Why, oh why, oh why???

Finally having the evening to myself, quietly tapping away on a grant proposal and supping some Little Creatures Pale Ale, I decide it’s been a while since I actually listened to an album, as opposed to just putting on some music on in the background. So, out I dig an album that I’ve not listened to in a while – The Suburbs by Arcade Fire. This is a great album, really intelligent song writing and all in all a skilled performance.

So why the hell did they employ a monkey who’s previous job was possibly to make Nokia ring tones to master the bloody thing? It sounds like it’s being played in a biscuit tin – the 40 year old Led Zeppelin LP I had on before sounded positively airy by comparison, and that’s 40 years old!

Anyway, I did a little bit of googling, and it turns out I’m not alone in this observation, and certainly not for this album in particular. So why do it? Why go to all the trouble of writing and performing music with lots of dynamic range and creative use of volume if only to compress it to within an inch of its life? GRRRR!

So’s you can hear it on your car, so I’m told.

if only to compress it to within an inch of its life

There’s your answer. Mastered to be compressed into neat little MP3/AAC low quality packages.

Sad, really.

So’s you can hear it on your car, so I’m told.

One of the tracks was on the radio as I drove home last night. I actually wondered if my stereo was broken, as all I could hear was an incoherent mumbling sound.

I blame Guns n Roses.

Axl Rose on the tour bus:

There’s your answer. Mastered to be compressed into neat little MP3/AAC low quality packages.

Sad, really.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. Perhaps this album only stands out so much as suffering from compression due to its originally wide dynamic range, but surely it would be easy enough to just master for CD and vinyl, then apply the compression to the MP3/AAC at the same time as compressing the size?

It’s been going on since the 90s so I don’t think it’s anything to do with MP3s and that sort of compression. More it’s to do with making stuff always sound loud, so partly so it can compete with all the overly-loud stuff when it’s played on the radio.

Interesting reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

That’s progress for you…

Have you made sure your speaker cables are the right way round?

Cougar – Member
I blame Guns n Roses.

I wouldn’t:

By contrast, in late 2008 mastering engineer Bob Ludwig offered three versions of the Guns N’ Roses album Chinese Democracy for approval to co-producers Axl Rose and Caram Costanzo, and they selected the one with the least compression. Ludwig wrote, “I was floored when I heard they decided to go with my full dynamics version and the loudness-for-loudness-sake versions be damned.”[14] Ludwig feels that the “fan and press backlash against the recent heavily compressed recordings finally set the context for someone to take a stand and return to putting music and dynamics above sheer level.”[14]

Mastered to be compressed into neat little MP3/AAC low quality packages.

Really?

Really?

Well, it would certainly explain why the CD and LP versions of this particular album both sound like they’ve been mastered with a 1980s Ford Escort stereo in mind.

I wouldn’t:

Yup, fair enough. I was misremembering, I knew they were notable but forgot why.

MP3 will be mastered exactly the same as CD version, but will be compressed going to lossy format from lossless. That has nothing to do with mastering and Loudness war though… You can master as hot for vinyl as you can for a digital format.(Some do and this would sound even worse)

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ&feature=player_embedded[/video]

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v6ML2DsBfA&feature=player_embedded[/video]

That I can clearly tell the difference from a low quality youtube vid though a laptop’s speakers is astounding. And horrifying.

Chicken no longer tastes of chicken.
Digital radio sounds worse than FM.
Most chocolate bars have been altered to taste blander, documentaries have to be presented by a sleb and there are cliffhangers in The Archers.

Everything has been homogenised and yes, dumbed down, because those who decide such things believe we are stupid and because greater mass market appeal aimed at those who crave mediocrity makes money.

Thanks, I feel better now. 😀

Surely your car stereo should be able to adjust the loudness to suit your car, rather than the original recording? Likewise your MP3 player etc.

Surely your car stereo should be able to adjust the loudness to suit your car, rather than the original recording? Likewise your MP3 player etc.

That would require some quite advanced processing, much of which isn’t possible in real time (look forward limiting etc).

This is a good article: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/loudness.htm

Crap audio equipment is everywhere, so music is mastered for it.

C’est la vie.

Although in the digital era where the extra storage needed is small, it would be nice if you could choose between a version aimed at ipod users, and people who cared.

Incidentally, this is exactly what TV adverts do, wazz up the loudness to 11 and drop any pretence any dynamics.

That would require some quite advanced processing, much of which isn’t possible in real time (look forward limiting etc).

Isn’t it? We had compressors in the rack when I used to do sound engineering. Used for the same reason as it is in the car, a singer wispering into a mic isn’t audiable in a noisy bar so you use the compressor to limit their range (same as you don’t want them overpowering everything else whilst screaming).

I suppose the problem is more likely that you can get one good compressor in a studio, or 30million crap ones in cars. and the car one wont be selective in which parts of the song it compresses.

Although in the digital era where the extra storage needed is small, it would be nice if you could choose between a version aimed at ipod users, and people who cared.

+1, although the purists like their vinyl (or CD’s), so the market most likley to buy into it wouldn’t buy that format. On the other hand CD’s might be the best medium for it now that a lot of people have cars with MP3 players?

I’ve just dug out Smells Like Teen Spirit on original vinyl after watching that youtube vid. And he definitely has a point.

Surely your car stereo should be able to adjust the loudness to suit your car, rather than the original recording? Likewise your MP3 player etc.

“Loudness” in this context is a bit misleading. It’s not just about the overall track volume/attenuation (which is what you’re thinking about)..ie, the volume knob. Rather, it’s about how the track is actually mastered, where the full dynamic range of the track is altered so, in essence, the bits that should be “quiet” are actually as loud as the bits that should be (and still are) loud. Hence, lack of dynamic range (the range between quiet and loud bits on a recording). Boils my piss that this is way of things these days, although there are a few standout performers & engineers who are bucking the trend.

and the car one wont be selective in which parts of the song it compresses.

Well, which ever compressor Arcade Fire’s Masterer used, it couldn’t either 😕

although there are a few standout performers & engineers who are bucking the trend.

Which is why it’s all the more perplexing why Arcade Fire aren’t one of them.

Compression means two things, doesn’t it? 1. Squeeze it into a small file size, and 2. make all the levels near to as loud as each other (radio edit style). The OP is about the latter, whereas the discussion has drifted into the former (further up). You can have the highest quality in raw file size terms, but it could still be compressed for loudness.

Yeah, I guess that’s partially my own fault, glenp. Being aware of both, I was a bit taken aback to find that even the LP mastering of an album had the LOUDNESS treatment, rather than being left alone and only the MP3 version suffering this fate.

Which is why it’s all the more perplexing why Arcade Fire aren’t one of them.

Agreed. I wish everyone in the business was as audio-geeky as Steven Wilson.

A compressor has what is called a knee or a threshold, this is used so that any thing that passes the volume the knee is set at wil be compressed or squished, this could be set to 0 or infinity so that everything will be compressed, but generally it is set to only squish or compress the loudest peaks, then the gain can be brought up on everything to fill the same space without clipping, then there are also brickwall limiters.

Well, which ever compressor Arcade Fire’s Masterer used, it couldn’t either

I think I’ve just twigged what chiefgrooveguru meant, compressing a song you know (or can have mutiple attempts at live mixing, or doing on a computer) you can set the level for each input so that it’s level for a section of the song.

The compressors we used live were probably either just limiters with a curve rather than a definate cut off, or some sort of algorrithm (it’s getting louder, turn the level down and averageing that over a period of time). Basicly they let us be lazy if we didn’t know the song, but wouldnt be as good as an engineer who knows the music sitting there and doing it manualy.

[edit] beeten to it.

Taking people to see a full orchestra for the first time is always fun.
Not much to match that in terms of dynamics.

Classical radio transmissions are so compressed in comparison.

even the LP mastering of an album had the LOUDNESS treatment

That’s fine up to a point, everything needs mastering to an extent and if you can make it brighter and louder without totally killing the dynamics it should be done.

As someone said above it’s about competing for ‘impact’ when played in the radio. There’s lots of research showing people think music sounds ‘better’ if its louder, even by a very small amount, and it will jump out at you more from just being background sound.

Of course if you actually listen carefully in a decent format on reasonable speakers it sounds like crap, but many people don’t notice.

There was a big fuss over a RHCP album a few years ago where lots of people said it was almost unlistenable due to excessive compression/limiting.

Compression means two things, doesn’t it?

There’s audio compression and digital file compression – totally different things.

That would require some quite advanced processing, much of which isn’t possible in real time

Yeah but digital music doesn’t have to be real time does it? You read a chunk of data, decompress it (from MP3 format) and then play it. You could read the next song in its entirety and take 3 mins to do whatever you feel like whilst the current song is playing.

I tell you what though, I wish they’d compress Radio 4. Listening in the car is a pain in the balls. You have some vocally competent presenter coming over loud and clear having a conversation with some mumbler on the end of a phone – you are either deafened by Sue McGregor or you can only hear one side of the conversation. It’s just about the only station where compression wouldn’ thave any drawbacks, surely?

There was a big fuss over a RHCP album a few years ago where lots of people said it was almost unlistenable due to excessive compression/limiting.

Beat me to it. I was reading through this thread and Californication sprung to mind. A fundamentally broken recording. By has-beens.

R4’s biggest issue would be background music affecting the legibility of speech.
Already an issue, compression makes this much worse.

Digital radio sounds worse than FM.

That should change once analogue TV is finally switched off completely.

It’s just about the only station where compression wouldn’ thave any drawbacks, surely?

I’m sure they do compress R4 already, but possibly not that much. The trouble with lots of compression on speech is it brings up the level of little mouth noises, lip-smacking, breathing etc. It can sound quite horrible if overdone.

That would require some quite advanced processing, much of which isn’t possible in real time (look forward limiting etc).

The original idea with DAB radio was that there would be no compression at source and the playback system would apply compression as needed, for instance in the car but not on the home hifi.

That should change once analogue TV is finally switched off completely.

you’re deluding yourself – the BBC have already dropped bitrates on DAB far below their original recommendations for what was acceptable, which I think was 192kb.

Now you only get R3 at that high a rate sometimes – and why should that be – why shouldn’t some of the live sessions that the other stations do also be at that high a bit rate – is classical superior to everything FFS?

maybe, just maybe, the album sounds exactly as the artists intended.

stw at its finest 😆

More proof that later posters don’t bother to read the preceding thread…