Music Recordings today: Flat and Loud

[CityK]

Although the actual snip that CD Freaks posted in its newsclip could clearly have been more polished, the points raised by the article in question are well taken. Some of the user comments that follow this news story are very interesting.

Source: http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/10109

 

[iGary]

Ya, well, too bad that guy who wrote the article is not a professional audio person.

The word "flat" should be instead "squashed" or "compressed" -- as in dynamically compressed. The word "flat" is normally used to describe the frequency distribution of music. The audio process he describes is called "normalising" audio. It's horrible. Everything is essentially at the same volume level.

By the way, don't always believe that if a vintage or even a recent recording is "Remastered" that it somehow means that it's better. It did for a while, now it's frequently a curse. A lot -- not all, but more than half it seems -- of the remastered stuff these days has the boom boom effect turned up significantly. Pretty poor if you ask me.

 

[skeet]

Sorry iGary, but it's not normalising at all. In fact normalising is a good thing not a bad thing, assuming the bit rate is higher than the intended master. The effect is created by what is colloqially termed loudness maximising and it uses multiband compression. It's done offline and the track is analysed and peak amplitudes are corrected within their "Q slope" only, leaving the rest of the track uneffected. It's really clever and sounds fantastic. The problem is that it sounds it's best on AM radio and it's quite good on FM too, anywhere with a limited dynamic range. On your CD at home it has a dramatic effect and it's quite audible, often adding 6 to 9 db which equates to 2 to 3 time the percieved volume (a lot). But this is not a new concept within the record industry. In fact, the principle of mastering singles for radio and album for the home has been a consistent theme since the seventies. If it's bothering you now then get off the bandwagon, you should have been complaining for thirty years. Besides, the dynamic range of a CD is so vast and it's bit rate into the converters so poor that one could argue that it sounds far superior to all the dynamic bollocks that we've had to put up with since the 80's. Think about it, wide dynamic range means less bits are used for most of the track. I'm glad your happy with 10 bit audio on average, I think it sounds decidedly average. 30 ips dolby s. Just my humble opinion. Anyone for Tea.

 

[Tea]

Ahh, you just already answered the question I was going to ask, Skeet: viz, But haven't studios been making "crappy AM radio mixes" for ... oh ... 30 or 40 years?

What is diferent about the new fashion? (If anything.)

If it any worse than the fashion that took over the entire music biz abut 10 years ago for mixing the bloody snare drum (and a few assorted other non-melodic items) way up there, so that you couldn't just relax and listen to the song properly?

 

[skeet]

You gotta love the musical enphasis of a track is now done by the drummer. Kinda says it all really. How do you know when the drummers stool is level? He dribbles out of both sides of his mouth. Or this was Stings, Whats got three legs and a c**t on top? A drum stool, to which Stewart Copeland replied, What do you throw a drowning Guitarist? His amplifier!
How are you Bone? Still banging that guitar. It was great seeing you play again. The world seemed to make less sense again after reading your lyrics all over. Amen to that!!! People are actually paying me to play now, I wish I'd known all those years ago that to make any money out of music all I really needed was a beer gut and grey hair. Bought a 2.5 Kw bass rig with the proceeds. Tele monster...

 

[Buck]

If you want real classical rock, listen to Vivaldi's Four Seasons -- that must've been the Rock of its day.

 

[Howell]

*rimshot*!

 

[Mercutio]

Actually the popular music of the day was pretty much the same as now. Simple, bawdy songs and very percussive tunes very using unsophisticated instruments.

Anyway the sheer joy of skeet's occasional posts is knowing that what he says is technically English, but unable to decipher meaning from it. skeet is the SF equivalent of James Joyce.

 

[Buck]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[skeet]

OK Mercutio, you've got my interest. Who is James Joyce! Can I feel insulted yet. I'm looking to flame someone big-time. The only difference between playing a gig in this pub and a real one is that nobody has a punch-up. What kind of drinking establishment is this. And do they serve Sherry for the ladies.
If my last post seemed a little cryptic it's only because I fancy the ape. I haven't seen a girl that hairy since that Greek barbecue at South Bells Beach...

 

[Bartender]

What kind of drinking establishment is this.

We have a fine drinking establishment skeeter. If you have any problems with it, we'll be happy to arrange for a punch-up between you and the red-headed simian! We'll generously let the Artillerie-Kommandeur von der Sprachwissenschaft Polizei referee the event and the OT: Polizei can audit the scores. I have a suspicious feeling that you’ll lose regardless of how corrupt the scoring system is, of course that could be my gout acting up again too.

 

[Buck]

Alright, a fight. We haven't any action around here for some time. A round of drinks on me before the entertainment begins!

 

[Bartender]

So what happened, did we scare skeet away?

 

[skeet]

When ever I see a bartender dressed like that I usually leave gracefully, knowing that not all of us are created equal. I haven't seen someone dressed like that since Paddington, 1985. How is the T cell count?

If you were referring to James Joyce the Irish poet, my wife would like a few words with you around the back. She's alot hairier that the simian and has fond memories of her artistic Irish brothers. She doesn't even care about the score, scoring is for people dressed like: well you get the picture.

Buck, I accept your charitable offer of a drink. Your a gentleman and a scholar. Now where did I put my box...

 

[Mercutio]

skeet once again proves my point.

Compare this quote from the first page of Ulysses with one from our own indecipherable Englishman:

Ulysses[/i]]
STATELY, PLUMP BUCK MULLIGAN CAME FROM THE STAIRHEAD, bearing a bowl of lather on which a mirror and a razor lay crossed. A yellow dressinggown, ungirdled, was sustained gently behind him by the mild morning air. He held the bowl aloft and intoned:

INTROIBO AD ALTARE DEI.

Halted, he peered down the dark winding stairs and called out coarsely:

Come up, Kinch! Come up, you fearful jesuit!

Solemnly he came forward and mounted the round gunrest. He faced about and blessed gravely thrice the tower, the surrounding land and the awaking mountains. Then, catching sight of Stephen Dedalus, he bent towards him and made rapid crosses in the air, gurgling in his throat and shaking his head. Stephen Dedalus, displeased and sleepy, leaned his arms on the top of the staircase and looked coldly at the shaking gurgling face that blessed him, equine in its length, and at the light untonsured hair, grained and hued like pale oak.

Buck Mulligan peeped an instant under the mirror and then covered the bowl smartly.

Back to barracks! he said sternly.

He added in a preacher's tone:

For this, O dearly beloved, is the genuine Christine: body and soul and blood and ouns. Slow music, please. Shut your eyes, gents. One moment. A little trouble about those white corpuscles. Silence, all.

He peered sideways up and gave a long slow whistle of call, then paused awhile in rapt attention, his even white teeth glistening here and there with gold points. Chrysostomos. Two strong shrill whistles answered through the calm.

Thanks, old chap, he cried briskly. That will do nicely. Switch off the current, will you?

With this one from skeet:

You gotta love the musical enphasis of a track is now done by the drummer. Kinda says it all really. How do you know when the drummers stool is level? He dribbles out of both sides of his mouth. Or this was Stings, Whats got three legs and a c**t on top? A drum stool, to which Stewart Copeland replied, What do you throw a drowning Guitarist? His amplifier!
How are you Bone? Still banging that guitar. It was great seeing you play again. The world seemed to make less sense again after reading your lyrics all over. Amen to that!!! People are actually paying me to play now, I wish I'd known all those years ago that to make any money out of music all I really needed was a beer gut and grey hair. Bought a 2.5 Kw bass rig with the proceeds. Tele monster...

And, just for purposes of comparison, very possibily the greatest literary challenge in the English Language, here's a snippet from TS Eliot's the Waste Land:

April is the cruelest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
Winter kept us warm, covering
Earth in forgetful snow, feeding
A little life with dried tubers.
Summer surprised us, coming over the Starnbergersee
With a shower of rain; we stopped in the colonnade,
And went on in sunlight, into the Hofgarten,
And drank coffee, and talked for an hour.

... which is staggeringly easy to comprehend, in comparison.

 

[Buck]

My name is not Mulligan, and who said I was plump? Lousy Bartender was spreading rumors about me again!

Oh, and you're welcome for the free drink skeet.

 

[Bartender]

I wasn't around in 1985 let alone in Paddington. Well, at least that is what Buck tells me. Anyway, what is wrong with my attire? A nicely pressed shirt, a decent vest and polished shoes? What's wrong with that?

 

[Buck]

no pants

 

[Bartender]

 

[skeet]

Let me make this as simple as possible. The problem with language is that it assumes shared knowledge. Or, some knowledge...
Bartender, if your not wearing pants, then all is forgiven. Your share something in common with the ape. Smearing yourself with tea isn't one of them.

 

[e_dawg]

Indeed, CityK. Today's trend of maximizing the average volume and heavy use of compression is disturbing. To some of us (reformed) audiophiles, it's relatively old news, but it is important enough that it bears repeating -- thank you.

Besides the understandable inability to recreate the three-dimensional sonic characteristics of the original performance in your own home, by far the biggest difference between live and recorded music IMO is the difference in dynamics. Digital recording and playback -- at least with DVD-A and SACD (and even CD if the right compromises are made along the way) -- was made to recreate these dynamics without that pesky noise floor and saturation problems analog recording entails. For recording engineers to purposely sacrifice dozens of decibels of dynamic range is such a waste of the potential of digital audio.

As for the complaints about the drums being too far forward in the mix, IMO they are supposed to be "relatively" prominent. Not unreasonably so, of course, but since I haven't heard the tracks in question, I can't comment. But nevertheless, the rhythym section is the foundation and is not meant to be tucked away in the background. Perhaps the problem is compression: instead of having sharp beats that have sufficient impact and snap on the peaks, the whole thing is compressed such that impact is lost and replaced by a uniformly loud and thick beat...

 

[Howell]

I have always thought of live rock performances as too loud. And I presume flat to preserve the speaker stacks.

I guess this is why I don't like live rock.

 

[Mercutio]

I suspect part of the reason skeet doesn't like doing multi-channel mixes is that for most types of music, he's used to stereo. The overamplified wail of live rock performances isn't about the melding harmonics of the instruments, it's about the melding harmonics of the stacks of speakers on either side of the stage.

 

[skeet]

Amen to the stacks of speakers Mercutio.

I don't like doing surround sound mixes because they are so tedious. Who mixes with an Atari joystick. Pilot's don't like flying with them either. The extra experience that they bring to a film is miniscule, expensive and usually just background noise and the odd fly over. For the money, most films need to spend my fee on an extra script writer. For cinema, they require seating in the centre of an auditorium and you can be damned sure they don't do it for your DVD's. Your ears or much easier to fool than your sense of injustice at another rubbish script.

e_dawg, I don't understand your post at all. What music are you listening to that requires 96 db+ of dynamic range. Concorde? Have you ever done the sums to figure out how much raw power you need to reproduce that kind of dynamic range. It's into the hundreds of watts for average living room listening levels. I'm guessing you don't have that kind of power and I bet if you do it's really sloppy (unless your running Crown K2's in which case, way to go).
In a way, multiband compression mimics the effects of tape compression. Still used today in virtually all modern music production. If they can't afford the analogue multitrack for the rythmn section then they use a plugin that emulates it. I still mantain that the dynamics of early CD music production are artificial and bear no relationship with their live counterpart, be that modern or classical. (What is the noise floor of a full auditorium - 40db, and if it breaches 110db your ears go into compression) And the CD is the worst way to reproduce it. Most of the dynamic range that you enjoy is less than ten bit. If you can hear the noise floor then you must be able to hear the quantization through the converters. Or do you just like the silence after the music has finished. Not quite the point is it.
Truth is that most people prefer something that sounds loud even if it's not. And if most people want it, then that's probably what we are going to get.

 

[Mercutio]

I'm not much interested in theater sound for film, skeet, although I do enjoy it when present Glass breaking and stuff blowing up only needs to be convincing up to a point.
I love my classical music, though, and there's no comparison between seven channels of audio being used to recreate an auditorium rather than two. Stereo leaves me limp. There is a great joy in being surrounded by, bathing in music, and I just DON'T get that experience in only two channels.

And for the record, I can assure you that I've heard music on some of the nicest speakers and amplifiers money can buy. My brother is a nutcase too.

 

[e_dawg]

skeet,

I don't understand your post at all either

We're not on the same page. Yes, I pointed to the untapped potential of digital, but I'm not saying there is a need for >96 dB of dynamic range.

My original point was why on earth would people take a medium with such potential in terms of frequency response and dynamic range and go to such great lengths to limit the dynamic range to <10 dB on a good day?

I'm not talking recreating concert level volumes in my living room here. I'm talking about letting me hear something that sounds like musicians playing instruments... with feeling. The snap of the drum sticks against the snare. The heavy yet crisp whack of Buddy Rich's kick drum (no I am not that old to have heard Buddy play live). The pluck of the pick on Earl Klugh's nylon guitar strings. The way the musicians change the weight and intensity of each drum hit, each pluck of the string, each note sung according to the phrasing and dynamics of the piece... or depending on how tortured their souls are! Take that away and the music becomes lifeless. And that is what you hear on too many of today's CD's.

 

[skeet]

Mercutio, all I hear is phase cancellation and drifting image. Seven channels of audio defies all the principals of audio physics. You obviously use a better system than me and have a better accoustic environment. No offence, but unless your living room resembles AIR studios then you are getting mush below 500HTZ.
e_dawg, I argue that the medium doesn't have much usable dynamic range and it's frequency response is quite poor with current converters. I'm not alone of course, otherwise SACD would be pointless if CD was acceptable. <10db of dynamic range is reserved for Pop music by the way. Have you ever measured it. I do routinely. Mercutio, tell him how many bits your classical recording masters use to keep up with dolbySR analogue. Or you can use some multiband compression so you can hear the detail of at least 16 bits. You might not like like it but I prefer it to 10 bit audio, and so does just about everybody else. By the way, the dynamic range of Buddy Rich's kick drum is probably 110db. That is concorde country. To compress or splat your CD, that is the question. How much compression is presumably is up to the artist of course. Unless your the artist?

 

[e_dawg]

Yes, I understand what you are saying skeet, and I agree of course compression is necessary, but take any positive to an extreme and it becomes a negative. And yes, I am talking mainly about pop music. But even "less poppy" CD's have more compression than I would like. There is no rule that says you have to compress a 90 dB dynamic range live performance into <20 dB for god's sake! But that happens way too often. I don't have anything to measure dynamic range, but I can at least tell if there is a lot or if there's not!

While the resulting output from most CD sources is less than ideal, they definitely could do a better job of juggling the compromises and go easier on the compression. Not everybody has a severely limited playback system, and it's ridiculous to use the excuse about optimizing playback for FM or a car environment, for god's sake! Why should the rest of us suffer because the people who don't care about sound quality have crappy systems or poor acoustic environments (car)? And even with 10 bits, what is the dynamic range that's available? Something like 60 dB? That's way more than 20-30 dB I hear on many CD's.

Yeah, I listen to SACD and DVD-A when I can, but it is expensive to build a new collection from scratch. And it seems that most of the work put into SACD's and DVD-A's goes towards the 5.1 mix, and the 2 channel is a little disappointing.