TLOS Sound Quality

[absinthe_boy]

I'll try to dig out Milner's book later and find the exact quote but I got the impression that the engineers and record companies felt that since pop/rock is mostly listened to on MP3 players and in cars that fidelity isn't important. People generally do not turn down the lights, close the curtains and LISTEN to a record on a stereo system any more. At least that's not the way pop music is listened to....according to the record companies.

Sadly, a look at mainstream electrical retailers bears this out. It is hard to find a halfway decent stereo system in a major chain store these days....whereas MP3 players (and of course iPods) abound.

They reckon that classical buffs, on the other hand, do care and do tend to listen on a decent system without interfering sounds of traffic, kids, machinery or whatever.

Personally I am with AGD. The music deserves to be mastered well regardless of the target audience and genre of the material. Even heavy metal has dynamics.

As for heavy rock (as opposed to metal)....what would Queen's track 'Innuendo' be without dynamics?

[The Heartical Don]

I'll try to dig out Milner's book later and find the exact quote but I got the impression that the engineers and record companies felt that since pop/rock is mostly listened to on MP3 players and in cars that fidelity isn't important. People generally do not turn down the lights, close the curtains and LISTEN to a record on a stereo system any more. At least that's not the way pop music is listened to....according to the record companies.

Sadly, a look at mainstream electrical retailers bears this out. It is hard to find a halfway decent stereo system in a major chain store these days....whereas MP3 players (and of course iPods) abound.

They reckon that classical buffs, on the other hand, do care and do tend to listen on a decent system without interfering sounds of traffic, kids, machinery or whatever.

Personally I am with AGD. The music deserves to be mastered well regardless of the target audience and genre of the material. Even heavy metal has dynamics.

As for heavy rock (as opposed to metal)....what would Queen's track 'Innuendo' be without dynamics?

Agreed on all points.

[Myk Luhv]

From what I recall [hopefully correctly] of Milner's book (got it from the library; returned it from whence it came), the engineers laid the blame for the fact that listeners of popular music don't care about dynamics on the radio. Pop listeners want their music to sound like it's being played on that, and radio itself is horribly compressed in the first place already! In other words: these albums or singles get mastered excessively loudly because people have taken the "radio sound" of excessive loudness -- and the idea that 'louder = more gripping and better sounding' without qualification -- to be entirely natural. It's just what you do and ostensibly most people are not familiar with any other way of recording/mixing/mastering things. This is, unsurprisingly, aided and abetted by record labels and other sundry players of the music industry. Engineers have made the claim that, if the consumer wants to hear something louder, recordings can be mastered to preserve dynamics and the consumer can turn their own volume up if they want it louder. Labels have, according to Miler, sh*t all over this suggestion because apparently consumers are too goshdarn stupid to manage the volume of a sound recording themselves. People who listen to classical music, ceteris paribus, do care about this sort of thing and are much more likely to notice excessively loudness and severe lacks of dynamic range for the reasons Wirestone stated.

[The Heartical Don]

From what I recall [hopefully correctly] of Milner's book (got it from the library; returned it from whence it came), the engineers laid the blame for the fact that listeners of popular music don't care about dynamics on the radio. Pop listeners want their music to sound like it's being played on that, and radio itself is horribly compressed in the first place already! In other words: these albums or singles get mastered excessively loudly because people have taken the "radio sound" of excessive loudness -- and the idea that 'louder = more gripping and better sounding' without qualification -- to be entirely natural. It's just what you do and ostensibly most people are not familiar with any other way of recording/mixing/mastering things. This is, unsurprisingly, aided and abetted by record labels and other sundry players of the music industry. Engineers have made the claim that, if the consumer wants to hear something louder, recordings can be mastered to preserve dynamics and the consumer can turn their own volume up if they want it louder. Labels have, according to Miler, merda all over this suggestion because apparently consumers are too goshdarn stupid to manage the volume of a sound recording themselves. People who listen to classical music, ceteris paribus, do care about this sort of thing and are much more likely to notice excessively loudness and severe lacks of dynamic range for the reasons Wirestone stated.

Could be an explanation for my extreme sensitivity towards failed mastering. I listen to classical a lot. Dynamics are essential. Distortion is Satan himself. Even mediocre transfers from '60s recordings sound so much better than TLOS (e.g. Bernstein and the NYPhilharmonic with Beethoven).

Heck, the Naxos label have a fantastic recording of Bach's Well-tempered Clavier by Edwin Fischer, mono, 1933, and that is better than TLOS.

[Mike's Beard]

The whole thing reeks of musical snobbery to me. It's generalising that only the cultural elite listen to classical music, while the unwashed masses wish to have braindead pop blared to them at huge volumes. Where does a record such as Pet Sounds or Brian Wilson Reimagines Gershwin fit into that philosophy?

[The Heartical Don]

The whole thing reeks of musical snobbery to me. It's generalising that only the cultural elite listen to classical music, while the unwashed masses wish to have braindead pop blared to them at huge volumes. Where does a record such as Pet Sounds or Brian Wilson Reimagines Gershwin fit into that philosophy?

Pet Sounds in true mono sounds fantastic. My favourites: the 1971 U.S. edition, and my CDR made from the MFSL Gold edition. Fantastic, because well-balanced, dynamic, colourful, and in your face at the same time. BWRG I do not yet have.

[absinthe_boy]

Classically trained violinist here....though lapsed in terms of actual playing. As for my musical tastes, they range from baroque string quartets through classical, trad jazz, some modern jazz, good pop music, progressive rock, and good heavy rock and metal....plus some avant garde. For me, its not the genre but the emotional effect the music has on me. Good pop might just be toe-tapping fun...but that's an emotional response. Music which swoops and soars gets a different emotional engagement.

Brickwalled, autotuned music is certainly music....but it has zeoro emotional involvement for me as a listener. There's nothing to tap my feet or to drum my fingers to because the synths and voices are just as intense as the bass drum (if there even is one) and the bass. There's no soul in the vocals when they are over processed. There's just nothing to engage with.

Whereas a fine performance of a classical piece or a hot jazz session from 1935 recorded onto shellac can engage me. The tragedy of modern recording is that CDs are often mastered with LESS dynamic range than a 1930's shellac disc.

Interesting aside. Last night we had some friends over and watched the movie 'Moulin Rouge' in full 5.1 surround sound. The soundtrack has some fantastic dynamics and it really adds to the emotional feeling you get from the images and the storyline. This morning we were watching some kids show on Disney, and it included a fair amount of vocal music....the vocals were autotuned and the production of the music close to brickwalled. It interfered with the show rather than complementing the visuals. And its sad that today's kids might be growing up with that sound and looking back on it in their adult years as the sound of their childhood.

[Runaways]

man i gotta admit i have no idea what the "sound quality" of my childhood is, and 99% probably dont' either.

[filledeplage]

I'll try to dig out Milner's book later and find the exact quote but I got the impression that the engineers and record companies felt that since pop/rock is mostly listened to on MP3 players and in cars that fidelity isn't important. People generally do not turn down the lights, close the curtains and LISTEN to a record on a stereo system any more. At least that's not the way pop music is listened to....according to the record companies.

Sadly, a look at mainstream electrical retailers bears this out. It is hard to find a halfway decent stereo system in a major chain store these days....whereas MP3 players (and of course iPods) abound.

They reckon that classical buffs, on the other hand, do care and do tend to listen on a decent system without interfering sounds of traffic, kids, machinery or whatever.

Personally I am with AGD. The music deserves to be mastered well regardless of the target audience and genre of the material. Even heavy metal has dynamics.

As for heavy rock (as opposed to metal)....what would Queen's track 'Innuendo' be without dynamics?

You have an amazing "formation" in music.  I am badly "outgunned" even entering this discussion in terms of my lack of formal music education as you so luckily possess.  Mine is only about 24 credits, mostly piano to learn to play for my Kindergarten, and not my major, (fake book) method.  I could play for the kids (read - "have fun and get paid!")  [Anyone who starts with "quotes" goes to detention. That use comes from my very cautious legal education.]

At any rate, the whole CD (TLOS) thing is interesting.  When I first bought it, I gave it a listen through several times to get the "gist" of the theme of the music and could not put my finger on the "harshness" thing until I read this very interesting thread.  I blamed the car stereo of an older car and my complete ignorance of how to use the controls for fading, etc. 

When Brian came to town, I knew the music well enough to sing along and hold my breath till he got to Southern California, complete with all the "visuals" that were incorporated into the show. 

My kids have taught me a lot about how to convert the CD's into mp3 format and I (proudly) loaded a lot of what I have onto a Zune which is Microsoft's mp3 and an iphone ipod.   Today while on the treadmill, I just started out with TLOS, listening for the first time on the Zune, with Zune headphones, and was blown away by how much better it sounded.  [AGD was correct in saying that it was much better in that format.] Frankly, I need the Stones "edginess" to stay focused while I work out, but just could not bring myself to switch out of TLOS to Mick's "40 Licks"...It was surprising how much better it was on mp3, in a dynamic I had never thought about.  Does it "morph" when converted to mp3 from CD into something easier to listen to?

Those graphs were amazing showing the sound dynamic!  Bravo! Very cool!

I agree that there is nothing like the old vinyl but who can carry a turntable around?  And it is a nice thought of drawing the curtains and just having the old turntable move...I do think it has gone the way of high button shoes...despite the superior aesthetic.

The mp3 (either Zune or ipod) is awesome in another car with a better built-in speaker system .  Wow.  Is is possible that the CD is just a "convenience" because there is still a market that wants something "tangible" rather than the "download" process that the young kids use?   

p.s. I am a  kitchen boom-box hack!         

[absinthe_boy]

A few selection from Greg Milner's book "Perfecting Sound Forever"

Pages 267/268: "I don't blame mastering engineers for te level wars," Calbi flatly states. "Clients have pushed us to make it louder." He's not talking about the musicians so much as the record company excecs. THe real culprit is the "good ol' five-CD changer" they use to listen to music, Grey says. "They'll put four CDs in the changer, that they all know are loud, and the A&R guy wants to hear their band's latest CD, as it's mastered, up against those. And if it's not as loud, it's sent back to the mastering place for more compression." The engineers try to explain their less-hot versions will sound better, and just as fierce, if the consumer only increases the volume. But in an unstable music industry, this is a tough argument to make. "Knowing that the job of turning it up is on the onus of the listener is a hard concept to accept when you're trying to sell records," Katz says. Record companies sometimes even set up "shoot outs" among mastering engineers, giving several the same song to master and awarding the job to the loudest one.

There's also the story of the radio station which worked out how to keep the modulator needle at 99/100% all the time...thus being the 'loudest' on the airwaves (page 268 onwards).

On the use of Pro-Tools....page 340: "I hate to say it, but nowadays when I start a mix, if I turn on thebass drum and it's not as punchy and aggressive, rather than even trying to get it to sound that way, it's so much easier for me to retrigger it with a sample that I already have dialed in and ready to go."...."especially with bass drums. A lot of times I'll retrigger the bass drum and take all the dynamics out so that it hits at the same volume every time. It makes the song sound more aggressive. I generally don't replace a snare drum, I just add to it, so a sample will give it more attack or more tone. And sometimes the toms as well. They're tricky to record, or the guy doesn't hit them hard enough. So sometimes it's just easier to put a smaple in there."(Chris Lord-Alge).

Note that Chris is saying that engineers don't even bother to record a perfect performance any more....they just mask the imperfections (and the human elements) with samples and tricks in Pro-Tools. I absolutely ABHOR this concept. No matter how great a drummer is, he doesn't hit his skins exactly the same way twice. That's part of what makes music real, emotional, organic, human. The subtle ways that the 2nd verse were played differently to the 1st...or the 3rd bar played differently to the 1st.

Also read Bill Bruford's autobiography where he talks about how, in the early 90's, he began to be involved in recording sessions where he knew he'd given a sub-par performance...and the engineer said "don't worry, I'll fix it". That goes against everything a trained musician knows and believes in. It isl literally ripping the heart and soul from music.

The last quote is given on page 356 or Milner's book...and comes from Bob Dylan, who you probably know has taken to producing his own records (under an pseudonym) because he doesn't trust anyone else to make them sound good.

"THe records that I used to listen to and still love, you can't amke a record that sounds that way. Brian Wilson, he made all his records with four tracks, but you couldn't make his records if you had a hundred tracks today. We all like recorts that are played on record players, but let's face it, those days are gon-n-n-e...I don't know anybody who's made a record that sounds decent in the past twenty years, really, You listen to these modern records, and they're atrocious, they have sound all over them. There's no definition of anything, no vocal, no nothing, just like - static. Even these songs probably sounded ten times better in the studio when we recorded 'em. CDs are small. There's no stature in it. I remember when that Napster guy came up across, it was like, 'Everybody's getting music for free.' I was like, 'Well why not? It ain't worth nothing anyway."

[filledeplage]

A few selection from Greg Milner's book "Perfecting Sound Forever"

Pages 267/268: "I don't blame mastering engineers for te level wars," Calbi flatly states. "Clients have pushed us to make it louder." He's not talking about the musicians so much as the record company excecs. THe real culprit is the "good ol' five-CD changer" they use to listen to music, Grey says. "They'll put four CDs in the changer, that they all know are loud, and the A&R guy wants to hear their band's latest CD, as it's mastered, up against those. And if it's not as loud, it's sent back to the mastering place for more compression." The engineers try to explain their less-hot versions will sound better, and just as fierce, if the consumer only increases the volume. But in an unstable music industry, this is a tough argument to make. "Knowing that the job of turning it up is on the onus of the listener is a hard concept to accept when you're trying to sell records," Katz says. Record companies sometimes even set up "shoot outs" among mastering engineers, giving several the same song to master and awarding the job to the loudest one.

There's also the story of the radio station which worked out how to keep the modulator needle at 99/100% all the time...thus being the 'loudest' on the airwaves (page 268 onwards).

On the use of Pro-Tools....page 340: "I hate to say it, but nowadays when I start a mix, if I turn on thebass drum and it's not as punchy and aggressive, rather than even trying to get it to sound that way, it's so much easier for me to retrigger it with a sample that I already have dialed in and ready to go."...."especially with bass drums. A lot of times I'll retrigger the bass drum and take all the dynamics out so that it hits at the same volume every time. It makes the song sound more aggressive. I generally don't replace a snare drum, I just add to it, so a sample will give it more attack or more tone. And sometimes the toms as well. They're tricky to record, or the guy doesn't hit them hard enough. So sometimes it's just easier to put a smaple in there."(Chris Lord-Alge).

Note that Chris is saying that engineers don't even bother to record a perfect performance any more....they just mask the imperfections (and the human elements) with samples and tricks in Pro-Tools. I absolutely ABHOR this concept. No matter how great a drummer is, he doesn't hit his skins exactly the same way twice. That's part of what makes music real, emotional, organic, human. The subtle ways that the 2nd verse were played differently to the 1st...or the 3rd bar played differently to the 1st.

Also read Bill Bruford's autobiography where he talks about how, in the early 90's, he began to be involved in recording sessions where he knew he'd given a sub-par performance...and the engineer said "don't worry, I'll fix it". That goes against everything a trained musician knows and believes in. It isl literally ripping the heart and soul from music.

The last quote is given on page 356 or Milner's book...and comes from Bob Dylan, who you probably know has taken to producing his own records (under an pseudonym) because he doesn't trust anyone else to make them sound good.

"THe records that I used to listen to and still love, you can't amke a record that sounds that way. Brian Wilson, he made all his records with four tracks, but you couldn't make his records if you had a hundred tracks today. We all like recorts that are played on record players, but let's face it, those days are gon-n-n-e...I don't know anybody who's made a record that sounds decent in the past twenty years, really, You listen to these modern records, and they're atrocious, they have sound all over them. There's no definition of anything, no vocal, no nothing, just like - static. Even these songs probably sounded ten times better in the studio when we recorded 'em. CDs are small. There's no stature in it. I remember when that Napster guy came up across, it was like, 'Everybody's getting music for free.' I was like, 'Well why not? It ain't worth nothing anyway."

Wow - Is that why I love the "live - with all the banter and flaws" albums best? [Pet Sounds and a few other BB studio classics would be an exception.]  I did recently see a record player "looking" device which converted your LP's to CD, tape, and mp3...

Does this mean that you are better off converting your old LP's to mp3 via this process?  Just because we "can" - "fix" something
should we? It does seem remove the depth and humanity of the musician somehow...

It does sound like a pretty poor industry standard, making things "louder" rather than fidelity to the original. I can make it "louder" - I want them (the music industry) to make it "fuller."  Go Dylan!   

Does this also mean that "remastered" means "re-manipulated?" 

 

[Wirestone]

Studio tricks and compression and all sorts of such tomfoolery are part of what makes Brian's classic records sound great.

The Beach Boys never sounded as good live as they did on their records. Why? Because they were overdubbed a couple of times. And there was reverb added. And they sometimes recorded a few lines at a time. They were deceiving us as listeners. Yoko Ono couldn't sing on her solo records, so producers pasted together her vocal tracks word by word.

The place we are today is a natural extension of that.

I'll say it again -- there is no such thing as a "natural" sound for a pop group. The instant you introduce amplification, you are changing the fundamental way an instrument or voice sounds. Everything else follows out from that.

People like to gripe about technology, record companies, mastering engineers, etc., because it gives them an easy-to-identify villain. There is no villain. There are only matters of taste and aesthetics and how we relate to them. And those are complicated things, and there isn't universal agreement.

[the captain]

Amen, Wirestone.

[Myk Luhv]

I have always wanted to know what Steve Albini thought of Brian Wilson...

[filledeplage]

Studio tricks and compression and all sorts of such tomfoolery are part of what makes Brian's classic records sound great.

The Beach Boys never sounded as good live as they did on their records. Why? Because they were overdubbed a couple of times. And there was reverb added. And they sometimes recorded a few lines at a time. They were deceiving us as listeners. Yoko Ono couldn't sing on her solo records, so producers pasted together her vocal tracks word by word.

The place we are today is a natural extension of that.

I'll say it again -- there is no such thing as a "natural" sound for a pop group. The instant you introduce amplification, you are changing the fundamental way an instrument or voice sounds. Everything else follows out from that.

People like to gripe about technology, record companies, mastering engineers, etc., because it gives them an easy-to-identify villain. There is no villain. There are only matters of taste and aesthetics and how we relate to them. And those are complicated things, and there isn't universal agreement.

You are certainly correct.  No one is so naive so as to think there are not some "enhancements" done in the studio.  People who go to a live show don't expect studio perfection.  They would be foolish to expect it and gravely disappointed.  I think people expect performers to get out there and give their best.  And they expect them to be on a sort of "learning curve" if the material is new.

The Beach Boys are no exception.  People just want to "sing along" and have a good time, with songs they know the words to and which have become an important part of our culture.  We don't see the industry chicanery.  And, most really don't care about it.   They don't want the details only the finished product.   I think the Beach Boys - even from the first time I ever saw them live, were magnificent in concert.  If the audience wanted perfection, they could stay home and put on the LP.  The live event is a "social opportunity" no less than the Shakespearean productions put on, in public, centuries years ago; I am sure they were not letter perfect either.

This has been a great and eye-opening discussion for me...Thanks!     
 

 

[absinthe_boy]

Yes Wirestone, but.....Yoko may not have actually sung the song from top to finish....but each and every phrase you hear *was* sung by Yoko. Brian might not have managed a completely perfect performance of Pet Sounds at the RFH in 2002, so they spliced together the best from each night. But you still get a performance. Yes, I fully accept that if a musician played a bum note or wasn't 100% happy with a couple of notes in a track then they'd overdub...but you still had that musician playing to his/her satisfaction.

Today you don't get that.

Today you get imperfect performances manipulated later by engineers, who use samples which might well not even be played by the musician in question. The musicians are not encouraged to lay down a perfect or even a good performance....it will must be fixed later.

Artists like Brian used the studio as an instrument. Brian knew what he wanted to hear and he would work for days to get the right performance from a musician....and yes, then he'd manipulate it in the studio. But crucially he did NOT do that beacuse the musician hadn't played the notes in the desired way....he did it because the musician had played *exactly* what Brian wanted, but Brian had in mind the studio trickery from the start.

To me, there is a crucial difference.

[Jim McShane]

Yes Wirestone, but.....Yoko may not have actually sung the song from top to finish....but each and every phrase you hear *was* sung by Yoko. Brian might not have managed a completely perfect performance of Pet Sounds at the RFH in 2002, so they spliced together the best from each night. But you still get a performance. Yes, I fully accept that if a musician played a bum note or wasn't 100% happy with a couple of notes in a track then they'd overdub...but you still had that musician playing to his/her satisfaction.

Today you don't get that.

Today you get imperfect performances manipulated later by engineers, who use samples which might well not even be played by the musician in question. The musicians are not encouraged to lay down a perfect or even a good performance....it will must be fixed later.

Artists like Brian used the studio as an instrument. Brian knew what he wanted to hear and he would work for days to get the right performance from a musician....and yes, then he'd manipulate it in the studio. But crucially he did NOT do that because the musician hadn't played the notes in the desired way....he did it because the musician had played *exactly* what Brian wanted, but Brian had in mind the studio trickery from the start.

To me, there is a crucial difference.

Spot on! Exactly right...

There indeed ARE villains - there are people involved in bringing a recording to market  that are not musicians, nor do they share the musician's agenda. They have a different set of priorities and the wherewithal to impose those priorities on others. "Studio trickery" by the artist is one thing - studio trickery by anyone else IMPOSED on the artist is another matter entirely.

If Brian wanted the recording of TLOS to be brickwalled that would entirely different than having it done to his recording either without his consent or with his consent achieved by applying pressure, i.e., "the CD won't get released unless you let us master it THIS way" and so on.

I love TLOS - but I never listen to the CD or the LP - I listen to the NPR live performance. The LP is bearable, the CD is simply unbearable. Neither approach what I heard Brian & his band do live though.

 

[Wirestone]

Recording industry bigwigs certainly never interfered with records and artists' musical decisions in the 60s or 70s.

There is no question that digital manipulation takes things to another level. Certainly, artists, engineers and whoever else are able to manipulate sound more easily than ever before.

But I'm not convinced that is de facto a bad thing. Can it be used in cheap ways? Sure. But it has ever been thus in the record industry. And the task of listeners is to point out when something goes over a line. And that line can shift depending on the circumstances.

Case in point -- Brian Wilson on Imagination and Brian Wilson on the Bacharach collaboration are both heavily auto-tuned. More people have problems with BW being auto-tuned on Imagination because it's in service of a record that has a very adult contemporary sound -- not the sound they like from him. But the Bacharach tune, which is produced in a much more "classic" style, more often gets a pass because Brian's tweaked vocal is in the service of a song that, to many fans, sounds better and more appropriate.

Even though people might talk about auto-tune in each case, that's not really the prime thing they're reacting to. They're reacting to an overall aesthetic. When they approve of the aesthetic, almost any effect in its service can be accepted.

Likewise, in Memory Almost Full, the loud-to-the-point of distortion mastering is not bad in and of itself. But when put in the service of a classic Wings-style record, it clearly conflicts with Paul's overall sound and ambition. That kind of mastering might be wholly appropriate for another band that wants a maxed-to-the-limit effect.

And I think fans' protests with stuff like that is right on. And if I had a brickwalled TLOS copy, I would be likewise unhappy.

[summerinparadise.flac]

Recording industry bigwigs certainly never interfered with records and artists' musical decisions in the 60s or 70s.

There is no question that digital manipulation takes things to another level. Certainly, artists, engineers and whoever else are able to manipulate sound more easily than ever before.

But I'm not convinced that is de facto a bad thing. Can it be used in cheap ways? Sure. But it has ever been thus in the record industry. And the task of listeners is to point out when something goes over a line. And that line can shift depending on the circumstances.

Case in point -- Brian Wilson on Imagination and Brian Wilson on the Bacharach collaboration are both heavily auto-tuned. More people have problems with BW being auto-tuned on Imagination because it's in service of a record that has a very adult contemporary sound -- not the sound they like from him. But the Bacharach tune, which is produced in a much more "classic" style, more often gets a pass because Brian's tweaked vocal is in the service of a song that, to many fans, sounds better and more appropriate.

Even though people might talk about auto-tune in each case, that's not really the prime thing they're reacting to. They're reacting to an overall aesthetic. When they approve of the aesthetic, almost any effect in its service can be accepted.

Likewise, in Memory Almost Full, the loud-to-the-point of distortion mastering is not bad in and of itself. But when put in the service of a classic Wings-style record, it clearly conflicts with Paul's overall sound and ambition. That kind of mastering might be wholly appropriate for another band that wants a maxed-to-the-limit effect.

And I think fans' protests with stuff like that is right on. And if I had a brickwalled TLOS copy, I would be likewise unhappy.

I can think of numerous ways reocord execs screwed with the Beach Boys musical decisions off the top of my head.
What about something like the latest Metallica. Big loud distorted music mixed in such a way. That should fit the aesthetic correct? Not really, it sounds like sh*t and almost everyone agrees.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Saw an article a few weeks ago that stated - and proved, with waveform screen-caps - that every time "Something" by The Beatles was reissued on CD (and therefore, the CD it was on), the mastering was hotter and hotter until, on the last, recent reissue, it was seriously brickwalled. That is just plain wrong, however you slice it.

What you're saying is "Well, always been like that, nothing we can do about it", which is of course nonsense: had that kind of thinking been prevalent some 200 years ago, the slave trade would still be flourishing and, more recently, women would still be denied the vote.  Give the punter a choice between a brickwalled CD and one with dynamics - currently, they don't have that luxury, and there's a whole generation growing up that accepts this because they don't know better.

[Wirestone]

Two points.

I can think of numerous ways reocord execs screwed with the Beach Boys musical decisions off the top of my head.

That was my point. I was being ironic. The business side has always messed with recorded sound, and always will, as long as music is packaged and sold as a commercial commodity.

What you're saying is "Well, always been like that, nothing we can do about it", which is of course nonsense: had that kind of thinking been prevalent some 200 years ago, the slave trade would still be flourishing and, more recently, women would still be denied the vote.  Give the punter a choice between a brickwalled CD and one with dynamics - currently, they don't have that luxury, and there's a whole generation growing up that accepts this because they don't know better.

Threads like this -- and the outcry over the Metallica album released recently -- show that people do indeed know better, and are indeed fighting back against unneeded loudness. No one talked about this issue five years ago.

My ultimate point is not -- and has never been -- that folks should accept distorted sounding CDs. But I am reluctant to go on some giant blaming game about the evils of listeners or musicians or executives, or of digital technology, or of compression itself. Because recorded music itself is ultimately a distorted version of how anything sounds.

And really -- slavery?

[Wirestone]

Oh yes, also -- kids today! They don't know what's good for them!

The old days were better! Consarn it all!

[absinthe_boy]

Oh yes, also -- kids today! They don't know what's good for them!

The old days were better! Consarn it all!

The majority of people grow up listening to the music of their own generation. Today's kids will be tomorrow's writers, musicians, engineers, producers and record company execs. They may well grow up knowing nothing but horribly compressed, autotuned, soul-less music because it seems to pervade their lives everywhere from the incidental music in kids TV shows through to the CDs they tend to buy (chart music)....and the way they listen to it - cheap MP3 players and mobile phones for the most part.

That's not the fault of the kids.

[Wirestone]

horribly compressed, autotuned, soul-less music because it seems to pervade their lives everywhere from the incidental music in kids TV shows through to the CDs they tend to buy (chart music)....

I daresay, if most kids today bought chart music (in CD form, no less!), the record industry would be thrilled. It would also be doing a lot better.

[Runaways]

and obviously kids who get into record producing would probably do their hw at some point.  it's not the kids who are compressing all the music right now.