For Mark, Alan, and Mr. Desper - Something to comment on.

[petsite]

http://www.austin360.com/arts/content/music/stories/xl/2006/09/28cover.html

[Susan]

I'm none of those three guys, but thanks for that, Petsites.  VERY interesting - it explains a lot to me about why - with my already damaged hearing - i can't listen to so much new music...and why that Los Lonely Boys CD, regardless of the songs themselves [which are pretty fine] is as listenable as my older and beloved CDs.

I would be interested in reading what people who know about this stuff think of the article, and about compressing for loudness. 

[Charles LePage @ ComicList]

I would say this:

1) This article seems to confirm a great deal of what Andreas has been saying about the various releases of Pet Sounds and other BB songs/albums on CD.

2) This may explain why headphones make my ears hurt and give me mild nausea.  Maybe it isn't the headphones-- maybe it's the compressed music I'm hearing.

[brother john]

I absolutely agree with the article... Its bothered me for  while that some good music is ruined by slapdash mastering - the terrible job done on Rufus Wainwright's Want One being a case in point: its just mush; hard mush, like a big brown overly-seasoned stew with all the meat and and potatoes and carrots blended together so you can't distinguish one from the other, if that makes any sense...

Its sloppy and lazy and epitomises the more, more, more quality of so much of comecial culture today. I guess there will come a point when the wave shapes just look like solid rectangles with no texture to them atall, and the music does become unlistenable to, so quieter, cleaner records will become the fashion again. But who knows, perhaps record companies will release both 'inside' and 'outdoors' versions of albums...

[Jim McShane]

I absolutely agree with the article... Its bothered me for  while that some good music is ruined by slapdash mastering - the terrible job done on Rufus Wainwright's Want One being a case in point: its just mush; hard mush, like a big brown overly-seasoned stew with all the meat and and potatoes and carrots blended together so you can't distinguish one from the other, if that makes any sense...

Its sloppy and lazy and epitomises the more, more, more quality of so much of comecial culture today. I guess there will come a point when the wave shapes just look like solid rectangles with no texture to them atall, and the music does become unlistenable to, so quieter, cleaner records will become the fashion again. But who knows, perhaps record companies will release both 'inside' and 'outdoors' versions of albums...

Just a few thoughts...

It has nothing to do with sloppiness or laziness. And it's not slapdash. You seem to have missed the point entirely. It is a deliberate process, carried out at the direction of the people in charge.

Combine the overcompressed source material with some really awful sounding electronics in the playback systems and you have a recipe for disaster. And digital clipping is truly an ugly phenomenon. It creates large amounts of high frequency energy, and really stresses a tweeter as well as your ears. I've heard of reports of ferrofluid (the cooling fluid used in tweeters) literally boiling away from the intense high frequency energy that is often caused by clipping.

Despite the impression left by the article, pop/rock vinyl LPs have been heavily compressed for a long time. Some of the compression was in the mix, some of it was the result of cutting procedures that were designed to maximize quantity over quality. Listen to an old Mobile Fidelity half-speed mastered LP versus the original and the difference leaps out at you. But even those LPs had some compression, since the dynamic range of even a really good vinyl LP is far less than what even a Redbook CD offers (less than 1/2).

When CDs first came on the scene one of the things people didn't like about them was that if they turned them up enough to hear soft passages over the ambient noise level, then the loud pasages were too loud. And if they turned down the volume to prevent to loud passages from being too loud they couldn't hear the quiet parts. So some compression isn't necessarily a bad thing if it is carefully and judiciously applied. But a dynamic range of 5 db is ridiculous!

FYI, there have been recordings specifically mastered and mixed for binaural (headphone) listening, so your idea of differing mixes has already surfaced.

[brother john]

I absolutely agree with the article... Its bothered me for  while that some good music is ruined by slapdash mastering - the terrible job done on Rufus Wainwright's Want One being a case in point: its just mush; hard mush, like a big brown overly-seasoned stew with all the meat and and potatoes and carrots blended together so you can't distinguish one from the other, if that makes any sense...

Its sloppy and lazy and epitomises the more, more, more quality of so much of commercial culture today. I guess there will come a point when the wave shapes just look like solid rectangles with no texture to them at all, and the music does become unlistenable to, so quieter, cleaner records will become the fashion again. But who knows, perhaps record companies will release both 'inside' and 'outdoors' versions of albums...

Just a few thoughts...

It has nothing to do with sloppiness or laziness. And it's not slapdash. You seem to have missed the point entirely. It is a deliberate process, carried out at the direction of the people in charge.

Combine the overcompressed source material with some really awful sounding electronics in the playback systems and you have a recipe for disaster. And digital clipping is truly an ugly phenomenon. It creates large amounts of high frequency energy, and really stresses a tweeter as well as your ears. I've heard of reports of ferrofluid (the cooling fluid used in tweeters) literally boiling away from the intense high frequency energy that is often caused by clipping.

Despite the impression left by the article, pop/rock vinyl LPs have been heavily compressed for a long time. Some of the compression was in the mix, some of it was the result of cutting procedures that were designed to maximize quantity over quality. Listen to an old Mobile Fidelity half-speed mastered LP versus the original and the difference leaps out at you. But even those LPs had some compression, since the dynamic range of even a really good vinyl LP is far less than what even a Redbook CD offers (less than 1/2).

When CDs first came on the scene one of the things people didn't like about them was that if they turned them up enough to hear soft passages over the ambient noise level, then the loud pasages were too loud. And if they turned down the volume to prevent to loud passages from being too loud they couldn't hear the quiet parts. So some compression isn't necessarily a bad thing if it is carefully and judiciously applied. But a dynamic range of 5 db is ridiculous!

FYI, there have been recordings specifically mastered and mixed for binaural (headphone) listening, so your idea of differing mixes has already surfaced.

Hi Jim,

Thanks for putting me straight there buddy. I'm glad someone knows what I was trying to say, cos I obviously didn't have a clue.

As it happens I've been running my own project studio for over three years, so I think I may be credited with some understanding of the issues.

Overly-hot mastering is sloppy and lazy (IMVHO) because it seeks largely to compensate for bad songwriting, arranging, mixing or production (or even marketing...). Its a fashion, or course, and once one artist/producer/mastering engineer etc. etc. makes his tracks louder than everyone else's then it starts to become a game of catch-up, or a competition even. You can take an average song, slap on a brick-wall limiter and instantly change the dynamic of the track from something 'gentle' or 'approachable' to something aggressive and attention-seeking. Its easy. And lazy. And sloppy.  Its a quick fix.

Maybe the 'suits' do insist on louder and louder mastering, but give a little credit to the engineers, producers and artists involved, as they may well be happy to have their tracks boosted in this way. Also, you should remember that there are many more artists these days who will be responsible for the whole process, from writing and performing to mixing and mastering. You don't need much cash these days to buy all the equipment you need to produce a recording, and right now there seem to be almost as many labels as artists, which means that it isn't always the big corporate hand on the shoulder that forces mixes into hotter territory.

The fact that compression has been used on records for decades probably come as no surprise to anyone who reads and/or contributes to this board, but thanks for pointing it out anyway.

As for mixes being produced specifically for headphone listening, wow! Another huge surprise. Darn! Where did that one come from!?

If you want to respond to my posts specifically Jim, try not to use too much aggressive compression in your reply. Its squashing my soul, dude...


PS. Intersting story about the ferrofluid in the tweeters!

PPS. Anything that makes Christina Aguilera impossible to listen to is fine with me!

[mike slattery]

I find it very difficult to listen to BWPS in one go - I've always found it very 'noisy'

Mike

[Jim McShane]

Thanks for putting me straight there buddy. I'm glad someone knows what I was trying to say, cos I obviously didn't have a clue.

As it happens I've been running my own project studio for over three years, so I think I may be credited with some understanding of the issues.

Okay, you have some understanding of the issues. But your prior post seemed to have missed the point.

Overly-hot mastering is sloppy and lazy (IMVHO) because it seeks largely to compensate for bad songwriting, arranging, mixing or production (or even marketing...).

I partially agree. Sometimes it is used that way - but other times it's done for some/many of the reasons you listed below.

Its a fashion, or course, and once one artist/producer/mastering engineer etc. etc. makes his tracks louder than everyone else's then it starts to become a game of catch-up, or a competition even. You can take an average song, slap on a brick-wall limiter and instantly change the dynamic of the track from something 'gentle' or 'approachable' to something aggressive and attention-seeking. Its easy. And lazy. And sloppy.  Its a quick fix.

In that circumstance I agree. But when a well crafted song is subjected to that sort of treatment because the orders are to do it that way it's a different circumstance.

Maybe the 'suits' do insist on louder and louder mastering, but give a little credit to the engineers, producers and artists involved, as they may well be happy to have their tracks boosted in this way.

And others may well be quite unhappy about it.

Also, you should remember that there are many more artists these days who will be responsible for the whole process, from writing and performing to mixing and mastering. You don't need much cash these days to buy all the equipment you need to produce a recording, and right now there seem to be almost as many labels as artists, which means that it isn't always the big corporate hand on the shoulder that forces mixes into hotter territory.

Again, that's true, I agree. My point is that it wasn't/isn't a universal truth.

The fact that compression has been used on records for decades probably come as no surprise to anyone who reads and/or contributes to this board, but thanks for pointing it out anyway.

I don't know whether it will be surprising or not, I'm sure some know and some don't. For those who don't and read this - now they do!

As for mixes being produced specifically for headphone listening, wow! Another huge surprise. Darn! Where did that one come from!?

What is your point in making that statement? I am quite sure that many here did not know about those commercial recordings.  How was I supposed to know you did? I'm sorry you found it upsetting.

I almost mentioned dbx-encoded LPs in my post too - it's a good thing I didn't, it might have squashed your soul...

PS. Intersting story about the ferrofluid in the tweeters!

My uncle was the head of R&D at Acoustic Research in the late 60s/early 70s era - back before they were bought and sold so many times. I used to hear all about what was going on. AR did some great research into what was on recordings back in the day, and how it was going to affect their designs. He showed me a number of tweeters AR replaced under warranty due to either clipping by underpowered transistor amps (I'm sure you already know that when a solid state amp "bumps the supply rail" it squares off the waveform, and a square wave is extremely rich in harmonics - which meant the tweeters were exposed to excessive energy and would fail) or from consistent high power applications from overly compressed rock recordings. The voice coil in the tweeter would get so hot it would boil the fluid away.

Also, since we're discussing credentials, you might find it interesting that both Spence Chrislu and Dave Dieckmann (most recently both of the DVD-A authoring group at Warners, Spence has done a bunch of other work too so you may know him) both listen to vintage tube amps with my upgrade modifications done to them. Spence's father actually had me do the updates and mod work to his two amps; apparently Spence liked the result so much he bought my upgrade kits to redo his own amp, and Dave did too a short time later.

At the CES in Las Vegas last January one of my amps was exhibited in the high-end section. Here's a comment from one of the high-end exhibitors who heard the amp:

"This week, I’ve listened to a number of amps that are staggering in price. Beyond staggering, an extra zero after staggering… and I honestly believe that the (McShane)/Citation blows them all away. Couple that with the fact that you can run a passive (preamp) with the (McShane)/Citation, you get a $10k handicap to start!.. If you are in the market for an amp, talk to Jim McShane."

My McShane/Citation II amps sell for $2500-$3000 or so, BTW. The new amp I designed (due in January) will be about $600 in kit form, and the base model passive preamp will start at about $249 (as a kit also).

So I actually do have some idea what I'm talking about too.

I'm sorry you found my first post lacking.

[brother john]

when a well crafted song is subjected to that sort of treatment because the orders are to do it that way it's a different circumstance.

I wonder if that's what happened to Rufus Wainwright?

As for mixes being produced specifically for headphone listening, wow! Another huge surprise. Darn! Where did that one come from!?

What is your point in making that statement? I am quite sure that many here did not know about those commercial recordings.  How was I supposed to know you did? I'm sorry you found it upsetting.

Yeah, sorry about that, my bad... Your post came across as patronising in parts.


Thanks for the info on the tweeters. Fascinating stuff! I have no idea what 'bumping the supply rail' is. What about dbx-encoded LPs?

Congratulations on your amps. I wish I knew as much about that sort of stuff as you do.

[Jim McShane]

Yeah, sorry about that, my bad... Your post came across as patronising in parts.

No harm, no foul!

Thanks for the info on the tweeters. Fascinating stuff! I have no idea what 'bumping the supply rail' is.

When a solid state amp tries to pass a signal with an amplitude that exceeds the power supply rail voltage the amp simply "chops off" the peak.  For instance, if you fed a sine wave with a 30 volt peak into an amplifier's output stage with a 25 volt supply, the voltage in the signal above 30 volts simply can't be reproduced - the voltage of the signal cannot exceed the supply voltage. So that sine wave gets it's top section sliced off, and now the sine wave is more like a square wave.

Square waves have very large harmonic content (harmonic = multiple of the fundamental tone). So when you make a 1K sine wave into a square wave by chopping off the top, you generate a lot of high fequency energy - which fries tweeters. Surprisingly, it's not high powered amps that do the number on the tweeters (since they hardly ever clip), it's the smaller low power amps that get driven into clipping by some of the "hot" recordings. You'd think it would be the other way, but a 500 watt amp is much less dangerous for a tweeter than a 25 watt amp! The 500 watter almost never clips, the 25 watter does a lot!!

Things are different with transformer coupled amps (tube amps, essentially), but that's a long explanation. They clip, but they clip softly, without the sharp squaring of the solid state amps. So when tube amps clip the high frequency content is far less dangerous to tweeters.

What about dbx-encoded LPs?

It's sort of like Dolby NR or HDCD - 1970s style. 

dbx was a proprietary dynamic range enhancing system that was used on records. During the recording/mastering process rather than compress the signal to "fit" in the groove by peak limiting, gain riding, etc,, the signal was dbx encoded. The signal on the LP was not really listenable unless you played the record back through a dbx decoder. When played back through the decoder the dynamic range was alleged to be equal to what was on the master tape (it probably wasn't, but it was much better than a non-encoded LP!). A number of smaller labels (mostly classical) produced dbx encoded LPs.

There was an outboard dbx unit line too, the 3bx was the top of the line. It was simply a dynamic range expander, it didn't require a coded source. The 3 stood for 3 band - by separating the frequency range into 3 bands there was less of the nasty artifacts the unit could induce, such as noise pumping, etc.

BTW, this was all done in the analog domain, no A-D coversion - but lots of VCAs (voltage controlled amplifiers). Expensive stuff at the time too, a 3bx was about $600 if my memory is correct. And "dbx" was the name of the company, they were from somewhere in Massachusetts.

Congratulations on your amps. I wish I knew as much about that sort of stuff as you do.

Thank you VERY much for the kind words. I have so much to learn, but with 30+ years of experience I can't help but pick up a little here and there. 

[Andreas]

The so-called "loudness race" is going on for at least a decade, and warnings and complaints are almost as old.

I am only aware of very few CDs from the last 5 years that escaped the loudness race. Mastering engineers Steve Hoffman, Kevan Budd and, in most cases, Vic Anesini and Joseph Palmaccio leave the dynamcis intact when mastering for CD.

Keane - Hope And Fears is a newer album that I liked, and I bought it for my girlfriend who ws enthusiastic about the singles she knew from radio. The sound of the CD is horrible, a constant wave of noise and distortion. Surely enough, when I looked at the waveform, it was almost a rectangular shape, no sign of dynamics left.

The problem with it is that all releases are in competition. People are used to listen to CDs with a certain volume setting, and if the CD sounds lower than the average, it will appear weaker or worse, unfairly. In many cases, the artists or producers are to blame, becuase they instruct the mastering engineer to make the CD louder than anything else.

Dynamic range is an important and desirable aspect of a recording, but compression is usually what it turns into a hit record. Surfin' USA? She Loves You? Stop In The Name Of Love? Those (single) mixes were subject to some heavy-handed analog compression, and they were compressed again when the records were cut. That's part of the sound, part of the charm. But when these songs (in their single mixes) are released on CD, there is no need for compressing them again (this time, digitally), because CD players and modern stereo systems do not have a problem with some dynamic range. The characteristic compression is already built into the mix on the tape.

The following article is very interesting. Barry Diament was a mastering engineer for Atlantic and Warners in the 1980s and he is responsible for some of the best sounding CDs for the first generation: The original Led Zeppelin CDs, Yes - Close To The Edge, Crosby Stills & Nash, the Ultimate Rascals and the Ultimate Otis Redding.

http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com/loudness.htm

[brother john]

Good link! Thanks!

It does make you wonder where it will all end...

[Susan]

Like everything else, the pendulum will swing back the other direction eventually.  But like everything else, it might be Hell waiting for that to happen...!!!