Makes senseOriginally Posted by zombywoof
Makes sense
I feel that this thread has been derailed a little bit. The OP is about mastering practices and the prevention of dynamic range compression (when used, as has been the case for the past 20 years, for the sake of loudness).
A lot of original CDs from around 1985 sounded decent but not great. Originally, the problem was with the use of lower-generation tapes in the mastering process, thus giving us an unsatisfactory source. Compression in the mastering process was not much of a problem. Then a trend arose in which the industry became obsessed with sacrificing quality for the sake of making the record louder, thereby limiting the dynamic range and sucking the fidelity out of the music. A lot of remasters around the late 1990s and continuing into today, of the very same music, are brickwalled or unsatisfactory due to heavy tinkering on the part of the mastering engineer. Some labels decided to dig up earlier generation tapes which preserve some fidelity, but the new mastering processes made popular in the loudness war nullified any benefits of the earlier generation tapes. Those new Chicago releases from Rhino sound awful; the music sounds incredibly harsh, the horns sound crunchy, it doesn't breathe or sound natural at all, the vocals don't sound right.
Compare these two:
Which one is going to be grating to your ears when the music is cranked up to a decent level? This is light music too; with heavier recordings or recordings with more instrumentation, the difference will be even more significant. One sounds natural while the other sounds like it's being played through a tin box, artificial. It's the same difference as listening to a good speaker as opposed to a bad speaker; in these instances, however, the difference embedded right on to the source that you put into your audio system for playback.
These audiophile labels have proven that finding the original mixdown tapes (which have as much of the fidelity of the original music as one could ask for) and transferring that audio in a minimalistic, careful mastering process preserves all of the quality of the audio and gives us music that is far more like what we were supposed to hear. That is high-quality audio. Vinyl or CD doesn't matter as long as the mastering practices are of excellence. There is lots of music that prog fans love that we haven't really heard in their most natural state. According to mastering engineer Barry Diament (who was in charge of some of the original Atlantic masterings), the original mixdown tape of Selling England By The Pound would blow everyone's minds with how much more fidelity, clarity and detail are in the music.
For older, analog-recorded music: find the original tapes, transfer with minimal alterations (or even do a flat transfer). Stop adjusting the audio levels for the sake of loudness.
For newer, digitally-recorded music: stop compressing your audio for the sake of loudness.
Personally, I like drum machines too; as seen on one of my favorite all-time records, Phil Collins' Face Value, we can have drum machines and still have a dynamic recording where all of the other details resonate with incredible clarity. The problem is when all of the audio is compressed uniformly to make the album sound louder.
Last edited by WeatherWiseCDC; 01-24-2015 at 06:48 PM.
I really do think the tide is turning. I like to think that soon brick wall mastering will be a thing of the past.
Well, except in Country and Contemporary Christian and really, who cares.
What happens to the millions of brickwalled CD's out there? Is there a drop box like there is for unlicensed handguns?I really do think the tide is turning. I like to think that soon brick wall mastering will be a thing of the past.
Talking about loudness though not exactly on recordings, why is that every live venue has their PA so high that you have to use earplugs if you want to survive to the experience. My last concert was Flying Colors @ Torrance, small venue though the sound was literally flying over your chest. This thing I don't get it.
Bands like The Who, Black Sabbath, Cream, and Led Zeppelin figured out a long time ago that loud means the audience can't hear your mistakes as well, and that huge sound gets peoples blood pressure skyrocketing, great crowd response, and bragging rights that your ears are still ringing three days later. Ted Nugent anyone?
I think some folks are confusing compression used in mixing with dynamic range compression used in mastering.
Totally different.
Well, it is basically the same process. But the application and intent is radically different.
I'll go out on a limb and bet that not a single band you've mentioned ever discussed volume as a "technique for hiding mistakes."
In fact, playing with that much volume can make certain errors more obvious, not less.
Caveat emptor: I don't really know anything about Ted Nugent.
Not really the same except that the same equipment could theoretically play a role (but likely wouldn't).
For example; working on a bass level in a mix and compressing that specific track has little to nothing in common with taking an entire recording and maximizing the volume in the digital realm.
It does. It has everything in common with it. It's just that one uses a high enough compression ratio to achieve limiting and probably has near instantaneous attack rates and the other would be much more gentle. Sure, different pieces of gear are better optimized for one application or the other but at the end of the day it's just compression applied differently with different settings. That's why I say compression is one of the most important and versatile applications in a studio.
So you would also view the use of a distortion pedal on an electric guitar to be the same as applying that same distortion pedal over an entire mix?
Sure, both are "distortion."
In terms of the tool used? Absolutely. I already said that different philosophies are in play in terms of the application- the intent of applying distortion to an entire mix (which is basically what adding a "tube warmth" effect to a digital mix is) would be different from applying it to a guitar. It's like saying hey, there's a thing called an oven and it applies radiant heat. It can bake a pizza or broil a steak, or warm leftovers. You might say those are all different things. I say they are all applications of the oven. Ovens can even be specialized for specific tasks but they are still ovens using radiant heat.
I still say people describing compression as it is used in mixing are quite possibly confused as to what the OP is discussing.
Enough on this. Let's move forward ...
No, I agree with that. I only said what I did as an aside
I agree with you 100% that mastering needs to be better...more respectful to the original music.
Where I disagree is that I belueve that it absolutely is a market-based decision..in large part because kuds are compressing the shit out of the music the get in ode to squeezebox much as possible in their iPods iphones and iPad touches. Compressing already compressed music is an even grosser travesty, IMO.
The better the evolution of my stereo system, the more I dislike heavily compressed music. On a bad stereo, I don't notice it much, but on a quality system, it's huge and sounds terrible. I've had more than a few people want a clone of my system. But it's always after listening to 1960's jazz records, Verve etc, that gives the biggest WOW factor. Not rock music.
Someone posted a while back about the natural saturation of magnetic tape. In my opinion that is all you really need if the players are good, the room is good, and things are miked with the intention of getting a natural sound.
On the nice recordings posted here by the OP, there is not a lot of compression going on. I agree, it's the way things should be done.
Today, every kid with a guitar in his bedroom is now a producer, recording engineer and mastering expert. Might be why there is such a genuine disinterest in audiophile quality recordings.
As I said, I don't mind analog compression in music on individual instrument tracks (i.e. not songs) depending on its application.
Here's the Audio Fidelity version of Face Value, which we know uses a drum machine at times. Dynamic range here is measured on a scale of 20. All of the songs are very dynamic (aside from "Tomorrow Never Knows"). Even the drum machine pops a little better with good mastering practices. The album sounds phenomenal on a high-end system.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/74117
Artists shouldn't be restricted from doing something creative. None of the compression featured on many modern remasters of albums, however, exists on the original source tape that the individual tracks were mixed down to -- that's dynamic range compression, which is a fairly uniform process that only serves to ruin music. Reissue labels like Rhino are prone to brickwalling during their remastering process because they think that's what people want. If they just did a flat transfer of the tapes that they have during their remastering session, the music would sound far better. Sometimes they obtain low-generation tapes or the original mixdown tape, and they waste their opportunity by making all sorts of unnecessary adjustments.foobar2000 1.2.9 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2013-11-27 13:05:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Phil Collins / Face Value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR15 -0.28 dB -21.82 dB 5:36 01-In The Air Tonight
DR16 -1.30 dB -20.01 dB 3:56 02-This Must Be Love
DR14 -1.48 dB -17.97 dB 3:55 03-Behind The Lines
DR14 -6.46 dB -25.68 dB 3:17 04-The Roof Is Leaking
DR12 -3.99 dB -18.87 dB 2:49 05-Droned
DR14 -0.10 dB -17.53 dB 5:33 06-Hand In Hand
DR14 -2.25 dB -18.08 dB 3:46 07-I Missed Again
DR11 -5.31 dB -22.01 dB 2:33 08-You Know What I Mean
DR15 -1.28 dB -19.18 dB 4:14 09-Thunder And Lightning
DR15 -0.43 dB -18.19 dB 2:35 10-I'm Not Moving
DR19 -0.74 dB -23.80 dB 4:55 11-If Leaving Me Is Easy
DR11 -1.64 dB -17.89 dB 4:49 12-Tomorrow Never Knows
Everybody is going to hear the difference between a good master and a bad one, even listening with earbuds on YouTube with the signal being processed through a laptop sound card, or listening through a car stereo. I think that's the definite focus of this thread because while recording methods are debatable, the effects of mastering practices are not. When an album is mastered well, the improvements are always detectable. The improvements are on the audio source itself.
Everyone pans the 2007 remixes of the Genesis catalog and rightfully so. The albums were not only remixed so that everything sounds all wonky and hollow, but the albums were also brickwalled. Genesis' original CD release of S/T/Shapes has the following DR ratings (look at the leftmost column):
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/66075
"That's All" had a dynamic range of 17 on a scale of 20!foobar2000 1.2.9 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2014-06-18 10:18:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Genesis / Genesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR16 -1.08 dB -20.59 dB 6:48 01 Mama
DR17 -2.42 dB -20.98 dB 4:26 02 That's All
DR14 -3.52 dB -19.63 dB 4:53 03 Home By the Sea
DR14 -2.29 dB -19.25 dB 6:23 04 Second Home By the Sea
DR14 -2.19 dB -18.57 dB 5:15 05 Illegal Alien
DR15 -1.63 dB -19.80 dB 3:58 06 Taking It All Too Hard
DR14 -2.45 dB -18.36 dB 4:47 07 Just a Job to Do
DR13 -2.12 dB -16.89 dB 4:30 08 Silver Rainbow
DR14 -1.40 dB -17.52 dB 4:58 09 It's Gonna Get Better
In 2007, Nick Davis came along and squashed the audio. He wanted the Genesis catalog to sound like modern records, but that's a backwards philosophy. Why would anyone want the albums to sound worse.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/49517
Most modern recordings are even worse, with pitiful dynamic range due to increased loudness via dynamic range compression. Coldplay's latest album, Ghost Stories, sounds like garbage. It lacks clarity, and the details fail to stand out. Here's an album that could easily sound far more dynamic. Instead, it sounds flat and is sonically uninteresting. The whole album would sound much better if the instruments could just breathe fully, if it wasn't compressed to death and tampered with.foobar2000 1.2.4 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1 log date: 2013-11-12 16:43:03 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Genesis / Genesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR11 0.00 dB -15.23 dB 6:52 01-Mama
DR12 0.00 dB -14.18 dB 4:26 02-That's All
DR11 0.00 dB -12.74 dB 5:08 03-Home By The Sea
DR9 0.00 dB -11.79 dB 6:07 04-Second Home By The Sea
DR11 0.00 dB -12.88 dB 5:15 05-Illegal Alien
DR10 0.00 dB -12.01 dB 3:58 06-Takin' It All Too Hard
DR10 0.00 dB -12.13 dB 4:47 07-Just A Job To Do
DR9 0.00 dB -11.30 dB 4:31 08-Silver Rainbow
DR10 -0.06 dB -12.48 dB 5:14 09-It's Gonna Get Better
The song sounds dreadful, and the louder one turns their volume up the worse it sounds. Everything is very crunchy. I don't know how much compression went into the mix itself, but I suspect there was a lot of squashing done in the mastering process as well. It's disappointing because I think the band has some nice music, but the music as it has been presented to us sounds quite unpleasant. It lacks fidelity when the arrangements themselves should call for it. The album was mixed by Spike Stent and mastered by Ted Jensen.
Jensen mastered both versions (2004 and 2012) of American Idiot. He had different results each time. Did somebody just have to ask him to master with more care the second time?
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/64133
The new Green Day remaster proves that proper mastering can do wonders for a lot of new records. American Idiot had an average DR of 5. The HDTracks version has an average DR of 9. While not great, it's a major improvement with significantly audible results.foobar2000 1.3.2 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2014-05-18 16:40:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Coldplay / Ghost Stories
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR5 -0.18 dB -7.70 dB 3:37 01-Always In My Head
DR5 -0.18 dB -6.73 dB 4:45 02-Magic
DR6 -0.18 dB -7.37 dB 3:48 03-Ink
DR6 -0.18 dB -7.68 dB 4:06 04-True Love
DR5 -0.26 dB -8.39 dB 4:55 05-Midnight
DR5 -0.18 dB -7.52 dB 3:54 06-Another's Arms
DR10 -0.36 dB -14.35 dB 5:22 07-Oceans
DR5 -0.18 dB -8.29 dB 4:28 08-A Sky Full Of Stars
DR7 -0.29 dB -11.24 dB 7:47 09-O
Last edited by WeatherWiseCDC; 01-25-2015 at 01:40 AM.
It's been confirmed that 3db of compression was used in mastering on the Genesis CD/SACDs.
That's not "brickwalling."
The main problem with those is the remixing itself. Nick Davis and the band pummeled those new stereo mixes with compression.
Uncommon, I know, as it's usually mastering compression we're dealing with insofar as this topic is concerned. But there you go ...
Thanks, Jeff. That is unusual. I hadn't heard about that until now. The result appears to have been very similar, however. In terms of mixing, that was a terrible procedure. It's tough to believe that Tony Banks thought it made their music sound better. I feel as though that attests to just how misinformed the industry is about what people want. To offer a loud, compressed remix in place of the original mix is a slap in the face to all Genesis fans. People are still hoping for flat transfers of the original tapes, which would finally give us the definitive versions that we all really want.
The fidelity of the mix is important too, let's not forget about that. This is especially important for new music.
I think a lot of kids are unaware of the difference the source makes. The public is unaware of mastering practices; they've also been told that the frequencies lost during MP3 compression were inaudible anyway, which is a complete lie. When they hear the difference, people immediately flock to whichever sounds better. A well-mastered PCM audio track compressed down to MP3 still sounds better than a poorly-mastered track compressed to MP3. YouTube is proof. Whenever anything is uploaded to YouTube, the site compresses the audio down to 384 kbps AAC audio (lossy). The samples I've posted still stand out as being superior to the other versions of the songs on the site. The better the input, the better the output. That philosophy applies to every link in the chain. There is no benefit sonically from compressing during mastering even for people who still use MP3. You still hear the benefits of better mastering even when the audio has been compressed to an MP3 or AAC file. Everyone benefits from better sources.
Last edited by WeatherWiseCDC; 01-25-2015 at 03:59 AM.
Big sound.
More clarity where there should be clarity (vocals, backing vocals, keys). The drums are only compressed to the extent that they were compressed on the mix itself, without any additional compression from mastering.
This song becomes more lively.
Last edited by WeatherWiseCDC; 01-25-2015 at 08:30 PM.
Last edited by WeatherWiseCDC; 01-25-2015 at 08:59 PM.
great examples... dude is spot-on
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
true, but too much compression used in the mix can not be fixed in the mastering
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
Yes, but it only benefits those who have the ears - and the experience to tell them - to hear the diff.
I proved to my wife, who said she'd not be able to tell the diff, that she could, indeed. But without someone to identify it....she would just accept the "norm" of excessive compression as the norm. Her ears would get tired after excessive exposure to excess compression...but she'd never know why.
So while I agree with toy in principle (of course!!) just looking at the response to Crimson's Live at the Orpheum is evidence enough that a recording that retains the full dynamics of the performance and, therefore, has been accused of being "too quiet' a mix says plenty, I'm sorry to say. Yes, when "The Letters " begins it's very quiet.....but when the middle section kicks in, it's such a dramatic shift in dynamics that, like the original studio record, I nearly jumped out of my chair. Had it been mastered with today's "normal" compression, it wouldn't have been nearly as dramatic....
But for too many, this is seen as being a flaw rather than an advantage...and reflects everything that's wrong with what the average listener has been trained to accept as the norm....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks