http://www.mindspring.com/~mrichter/dynamics/dynamics.htm
Check it out....graphs and everything...very interesting!
Check it out....graphs and everything...very interesting!
That's the article I was thinking of but I couldn't remember where I saw it. Thanks.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
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 ...Originally posted by Scott Peterson
... the main thing you *constantly* get from most folks on the first pass is: "Can you make it louder?"...
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.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!!
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.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.
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.
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!
Exactly.Originally posted by straticus
The best way I can describe it is the CD sounds too loud even when it turned down.
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.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!
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.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.
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.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.
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.
... when it's played on the radio.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.