Sad thing is that this isn't news. Our records/CDs/etc. have always been cut for the lowest common denominator. Not so long ago, it was boom boxes. Now it's Ipods.
Sad thing is that this isn't news. Our records/CDs/etc. have always been cut for the lowest common denominator. Not so long ago, it was boom boxes. Now it's Ipods.
Actually JJ I'll beg to differ. There was most certainly a time that a great number of our releases were cut for boom boxes. As far as which is worse, that's basically choosing the lesser of two evils.
Actually JJ I'll beg to differ. There was most certainly a time that a great number of our releases were cut for boom boxes. As far as which is worse, that's basically choosing the lesser of two evils.
I'm talking about now, certainly at one point a huge number of tracks were processed for boom boxes.
I'm talking about the current CD's and their level distribution, which is appalling.
Now it's for radio. It has to be wall to wall, all the time. If you have access to matlab or octave (octave is sourceforge freeware, by the way) I can give you (or anyone else) a script that will take a track and calculate the level distribution. What you see is usually quite appalling.
Nobody who understands how iTunes works is even remotely likely to use the level distributions that I routinely see on some of the latest CD's. Levels that repeatedly reach (and stick to) max and min are going to clip egregiously when processed through iTunes or any other system that is using a perceptual codec (leaving aside the need for that in the present day for recording of most any sort, which is another issue indeed). Perceptual coding is for final delivery, and only for when the bit rate is limited or the storage space is (by modern standards) teensy.
If one was actually trying to make music for an iPod, there would never be a level over about -3dB. And we both know that is simply not the case. What we see today (as opposed to 10 years ago) is radio squish, and to an extent that even those who make radio compressors say "don't do that".
... Nobody who understands how iTunes works is even remotely likely to use the level distributions that I routinely see on some of the latest CD's. ... If one was actually trying to make music for an iPod, there would never be a level over about -3dB. ...
I've had that discussion before, in fact, and it's nice to see that the message is finally getting through. It's nice to know that the inventor of some of their prized algorithms finally got through to them, too.
And, if you've seen Bob Katz' book on the subject, you'll know the point's been made repeatedly, too.
JJ, depends upon your definition of radio play as the trend has been a big change over the last 5-10 years.
Most young-mid generation (so the popular chart/generating quick cash music) are interested in their music from internet services (radio in this context being service like Spotify or possibly inbetween such as MTV sites and other internet music streaming stations) or mobile device such as ipod/iphone equivalent/etc.
A good example how it is beyond radio is the Metallica album "Death Magnetic", this freaking annoyingly dynamically compressed album has received awards as best album from notables such as TIME, Rolling Stone, Q, etc and a nomination twice at the Grammys; and this is album is infamous to say the least.
Still some (definitely agree it is a small segment) of the best modern popular music has very good dynamics, here I am talking about well respected dance DJs and the dance music they create, which ironically is better than the modern average jazz/classical releases or well known singers such as Adele/etc.
It's a common thing in much of popular art and culture: the artist is only a small cog in the mechanism, and his/her work will be distorted, stripped of beauty, chewed up and spat out by the most uncultured, avaricious, unpleasant people you could wish to meet. I recommend the TV film The Strike for a brilliant exploration of this.
I'm talking about now, certainly at one point a huge number of tracks were processed for boom boxes.
I'm talking about the current CD's and their level distribution, which is appalling.
Now it's for radio. It has to be wall to wall, all the time. If you have access to matlab or octave (octave is sourceforge freeware, by the way) I can give you (or anyone else) a script that will take a track and calculate the level distribution. What you see is usually quite appalling.
Nobody who understands how iTunes works is even remotely likely to use the level distributions that I routinely see on some of the latest CD's. Levels that repeatedly reach (and stick to) max and min are going to clip egregiously when processed through iTunes or any other system that is using a perceptual codec (leaving aside the need for that in the present day for recording of most any sort, which is another issue indeed). Perceptual coding is for final delivery, and only for when the bit rate is limited or the storage space is (by modern standards) teensy.
If one was actually trying to make music for an iPod, there would never be a level over about -3dB. And we both know that is simply not the case. What we see today (as opposed to 10 years ago) is radio squish, and to an extent that even those who make radio compressors say "don't do that".
A good example how it is beyond radio is the Metallica album "Death Magnetic", this freaking annoyingly dynamically compressed album has received awards as best album from notables such as TIME, Rolling Stone, Q, etc and a nomination twice at the Grammys; and this is album is infamous to say the least.
Music is mastered so it sounds good and you can hear it on the go.
Most people listen outside on the street with earbuds on their phones trying to block out external noise, so the dynamic range has to be limited or you wouldn't hear quieter parts of the music.
It is terrible what portable music devices have done to the recording industry and creating the poor quality of the recordings we have to listen to in the home.
Music is mastered so it sounds good and you can hear it on the go.
Most people listen outside on the street with earbuds on their phones trying to block out external noise, so the dynamic range has to be limited or you wouldn't hear quieter parts of the music.
It is terrible what portable music devices have done to the recording industry and creating the poor quality of the recordings we have to listen to in the home.
What's even more terrible is that it is not hard to make a portable device with a microphone that can take music with full dynamic range and compress it on the fly by an appropriate amount, so it won't be necessary to pre-compress the (bleepity bleep bleep bleep bleeping bleep) out of it.
One thing is certain; the type of music that is referred to in that article is not what the audiophiles are looking to purchase on LPs (or CDs).
It's for the other type of audiophiles; with headphones and iPhones (iPods).
What's even more terrible is that it is not hard to make a portable device with a microphone that can take music with full dynamic range and compress it on the fly by an appropriate amount, so it won't be necessary to pre-compress the (bleepity bleep bleep bleep bleeping bleep) out of it.
It is terrible what portable music devices have done to the recording industry and creating the poor quality of the recordings we have to listen to in the home.
If you are talking about the original cassete based Walkman I can agree, if you are talking the Ipod I can't. Compression has been going on for many years long before the digital Ipod was possible. As JJ say radio wars was the originator of the practice.
The switch of a majority from buds to IEMs and closed cans just might help reverse the trend. Us home free space listeners may well be "incidental" beneficiaries.
If you are talking about the original cassete based Walkman I can agree, if you are talking the Ipod I can't. Compression has been going on for many years long before the digital Ipod was possible. As JJ say radio wars was the originator of the practice.
Rob,
I am still not entirely convinced by that argument tbh.
Several of the good mastering blogs out there has shown how the dynamic compression trend (overall and yes there are some anomalies) has changed over the years, and it exploded after 2000, when one could possibly state there started a fundamental switch in listening habits of those (the important point) who purchase the main chart/popular music.
I agree radio has had a part to play but it is not the catalyst as more CDs and singles were sold in the 90s than now (and it is proved dynamic compression has been a lot worse from 2000 onwards).
One further technology that may be involved in all this crud; nearly every studio has some kind of tone equaliser for singers to ensure they sing in key and I do wonder if this is possibly integral to using dynamic compression so aggressively.
A good modern example of this annoying trend; Will.I.Am and some of the Black Eyed Peas songs... so effing annoying as they are pretty talented bah
The more they used the tone-tuning equalisation (for effect rather than tuning) their dynamic compressions has become worst.
Just a thought, but anyway it is another nasty cog in the wheel.
Cheers
Orb
If signal B is slightly louder than Signal A, but is otherwise identical, B will almost always be preferred. IF C is slightly louder than B, C is preferred. But there is no, repeat NO guarantee that C will be preferred over A once the perception changes from "something is different" to "that's louder". No guarantee at all.
