Compression and Clipping on TLOS - is it that bad?

[The Heartical Don]

I just was on the Blueboard and to my surprise a couple of experienced diehards had written that they abhorred the way TLOS is mastered. Is it really such a loud but compressed record? And is there any difference between US and European CDs, and the vinyl?

[lance]

I have the European three CD Sounds of Summer compilation(released a few years back) and it's the most compressed Beach Boys album in my collection(if that means super loud.)




In fact, about half of my collection was "made in the EU" and they are all fairly loud. I don't think that different masters are used in Europe and US, but I don't know.

Doesn't really bother me.

Haven't received TLOS yet.


No idea what "clipping" is.

[lance]

duplicate post

[Chris Brown]

I haven't heard the CD as of yet, but to answer your question lance, clipping is where the "volume" goes above 0db, producing what could best be described as a static-like noise.  To avoid this, engineers use compression/limiting to ensure that the sound is as loud as it can be without crossing that threshold.  Depending on how this is done, the overall sound can be quite flat/listless.

[Roger Ryan]

For what it's worth, the CD does not appear to have a clipping problem to me. There's compression used, but the overall mix sounds airy and has a fairly decent dynamic range for something released in the 21st century (in other words, it doesn't sound like a Fall Out Boy CD).

[the captain]

With all due respect to those who are sensitive to the issue, but to me it's almost a moot point because the fact is, albums are mastered that way now: they're hot. They're pushed as high as possible, and compressed to hell to allow for it. That's not the choice for many of us, and for some it's downright deplorable, but it's reality. TLOS isn't that bad in that regard in my opinion, relative to its time and place.

[Andreas]

With all due respect to those who are sensitive to the issue, but to me it's almost a moot point because the fact is, albums are mastered that way now: they're hot. They're pushed as high as possible, and compressed to hell to allow for it. That's not the choice for many of us, and for some it's downright deplorable, but it's reality. TLOS isn't that bad in that regard in my opinion, relative to its time and place.

 
It is not a moot point because it reduces the dynamic range and introduces digital distortion. Albums are not automatically or necessarily mastered like that. The question is, who made the decision to apply the digital compression and limiting? Brian? Scott? Bob Ludwig? And what was their reasoning for doing so?

[Loaf]

Excuse my ignorance, but is this the reason that albums today sound "different" to albums from the 60s/70s?

For me, the best "sound" on record was late 60s-early70s, albums like Neil Young's On the Beach, or Van Morrison's Veedon Fleece. The ambiance, the sound of miked acoustic guitars, the bass notes, the drum fills.

To me, it seems there is a lot more "room" in these old recordings. As much as I love TLOS and Smile 2004, there isn't much "room" or depth, and every instrument seems pushed to the fore.

[The Heartical Don]

Interesting discussion so far, thanks guys. Albums with superior sound IMHO:

Van Morrison: 'Inarticulate Speech Of The Heart', 'Sense Of Wonder', 'Common One';
Bruce Springsteen: 'Born In The U.S.A.', 'Tunnel Of Love';
Van Dyke Parks: 'Discover America', 'Moonlighting'

Just a couple of examples. No distortion, fine detail, sounding great at any sound level; and most feature quite complex arrangements and pretty large ensembles.

And: all were originally released on LP. Perhaps that's another reason.

[Andreas]

Excuse my ignorance, but is this the reason that albums today sound "different" to albums from the 60s/70s?

A mutlitude of reasons. Mastering (and the use or non-use of compression and limiting) is the very last step that influences the sound of a release. Most of the sonic characteristics are already determined at the recording and mixing stage, and it is my opinion that albums that were recorded and mixed in analog have a more realistic and pleasant sound. Digital workstations allow more manipulations, edits, overdubs, and effects but it is tempting to overuse digital processing at the mixing stage.

Donald Fagen's Nightfly is a perfect example of an early all-digital album. It has a distinct sound to it, certainly very different to, say, Aja, but still very dynamic and smooth. Another example is Brothers In Arms. Very clean and detailed, a bit flat and technical sounding, but no signs of overused compression, so these do not have any of that harsh, distorted sound that charcterizes victims of the loudness war.

A counter-example is Memory Almost Full, which was terribly overcompressed at the mixing stage and sounds accordingly. It couldn't be saved in mastering because the harm was already done.

[the captain]

It is not a moot point because it reduces the dynamic range and introduces digital distortion. Albums are not automatically or necessarily mastered like that. The question is, who made the decision to apply the digital compression and limiting? Brian? Scott? Bob Ludwig? And what was their reasoning for doing so?

The entire machinery of the industry. There are small pockets of people who complain. The effect is nil.

[lance]

The effect of complaining is NOT nil. I could give you hundreds of examples.

 If it's ever going to change, sometime in the distant future, it's going to be because of consumer complaints and nothing else. Complaining eventually gets things done.
It just takes a while--history is full of examples.


It's a new issue to me! I would like to compare a "hot" mastered thing wtih the same thing mastered differently. Obviously vinyl sounds better for old stuff, but I have only heard of this stuff recently. I have noticed albums getting louder and louder, though.

Maybe, due to audiophiles complaints, in the future companies( or bands or whatever) might issue special "audiophile" versions of albums(usually with a couple of bonus tracks so that normal people will buy it.)

And I don't mean reissued remasters fifteen years later. I mean issued  at the same time, but a sticker on it that says: Audiophile master. Put a sticker on the other that says "HOT master".

Jeez, if they did that the audiophile masters might even sell more than the hot masters.

[Jonas]

Just do what my band did with our first ep...

Mastered by: You! With your Master Volume knob!

[Andreas]

It is not a moot point because it reduces the dynamic range and introduces digital distortion. Albums are not automatically or necessarily mastered like that. The question is, who made the decision to apply the digital compression and limiting? Brian? Scott? Bob Ludwig? And what was their reasoning for doing so?

The entire machinery of the industry.

I am not sure what you are saying. There is no automated "machinery" for mixing and mastering. People are handling the tools, applying the effects and get paid for that. At some stage, someone either ordered digital compression (this would usually be the producer, i.e. Brian or Scott), or applied it by his own decision (this would be the mixing engineer or the mastering engineer). And this person had a motivation for doing so. I am asking, what motivation was this? Because TLOS needs to compete with the newest Kid Rock album and the Mamma Mia soundtrack in terms of loudness?

[chris.metcalfe]

Obviously vinyl sounds better for old stuff,

I'm not sure that's necessarily true though - while I agree with most of what's been said against present day mastering techniques (and agree that a lot of the problems happen in the mixing stage too).

Going back to the 'old stuff' - there have been some fantastic CD masters of old analogue tapes in recent years, which in many ways get the soup out of the old LP compression techniques - well, the original Pet Sounds box is an obvious example. The Beatles' Love CD certainly allowed one to hear things previously masked by mush, which gives some hope (I'm guarded) for the forthcoming Beatles remaster series...

Of course, the other thing about LPs is that you need a reasonable turntable /amp to play them on, otherwise the equipment ends up like your aunt's and uncle's - in the corner underneath the embroidered cloth supporting the aspidistra, never used...

[lance]

In my experience sixties and seventies stuff sounds better on vinyl. From about 80 onwards I dont hear big differences, though. Some exceptions, I am sure, and as far as remixed stuff goes, you are probably right.

[Andreas]

In my experience sixties and seventies stuff sounds better on vinyl. From about 80 onwards I dont hear big differences, though. Some exceptions, I am sure, and as far as remixed stuff goes, you are probably right.

You really can't make such a general statement.

[absinthe_boy]

Going back to the 'old stuff' - there have been some fantastic CD masters of old analogue tapes in recent years, which in many ways get the soup out of the old LP compression techniques - well, the original Pet Sounds box is an obvious example. The Beatles' Love CD certainly allowed one to hear things previously masked by mush, which gives some hope (I'm guarded) for the forthcoming Beatles remaster series...

Ah but have you heard Love on vinyl? You can still hear all those things you couldn't hear before...because they have been made more prominent by Messrs Martin's new mix.

And the vinyl issue of the remastered Pet Sounds is almost identical to the DVD-Audio (and yes, I can play the full resolutoin DVD-A).

Mind you, I have a decent turntable too...

There are big issues with the mastering of many current "pop" albums...and some remastered older material.

I am a big Genesis fan, and there are currently a 2nd lot of remasters doing the rounds for that band's older material. And the remasters sound AWFUL...compressed to hell, cymbals crashing around everywhere because the record company thinks that is what "pop" should sound like.

It's a fad, and it will move on....hopefully...

It doesn't help that many CDs today are being mastered on the assumption that we will listen to them in our cars, or hear them in public where they are competing with other sound for our attention. Which is a shame, because such recordings sound horrible, even painful, when listened to in isolation.

[chris.metcalfe]

In my experience sixties and seventies stuff sounds better on vinyl. From about 80 onwards I dont hear big differences, though. Some exceptions, I am sure, and as far as remixed stuff goes, you are probably right.

You really can't make such a general statement.

Actually, lance was making a completely subjective statement! (and hence, entirely valuable).
However, the problem with this sort of discussion is that people tend to take sides (CD vs vinyl, digital vs analogue etc). Reality is that there's good and bad in both. Some 60s LPs sound horrid, some recent CD remasters sound sumptuous.
Someone mentioned Fagen's Nightfly. Ry Cooder's Bop Till You Drop is another - possibly first ever - early digital rock record which actually sounds very good (though Ry apparently hated it).
I put on BWPS a couple of days ago to confirm all this and, HDCD, valve microphones etc apart, it does slightly batter the eardrums.

[chris.metcalfe]

Ah but have you heard Love on vinyl?

I thought you were talking about Arthur Lee for a minute. Of course I had Forever Changes on vinyl years ago!

On the CD though you get a fab song called 'Wonder People' which should have been on the album really. By Love. Not the Beatles. 

[Andreas]

In my experience sixties and seventies stuff sounds better on vinyl. From about 80 onwards I dont hear big differences, though. Some exceptions, I am sure, and as far as remixed stuff goes, you are probably right.

You really can't make such a general statement.

Actually, lance was making a completely subjective statement! (and hence, entirely valuable).

Correct, and it was not my intention to criticize his statement. What I meant was:

You can't make a general statememt that sixties and seventies stuff sounds better on vinyl. And I don't claim that lance stated it that way.

[lance]

Well, I was just saying in my experience, which is pretty limited. And I did say there were probably exceptions. I'm not lookin' to fight and I'm not one of these vinyl snobs(in fact, I own NO vinyl). Just a fact. I had, for example a number of CD's that a friend had on vinyl--the sixties stuff nearly always sounded somehow better--in a way I can't even describe. However, the eighties stuff I had did not sound any better or worse--it just sounded the same to me only with a few vinyl crackles and pops.

It's a general statement based on my limited experience,  but it's not like I'm saying "All Italians are gay" or anything. I mean, it's not that big a deal and I am not married to any ideas......And I'm by no means making any kind of definitive statement about anything...Though I must say my initial statement, qualified as it is with "obviously" does make it seem that way.

[chris.metcalfe]

it's not like I'm saying "All Italians are gay"

Now that would get you into trouble.

[lance]

Exactly, but now that I wrote it (joking around), I now feel like I've offended gay people and Italians. First I offend the audiophiles...I should stop digging. Apologies to all.(Sincere.)

[gsmile]

I am a big Genesis fan, and there are currently a 2nd lot of remasters doing the rounds for that band's older material. And the remasters sound AWFUL...compressed to hell, cymbals crashing around everywhere because the record company thinks that is what "pop" should sound like.

The Genesis remasters were my first tip off that things were getting ugly with compression.  I love the entire Genesis catalogue dearly, and the first time I heard those remasters I almost cried.  Not only compressed, but completely remixed with every fader at full volume!  Loud parts...LOUD!  Quiet parts...LOUD!  Absolutely zero dynamics.  Not to mention a lot of the later albums have very noticable digital reverb in place of the unique analogue vocal reverb that Phil Collins & Hugh Padgham created for Phil's voice, and subsequently because almost a vocal trademark.  Genesis used to sound very warm and inviting, but in their new remastered form they are cold and sterile, and approved by the band members!  Tony Banks has commented on the backlash for the remasters saying:

"“I went on Amazon and I read five-star reviews, and then I saw one guy giving one of the new versions zero stars, complaining it was too highly compressed! I honestly think there was something wrong with his system.”

Oh dear, talk about misinformation.  The one good thing about this is that awareness is spreading.  I've seen the complaints of over compression on albums trickle down through my various forums over the past years, so at least people are starting to vocalise that they've had enough!

I don't have TLOS yet(waiting for my Best Buy copy), but from the clips I've heard online, it doesn't sound too bad.  Hot, for sure, but it sounds like some dynamics are still present.  And yeah, it's bright, but as Luther said earlier, that's reality.  My two measuring sticks are the new Genesis disc and Macca's "Memory Almost Full".  If it doesn't sound like those abominations, then call me more or less satisfied.