over and fix it.
4) bands/musicians can always ask for rights and permissions to make the results better ... even Sony allows this if you have the right producer ... it never hurts to ask ... it always hurts to bitch about it after the fact.

Any and all of this can even be written into your recording / promotion contract(s) ... if you have a good agent. (Bob Dylan owns all of his tapes, but does not own rights to prior release edits, or He would have fixed the problems with "Modern Times" before release.)

" ... Again, the record companies need to get some music lovers in there! ..."

Yeah! Warner Brothers is still one of the best, but it was the greatest when Frank Zappa was there to ride herd on the shiny suits ...

 

The debate on the loudness wars has now gone on so long that finger-pointing has forgotten where this all started: RADIO compression.
I can remember HAVING the idea myself that since radio was gonna compress a record in order to broadcast it with their averaged loudness for all records, we might as well do it ourselves and have more control.
THIS thought, had by a small but sigificant proportion of 'the supply chain' is where it all started.

So what I'm saying blame can go to the software manufacturers for making great mastering plug-ins ;-)

 

Not sure I believe there are (m)any “great” mastering plugins ;-)

A lot of the “top” mixing engineers these days are getting their mixes really loud prior to mastering because they know that the results after it’s mastered will be more predictable.

Most albums that people love (pre-loudness wars) were recorded and mixed with plenty of compression. People generally like the sound of a nice analog compressor on most instruments & voices if used properly (I’m talking about studio staples like 1176’s, LA2’s, Fairchilds etc…..)

The problem today is that compression is ridiculously over-used at every point, especially at the mastering stage. Most mastering engineers will use a digital look-ahead brickwall limiter such as Waves L1, L2 & L3 as the final stage in the mastering chain. When used properly these tools can tame the occasional stray peak and bring the overall level up, but when applied judiciously to an already heavily compressed piece of music, every transient will be clipped which results in very fatiguing sound.

 

I'm with you but when these things started to appear (same goes for soft synths) we were like 'Holy God. this is amazing. Throw all the hardware out and get a bigger Mac'.
The critics start carping eventually but by then, you've already released seventeen albums of maximum loudness. An ting ;-)

In other words, when it comes to the dividing line between 'retro-analogue' and 'digital progress', you'll always find me frothing on the latter side, I'm ashamed to say.