Compression and Clipping on TLOS - is it that bad?

[Wirestone]

Well, what record is a "faithful reproduction of the sounds originally recorded"?

Certainly a select few classical and jazz records are. But pop records seldom are. And Brian did not produce high-fidelity recordings. The fact that the "California Project" CD was praised on this thread -- as if that CD has any redeeming value other than a drink coaster -- suggests we are leaving certain aesthetic values by the wayside.

[Jim McShane]

Well, what record is a "faithful reproduction of the sounds originally recorded"?

Certainly a select few classical and jazz records are. But pop records seldom are. And Brian did not produce high-fidelity recordings. The fact that the "California Project" CD was praised on this thread -- as if that CD has any redeeming value other than a drink coaster -- suggests we are leaving certain aesthetic values by the wayside.

I did NOT mention the California Project CD - go back and read the post before you appoint yourself "arbiter of musical taste". I mentioned the LP. Here's the exact verbiage:

"I don't know if you like any classical music but if you listen to some of the Telarc digitally recorded LPs it'll amaze you. In fact, they pressed a vinyl LP by Papa Doo Run Run called "California Project" - it's all BBs tunes played by PDRR but recorded with the care a classical LP would get from Telarc. It's amazing! See if you can find one in good shape and buy it - you'll be glad you did!"

Please show me where I: A. Said anything about the CD, or B. Made any comments OTHER THAN ABOUT SONIC QUALITY about the LP besides identifying the artist and a general description of the content.

Look, I used that LP as an example how how good sonically a digitally recorded LP could be, just in case the poster that asked didn't have any interest in classical LPs. The vast majority of the LPs she was inquiring about were classical, so I mentioned the California Project LP since it might well have been more to her tastes than the Stravinsky Rite of Spring. I don't care if you like it or not, in fact what you think of it is irrelevant and not germane to my reply to Forget Marie after her asking the question.

As far as the wording I chose - I'll choose again:

"The information on the CD has been compressed and/or limited and/or otherwise been altered/changed from the original in-studio perfomances by Brian and the members of his band (and other musicians) in a way that many find to be sonically very unsatisfying."

Happy now?

I can't imagine you didn't know EXACTLY what I meant in my prior posts, the context in which I made the statement was certainly clear. I have no idea what you are trying to prove by playing word police.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

You guys might find this interesting reading.

http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/metallica-s-new-album-sounds-better-in-guitar-hero/1247989

Metallica's Death Magnetic might have debuted atop the Billboard charts, but to many disgruntled fans, it's something of a bottom feeder. Metalheads and audiophiles alike have expressed displeasure with the record's overall audio quality, claiming that it sounds overly distorted.

According to Mastering Engineer Ian Shepherd, they're hardly tone deaf. In response to fan outcry, he compared the audio of the retail CD and the version appearing in Activision's Guitar Hero III, finding that the latter indeed featured far superior sound quality.

"As you can see, the CD version on the bottom has been heavily compressed, limited and/or clipped, and sounds massively distorted as a result," he said, referencing a chart depicting waveforms of both versions.

The problem stems from extreme compression intended to boost the "loudness" of the music in the CD release. The music industry's use of the technique, which is commonly used to make television commercials annoyingly sound louder than television shows, has sparked an ongoing debate dubbed the "Loudness War."

In the case of Death Magnetic, the boost is both significant and troublesome. Shepherd's analysis shows that the CD release is a whopping 10 decibels louder than the Guitar Hero version, which translates to sounding about twice as loud to the human ear.

Metallica's label, Universal Music Group, has yet to respond to the matter. Or perhaps they're just not listening.

Metallica is not my cup of tea anyway, but here you are...

[Loaf]

Jim McShane, if you're still here...

For vinyl, i use my parents' old 1970s Sony HMK-55 (£300 in 1970s money, so it was expensive at the time), with the big speakers it came with. It's one of those old beasts that came with a cassette deck on the side, and looks designed to fit in with then-contemporary furniture.

I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving your opinion on this system, compared to the kind of things you deal in these days?

[Loaf]

BW fans aren't the only ones complaining about compression & mastering.

http://www.nme.com/news/metallica/39816

[Jim McShane]

Jim McShane, if you're still here...

For vinyl, i use my parents' old 1970s Sony HMK-55 (£300 in 1970s money, so it was expensive at the time), with the big speakers it came with. It's one of those old beasts that came with a cassette deck on the side, and looks designed to fit in with then-contemporary furniture.

I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving your opinion on this system, compared to the kind of things you deal in these days?

I'm sorry to say I don't really know much about it, since I focus almost exclusively on tube (valve) gear. But just a couple things to be sure of:

1. Make sure the tone arm is in good condition and the tracking weight is properly set.

2. Be sure the stylus is in perfect shape.

With those covered I suspect it'll play vinyl that'll sound quite nice!

[absinthe_boy]

I looked up the Sony HMK-55. Looks like a typical 70's "music centre"...though a Sony would be better than most brands. I've never heard that model, I was familiar with other Sony and Sharp and Sanyo music centres of the same era. I'd prefer a separate turntable but, as Jim says, if set up correctly it should give a fair flavour of the beast. As a kid I had a Sanyo music centre which actually had a pretty nice sounding vinyl section.

My dad used to own a Sony PST-15 turntable, from the time when direct drive was considered the "next big thing" in consumer TT's. It certainly wasn't bad, came with a half decent stylus as standard...but it was very susceptable to picking up vibrations from the music and thence to awful feedback. We ended up sitting it on dampers and you still couldn't crank the bass up.

Anyway...as for the HMK-55, you will quite possibly find that the actual turntable isn't at all bad...is there a way to output it's pre-amped signal to an outboard amp? I'd also strongly consider new speakers.

There are quite a few reasonably priced turntables around, check out the Pro-Ject range or the lower end Regas....or scour eBay for a good condition Systemdek. Just make sure if you use a modern amp that it has a phono input, for reasons already discussed!

If you stick with your Sony, do make sure the cart/stylus are in good shape, a worn stylus or badly tracked arm can permanently damage your records. Back in the day, Sony turntables were not considered the best...but they were cosidered OK.

[Loaf]

Thanks for the advice, guys.

I have a relatively new stylus (2 years...), but it wouldn't hurt to get a new one. I haven't much idea what to do with the tracking arm though. And i'm totally lost with pre-amps and outboard amps.

But i like the oldstyle look and it has sentimental value, and i consider the sound to be better than my bose CD player, so that's good enough for me.

[chris.metcalfe]

I'm going to jump in where others have feared to tread. Brian co-mixed/produced TLOS, right? We know that Brian's hearing is seriously impaired (and must be far more so now than in the 1970s). Er....

[absinthe_boy]

If my understanding of the way these things work is correct (and please correct me if I am mistaken)....Brian will have mixed and co-produced the master from which the CD and LP were prepared....but may well have had no further input, other than perhaps being offered CD to listen to and OK....and if he was in one of his "not interested" moods that day.....

The difference between the LP and CD prove that a clean, relatively uncompressed master of some kid exists out there...

[Andrew G. Doe]

I'm going to jump in where others have feared to tread. Brian co-mixed/produced TLOS, right?

Well, that's what the album credits say... 

[brother john]

My CD sounds fine, apart from the dodgy mixing which has Brian too near the front, and EQs the life out of everyone else's background vocals.

Apart from that (and I have read 90 pc of this thread) it sounds OK to me. Maybe I have a lucky CD.

[chris.metcalfe]

I'm going to jump in where others have feared to tread. Brian co-mixed/produced TLOS, right?

Well, that's what the album credits say... 

Which I would know, had I bought it!!  Sorry Andrew. Maybe the LP .... some time.

[absinthe_boy]

I'm going to jump in where others have feared to tread. Brian co-mixed/produced TLOS, right?

Well, that's what the album credits say... 

Which I would know, had I bought it!! 

I think AGD is saying he is not 100% convinced the credits tell the truth.

Brother John...That Lucky Old CD

[Chris Brown]

I don't think Brian's credits for co-mixing/producing TLOS are completely bogus.  I'm sure he threw out suggestions like "more horns" or "Scott's voice should be louder", and had some say as far as instrumentation went.  I doubt it was like the Pet Sounds sessions by any means, but I don't think his name was just slapped on there to keep up appearances.

From an engineering standpoint, I don't think Brian has enough understanding of digital recording to know a lot of what was done at that stage.  I know he had a good deal of engineering knowledge back in the 60's, but it's hard to say how much of that is still retained.  He probably just isn't that concerned with (what he might consider to be) little details like that anymore, and would rather just focus on the music and leave the nuts and bolts to others. 

[absinthe_boy]

I have heard that Brian took a great interest in how digital techniques and in particular pro-tools work during the production of the SMiLE album. I don't remember who said that, possibly Mark Linnet or quite possibly a member of the band...but it's something I have definately both read and and seen in interviews. Brian is said to have been very curious about the new possibilities.

However, my best guess (and it is just that) is that he won't have taken such a hands-on approach for the recording, mixing and production of TLOS. It could even be that he "oversaw" things...that Brian was there while others actually manned the boards/computers....and that he Okayed the production and mix at various stages.

AGD...What do you reckon?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I have heard that Brian took a great interest in how digital techniques and in particular pro-tools work during the production of the SMiLE album. I don't remember who said that, possibly Mark Linnet or quite possibly a member of the band...but it's something I have definately both read and and seen in interviews. Brian is said to have been very curious about the new possibilities.

And yet I've heard that Brian stayed away during the mixing portion...

Don't know what the truth actually is, mind you...

[absinthe_boy]

With SMiLE there is plenty of video evidence that Brian was there for the recording, and at certian stages he seems to have taken total control of the sessions much like he did in the 60's. As for mixing, it's less clear because nobody was filmed mixing SMiLE. One suspects Mark took control. But having seen the wizardry of Darian's Apple Mac, Brian may well have taken an interest in how it was all mixed my Mark.
 
For TLOS, I don't think anyone involved has publically stated what happened. Brian's name appears on the LP sleeve as co-producer so he must have done something...It doesn't *sound* quite like a Brian Wilson production to me...

[Roger Ryan]

In at least one interview conducted during the making of TLOS, the interviewer reported that Brian was anxious to get back to the studio to mix the album. Certainly it is debatable what his actual input is, but it seems that Brian is usually present during all aspects of the production of an album. Back in '98 he even flew back to Chicago to oversee the 5.1 remix of IMAGINATION (he described how he would walk around the mixing room to get a sense of how the instrumentation and vocals were spread across the five channels).

[c-man]

I'm no audiophile nor a vinyl junkie... but the fact is, the first time I listened to my TLOS CD my reaction was "WTF ??  This sounds terrible !" - actually had to stop listening.  Listened to it on different systems from my PC to a friends high-end equipment... and it sucked on all of them.  Since buying my first CD in 1986, I have never heard such a poor sound from a commercial release. Don't care what Bob Ludwig says, don't care what anyone else thinks - there is something very, very wrong with the sonics on this release. The only way I can listen to it is, why I have no idea, on my iPod. It's tempting to contact EMI/Capitol and complain that this product is faulty - because it is. A CD you can't listen to.

Interestingly, when I listened to the vinyl LP (which I got first, and was all I had for the first week, until the CD came out), I thought IT sounded terrible...very bassy and wooden.  I was gravely disappointed.  Now, this was on my 20-year old Kenwood system, and a fairly new stylus.  When I got the CD, I listened on my really nice 1996 Polk Audios in an acoustically-treated room, and also in my car, and I think it sounds great...provided it's cranked up loud enough, like about 42 dB!  Conversely, the POB/Bambu CDs sound rather dull on the Polk Audios, absolutely great on the Kenwoods, and sorta inbetween in my car (haven't listend to the vinyl on that one yet).  My point is, I think stuff recorded 20 years or more ago sounds better on sound systems from 20 years ago, reagardless if it's on vinyl or CD, whereas anything from the '90s on that was recorded digitally, whether it's on vinyl or CD, sounds better on systems built for reproducing digital sound...and cranked to at least 40 dB.  Which is gonna make us all deaf way before our times, but that's "progress", right?

[Sheriff John Stone]

With SMiLE there is plenty of video evidence that Brian was there for the recording, and at certian stages he seems to have taken total control of the sessions much like he did in the 60's.

Are you sure about that? I ask because I'm not sure about that. I thought I read somewhere that Darian and company cut the tracks in a couple of days (four?), and that Brian was not present, only coming in AFTER, which is when those shots were filmed.

[Andrew G. Doe]

All the studio footage of Brian at recording sessions, from Imagination on, is staged.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Here's a question, more of an opinion thing than anything...which of those in your opinion looked the most staged?

[absinthe_boy]

All the studio footage of Brian at recording sessions, from Imagination on, is staged.

I've seen stuff from the Imagination era that I am sure is staged....but remain to be convinced about SMiLE sessions. If that's faked then Brian deserves an Oscar.....and while he has done a modicum of acting work, he always looks/sounds like he is acting and not natural. He looks damned natural in the studio when they're recording SMiLE.

That's not to say that there isn't potential critical and commercial value in persuading Brian was more involved in a record's production than he actually was...

[Andrew G. Doe]

Here's a question, more of an opinion thing than anything...which of those in your opinion looked the most staged?

The Imagination sessions, with the Christmas album a close second.