"the death of dynamic range' in audio... [Archive]

MichaelK

04-26-2005, 04:13 PM

It's one of my pet peeves. It makes cranking up the stereo impossible. With a severely limited recording, anything louder than a car radio at medium volume is unlistenable, and makes it painful to sit through an entire CD. It's a shame, because even if the music is good there's no way to know. That kind of mastering kills it.

It's what radio wants, and what they want they get.

dehughes

04-27-2005, 07:08 AM

Thanks for posting that, Joseph. Very interesting....

david

malabarmusic

04-27-2005, 08:14 AM

For an interesting analysis that focuses on the dynamic range of one band's CDs over the years, check out this link:

http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/8A133F52D0FD71AB86256C2E005DAF1C

It really is a shame, because "Vapor Trails" ranks as some of the best material Rush has ever produced. I find it interesting that Atlantic announced a "remastered" version of the CD less than two years(!) after the original release.

- DB

MichaelK

04-27-2005, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by malabarmusic
For an interesting analysis that focuses on the dynamic range of one band's CDs over the years, check out this link:

http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/8A133F52D0FD71AB86256C2E005DAF1C

That's the article I was thinking of but I couldn't remember where I saw it. Thanks. :)

Scott Peterson

04-27-2005, 10:46 AM

It is the main reason I am forced to listen to most current music at 90db or less; I cannot stand that white noise grating you get when you jam current music.

I do mastering and the main thing you *constantly* get from most folks on the first pass is: "Can you make it louder?" Clients want less than 2-3db of dynamics in the music. It is a nearly impossible task and IMHO the results are that constant white noise searing thing in my ear. bah! I hate it!

MichaelK

04-27-2005, 11:36 AM

Every now and then you come across a CD so artfully mastered that it's "loud" yet listenable, even pleasant. I wish I knew how it was done, but if everybody could do it those guys wouldn't be earning top dollar.

malabarmusic

04-27-2005, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Scott Peterson
... the main thing you *constantly* get from most folks on the first pass is: "Can you make it louder?"...As suggested in joseph's link, it seems that a lot of folks missed school on the day when we all learned about that miracle invention of modern science called the ...

VOLUME KNOB!!

- DB

MichaelK

04-27-2005, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by malabarmusic
As suggested in joseph's link, it seems that a lot of folks missed school on the day when we all learned about that miracle invention of modern science called the ... VOLUME KNOB!!
The "reasoning" behind the loudness is that (they believe) if a person is scanning radio stations, they'll stop at the loudest station they hear. It might be true, I don't know. Since a radio signal is limited to a certain volume level (I'm not up on the technology, I'm just paraphrasing to the best of my understanding), the most compressed signal the most apparently loud. If station "A" is broadcasting a less compressed signal than station "B," it will appear less loud to the person flipping through the dials. So if a CD can be compressed to the point where it actually clips a few times at -0 dB, the record companies prefer that to a -001 dB limit, because it might sound just that much louder to the person scanning.

This is all part of the reason I find listening to commercial radio in the mornings so oppressive. The song is compressed to all sh*t already, and five seconds from ending they start in with the WHOOSH ZIPZIP noises to pump every available milisecond to top volume so there's no drop in level, G-d forbid, before the DJs (always a team of at least three giggling idiots, it seems) start laughing in my face at maximum compression. I guess those noises are also to remind you that they're "nutty" and "crazy" and having a big ol' party in the studio. My wife can listen to it; I can't stand it.

Sorry for the rant. I guess I feel it's not off-topic because it's all the same thing. I wonder, does this crap really make a difference in ratings, or did a small group of people just make that assumption in a competitive panic?

If I want to keep up with what's current I peruse the charts and listen online at the lowest level possible, so I can hear. Sometimes I even come across a decent song. :)

malabarmusic

04-27-2005, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by MichaelK
The "reasoning" behind the loudness is that (they believe) if a person is scanning radio stations, they'll stop at the loudest station they hear. My sense is that radio stations compress the broadcast signal so much that the dynamic range/loudness of the source material almost doesn't matter. This might be a semi-valid point when it comes to CD jukeboxes, though as those shift to MP3s the issue kinda sorta goes away.

Of course, the vast majority of artists pushing for "louder" masters are unlikely to ever worry about radio or jukebox airplay ... :eek:

Maybe someday reason will prevail. In the meantime, we can all just say no to digital clipping in our own humble work.

- DB

joseph

04-27-2005, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by MichaelK
This is all part of the reason I find listening to commercial radio in the mornings so oppressive. The song is compressed to all sh*t already, and five seconds from ending they start in with the WHOOSH ZIPZIP noises to pump every available milisecond to top volume so there's no drop in level, G-d forbid, before the DJs (always a team of at least three giggling idiots, it seems) start laughing in my face at maximum compression. I guess those noises are also to remind you that they're "nutty" and "crazy" and having a big ol' party in the studio. My wife can listen to it; I can't stand it.

I can't stand it either, it's that 'LCD' thing (lowest common denominator), and it's nationwide.

One solution- actually the only solution if you listen to radio- is just tuning in the local public radio or college station. All the others, like you say, are the same.

I'm lucky....the local public radio station has a jazz hour several nights a week where the DJ plays his own collection of classic vinyl LPs from 60s and 70s era Kenny Burrell, Freddie Hubbard, Herbie Hancock, Lee Morgan......even if you didn't like jazz, still the tone of the pianos, the ride cymbals, saxes....even in the car, I could realize that the idea "stuff sounded better on the radio back 30 years ago" isn't bogus nostalgia...it's real!

straticus

04-28-2005, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Scott Peterson
It is the main reason I am forced to listen to most current music at 90db or less; I cannot stand that white noise grating you get when you jam current music.

I do mastering and the main thing you *constantly* get from most folks on the first pass is: "Can you make it louder?" Clients want less than 2-3db of dynamics in the music. It is a nearly impossible task and IMHO the results are that constant white noise searing thing in my ear. bah! I hate it!

WORD!

I saw this band called The Living End on Letterman a few months ago and liked them enough to buy their CD. These guys rocked! Well, I bought the CD, threw it in the CD player and was hit in the face by this harsh, brick wall of sound. Everything slamming me at once with no room or space for the music to breath. It's hard to tell what's going on in the song because everything is coming at you full force.

I don't know, it's hard to explain but I hear it more and more these days. The best way I can describe it is the CD sounds too loud even when it turned down. The CD isn't even listenable, forget turning it up! It's a prime example of what's wrong with the way music is mixed these days. That was the first and last time that CD made it's way into my CD player and that's just sad because the band rocks and the music is great ................. but the sound of the CD is hideous!

Dave Orban

04-28-2005, 10:20 AM

It's all a part of the not-so-slow, not-so gradual, dumbing-down of the world's population. :rolleyes:

MichaelK

04-28-2005, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by straticus
The best way I can describe it is the CD sounds too loud even when it turned down.
Exactly.

MichaelK

04-28-2005, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by joseph
classic vinyl LPs from 60s and 70s era Kenny Burrell, Freddie Hubbard, Herbie Hancock, Lee Morgan......even if you didn't like jazz, still the tone of the pianos, the ride cymbals, saxes....even in the car, I could realize that the idea "stuff sounded better on the radio back 30 years ago" isn't bogus nostalgia...it's real!
I agree. You would probably enjoy the interview with Rudy Van Gelder in this month's Mix magazine. His engineering for Blue Note (and I believe Impulse) was nothing short of perfect, IMHO. I'll bet a large percentage of those records you're hearing were recorded by him.

I've only skimmed it, haven't really read it yet. Unfortunately, he usually doesn't like to reveal specifics, like gear and technique. Maybe this time he's spilling some of the good stuff, I dunno.

aleclee

04-28-2005, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by malabarmusic
My sense is that radio stations compress the broadcast signal so much that the dynamic range/loudness of the source material almost doesn't matter.My understanding is a bit different. Given the attack and release settings on the stations' limiters, you don't want to hit 'em. They probably do some compression in addition to the limiters (due to the limited dynamic range of radio) but there was a time when things weren't crushed like they are today.

TheArchitect

04-28-2005, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by MichaelK
It's one of my pet peeves. It makes cranking up the stereo impossible. With a severely limited recording, anything louder than a car radio at medium volume is unlistenable, and makes it painful to sit through an entire CD. It's a shame, because even if the music is good there's no way to know. That kind of mastering kills it.

It's what radio wants, and what they want they get. Its not what radio wants. Its what dumb asses at record companies want because in their little pee brains they believe that if their record is louder people will pay more attention to it. What they can't seem to comprehend is that 1) the compression radio applies to a broadcast is looking for peaks to tame. When it doesn't see them it clamps down on everything effectively making it quieter. 2) THE COMPLETE LACK OF DYNAMICS AND THE CLIPPING DISTORTION IT CREATES MAKES PEOPLE TUNE IT OUT AND TURN IT OFF BECAUSE THE BRAIN DOESN'T LIKE BEING PUMMELED WITH WHITE NOISE. KIND OF LIKE WHEN PEOPLE TYPE IN ALL CAPS.

straticus

04-28-2005, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by TheArchitect
...............2) THE COMPLETE LACK OF DYNAMICS AND THE CLIPPING DISTORTION IT CREATES MAKES PEOPLE TUNE IT OUT AND TURN IT OFF BECAUSE THE BRAIN DOESN'T LIKE BEING PUMMELED WITH WHITE NOISE. KIND OF LIKE WHEN PEOPLE TYPE IN ALL CAPS.

Thanks for the laugh ............ I needed that:D

MichaelK

04-29-2005, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by TheArchitect
Its not what radio wants. Its what dumb asses at record companies want because in their little pee brains they believe that if their record is louder people will pay more attention to it.
... when it's played on the radio.

They don't care how much you like it once you've paid money for it.

johnspeck

04-29-2005, 10:19 AM

My band just had our record mastered for release on WB this summer. We went with a reputable mid-budget facility that had done several big records.

We had to have three revisions done, to bring intended eq and dynamics back into the songs. There's still an element of the 'loud at low volumes' syndrome, and when I gave a mastered copy to our soundman to load into his laptop, he laughed at the levels. Some songs were at or near 100%. It seems to be EXACTLY what the labels want to hear; if it's mastered 'properly', they complain of it being too quiet compared to other recent releases.

joseph

04-29-2005, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by johnspeck
We had to have three revisions done, to bring intended eq and dynamics back into the songs. There's still an element of the 'loud at low volumes' syndrome, and when I gave a mastered copy to our soundman to load into his laptop, he laughed at the levels. Some songs were at or near 100%. It seems to be EXACTLY what the labels want to hear; if it's mastered 'properly', they complain of it being to quiet compared to other recent releases.

Maybe we should buy stock in hearing aid companies; we're becoming a nation of deaf people. I'm serious.
Some low-rider cars have stereo systems that easily overpower a typical rock band PA system.

TheArchitect

04-29-2005, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by MichaelK
... when it's played on the radio.

They don't care how much you like it once you've paid money for it.
Yes but radio isn't demanding this, the record companies are.

MichaelK

04-29-2005, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by TheArchitect
Yes but radio isn't demanding this, the record companies are. I see what you're saying, and actually it's both because they have a common goal. Radio wants loud records because loudness boosts ratings (or so it's believed) and record companies want their songs on the top rated stations to boost CD sales. Every radio station wants to be the loudest on the dial and every record exec want "his" song to be the loudest of them all. But the stations also do their own limiting above and beyond what's on the record to ensure that everything is at maximum blast.

My head hurts just thinking about it!

drbob1

04-29-2005, 02:37 PM

My first memory of noticing this is when Van Halen 3 came out. That was into digital clipping so hard it made some of my CD players skip! Just completely unpleasant and unlistenable. Of course, it doesn't help that much of the "nu metal" and modern rock stuff has almost no dynamics anyway.

TheArchitect

04-29-2005, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by MichaelK

My head hurts just thinking about it!

Amen to that! :) Mine too.

Regardless, audio being trashed because of some clueless suits is bad for everyone.

Gerry

04-29-2005, 05:42 PM

On the other hand, have you noticed how people nowadays are much more easily impressed how 'good' a live band sounds (ie, compared to CDs and the radio) , compared to people 30 yrs ago?

PintoMusic

05-05-2005, 06:15 PM

I'm glad I saw this thread.

When I do my home recordings and try to "master" them, I'm always beating myself up for not getting the overall result *loud* enough.

It looks like I'm chasing the wrong goal. I know that there are some guys out there who work hard with frequencies within the specific audio tracks so that everything can stand out in the mix and be *loud* without having the squash the nuts out of everything. Perhaps that's where the "loud but listenable" skill lies.

joseph

05-06-2005, 11:20 AM

Do not despair.

Thinking of people who record very UNcompressed albums, Norah Jones comes to mind, with a combined total of ~ 9 million CDs sold between her two albums -

so there are some people around who dig real dynamics ;) .

Bassomatic

05-06-2005, 05:57 PM

It's not all the mastering guy's fault. It's easy to produce a mix with way too much compression and too little dynamic range (not talking master buss compression).

Goku13

05-08-2005, 10:06 PM

Eh...the worst thing to me is the question "where are they going with this." They are seriously running out of room to work with as far as the overall level goes.

What I hate more than anything is when you hear a song on the radio that is going full blast, and then it goes to a breakdown where it is just the singer singing for a couple bars with, say, one guitar quietly playing, and the voice gets really loud and then when the whole band comes pounding back in, the song gets QUIETER, overall due to the compression. Totally destroys the intended dynamic. That bothers me more than the white noise thing. At least the cd recording doesn't do that, even if it is hyper-compressed. The radio's compression really just destroys it, though.

I have to say that the radio's compression does warm up the sound a bit, and makes most recordings have the same dynamic range and EQ characteristics....that is the goal of the stations; they all want to have their characteristic sound. Given the choice, while driving around in my car, if I channel surf and hear one station that is louder and clearer sounding than the others, I would rather listen to that one. It is just a shame that the recordings are so compressed to begin with. I think they do need to be compressed a bit to sound more solidified and powerful. But too much is simply too much.

It will be interesting to see what the future holds though....

MichaelK

05-09-2005, 08:00 AM

I think it's just a trend that will die a natural death. It has to, because unlike most trends in music that are matters of taste, it's universally unpleasant on a biological level. The only people I know who can stomach those levels are high school students, and even then only for short spans like one or two songs at a time. All it takes is a small cultural shift, a new technology, a new business model for radio (e.g. satellite radio) or something.

In the late 70s it was cheezy sounding synths. In the 80s and 90s it was an overabundance of digital effects. Today it's Autotune and redline limiting. Nothing lasts forever.

I could be wrong, too.

Scott Peterson

05-09-2005, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by MichaelK
I think it's just a trend that will die a natural death. It has to, because unlike most trends in music that are matters of taste, it's universally unpleasant on a biological level. The only people I know who can stomach those levels are high school students, and even then only for short spans like one or two songs at a time. All it takes is a small cultural shift, a new technology, a new business model for radio (e.g. satellite radio) or something.

In the late 70s it was cheezy sounding synths. In the 80s and 90s it was an overabundance of digital effects. Today it's Autotune and redline limiting. Nothing lasts forever.

I could be wrong, too.

Agreed and I hope you are right. I think the popularity of MP3's have made it worse though IMHO.

In the 80's it was exciters man. You couldn't use them enough. "Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss'. :D

Kiwi

05-09-2005, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by cpokay
Seems like the engineers out there mixing for mainstream radio ABSOLUTELY have to know what they are doing and that it doesn't sound good, and that they're doing what they are told so they can get paid .

Yup. I read on other boards and forums that the older (wiser)engineers out there hate it as much as we all do, but ...

... if they want to get paid on this job and hired for the next one, they do as they are told.

Kiwi

joseph

05-09-2005, 01:14 PM

The remake of Boys of Summer by the Ataris takes that sound to an extreme, especially since you can compare it to the original moderate version, which still was fairly compressed.

But the Ataris version sounds very distorted, I can hear this 'white noise' fizzing out the top end.
Heard it on the radio.....the next tune was by Green Day, and it sounded like a masterful studio Zeppelin tune by comparison!

MichaelK

05-09-2005, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Scott Peterson
In the 80's it was exciters man. You couldn't use them enough.
I still have one in my live PA rack. I think it's fantastic, used right!

Antero

05-12-2005, 01:10 AM

I think this trend is going to die off soon enough... maybe not right now, but give it a few years.

It's not like people won't buy things without the overcompression - I mean, listen to Smashing Pumpkins stuff from Gish or Siamese dream. BIG volume changes - they get quiet, they get QUIET.

gururyan

07-01-2005, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by joseph
http://www.mindspring.com/~mrichter/dynamics/dynamics.htm

Check it out....graphs and everything...very interesting!

Ok, been waiting for a month for the "over quota" to disappear so I could look this over again...now it's July 1st and still "over quota". Does anybody have a copy or mirror site link for this?

elambo

07-01-2005, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by MichaelK
The "reasoning" behind the loudness is that (they believe) if a person is scanning radio stations, they'll stop at the loudest station they hear. It might be true, I don't know.

It IS true. They've run this idea through focus groups and people did, in fact, stop more often at the stations playing the louder music. THAT'S why there's such a problem with overly compressed music.

Brian D

07-01-2005, 09:53 PM

Because of this trend, I have also learned to be wary of "Newly Remastered" when I see it on a classic rock CD that I am thinking of buying. Hopefully it will die out soon.

Goku13

07-06-2005, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by elambo
It IS true. They've run this idea through focus groups and people did, in fact, stop more often at the stations playing the louder music. THAT'S why there's such a problem with overly compressed music.

Yeah, this is a good point. Usually the loundest signal is the clearest, too, in FM radio, and vice versa. If I hear something that sounds better than the other stations, I will usually try to keep the dial there. Everything is so compressed by the radio station anyway, it never sounds good to me lol.

zenpicker

07-07-2005, 07:48 PM

Joseph - very interesting topic. The page link you gave, unfortunately, is now dead. Can you redirect us or repost it? Never got to read what sounds like an interesting article.

The Rush article was pretty interesting too.

tonedaddy

07-08-2005, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by zenpicker
Joseph - very interesting topic. The page link you gave, unfortunately, is now dead. Can you redirect us or repost it? Never got to read what sounds like an interesting article.

The Rush article was pretty interesting too. Until the link comes back up, you can read the text and see a few of the graphics on the Internet Wayback Archive:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040507180502/http://www.mindspring.com/~mrichter/dynamics/dynamics.htm

zenpicker

07-08-2005, 07:24 AM

thanks!

Soundhound

02-22-2007, 12:04 PM

blueline

02-22-2007, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by elambo
It IS true. They've run this idea through focus groups and people did, in fact, stop more often at the stations playing the louder music. THAT'S why there's such a problem with overly compressed music.

Focus groups. AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! They are the very heart of corporate cover-your-ass-at-all-costs way of thinking. If you can call it thinking.

The labels are reacting to people's initial reaction to what sounds louder to them: They stop and listen. Now if the record companies would do focus groups that really explore listeners long term preferences between music with great dynamic range and La Vida Loca, maybe there would be a different outcome.

The record companies have lost their development connection with the artist and are seem to be solely looking at sales - which is kind of what they are supposed to do. They see what is hot - recording level and sound(artist) and they duplicate it until it burns out. It is "come out with a bunch of singles or go home." It is kind of sad considering some of the greatest bands had horrible first records.

Sorry to get off of the initial subject it just came out:BITCH

Dave Klausner

02-22-2007, 03:58 PM

Unless Manfred remixes it at the last minute...

retro

02-22-2007, 04:23 PM

it's universally unpleasant on a biological level.

Hehe! That's good...

guitarcec

02-22-2007, 05:20 PM

what a great thread - thanks for posting those links, guys. "modern mastering" drives me crazy, too. i don't know why good musicians put up with it. Jonny Lang's latest Grammy-winning album, is mixed really well, but the mastering engineer Brian "Big Bass" Gardner did the album, and many of the songs, like you have all said, just sound TOO LOUD, even at low volumes. almost ruins a great album for me. there are some popular bands and lables who still get it right, though - e.g. Switchfoot, Norah Jones, Fiona Apple, The Wallflowers. take a listen to their stuff - it actually sounds good loud!