― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 26 May 2006 15:21 (eighteen years ago) link
― Edward III (edward iii), Friday, 26 May 2006 15:46 (eighteen years ago) link
― jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Friday, 26 May 2006 16:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― Eppy (Eppy), Friday, 26 May 2006 16:37 (eighteen years ago) link
― don, Saturday, 27 May 2006 01:17 (eighteen years ago) link
But I’m still troubled by some aspects of the article. First, I think the article sometimes compares apples-to-oranges. Some examples of properly compressed music cited in the article seem to be more subtle and textured to begin with, e.g., the songs on Talk Talk’s “Laughing Stock,” while some examples of over-compressed music cited in the article seem to be less subtle and more blunt, flat and loud to begin with, e.g., songs by the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Queens of the Stone Age. A true apples-to-apples comparison would be two songs in the same genre, one with proper compression and one with over-compression, or – better yet – two versions of one song, with the only difference being that one version is properly compressed and the other version is overly-compressed. I suppose the latter comparison can be done by comparing a song from the original disc with the same song remastered on a reissued version of the disc.
Second, the article wisely notes that being able to hear proper compression in music is akin to being able to taste or smell individual notes in wine. If you’re a connoisseur, you can detect smoke or chocolate or earthy flavors in a given bottle of wine; if you’re not a connoisseur, it can just taste like a big, bold red. Similarly, I have trouble hearing over-compression in songs without a connoisseur’s guidance.
So what are some examples of properly-compressed and overly-compressed current music, and what tells you that the music you cite is properly or overly compressed? Since I like indie-rock, I’d greatly appreciate some examples in that genre.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 23 August 2006 12:08 (seventeen years ago) link
― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Thursday, 18 January 2007 09:45 (seventeen years ago) link
― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 18 January 2007 10:19 (seventeen years ago) link
― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 18 January 2007 10:24 (seventeen years ago) link
― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Thursday, 18 January 2007 10:45 (seventeen years ago) link
― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 18 January 2007 10:50 (seventeen years ago) link
lol factual error.
― acrobat (elwisty), Thursday, 18 January 2007 12:10 (seventeen years ago) link
well said
― milton parker (Jon L), Thursday, 18 January 2007 19:39 (seventeen years ago) link
the anecdote about "this isn't as loud as the new Paul Simon" was just bonkers.
― M@tt He1g3s0n: oh u mad cuz im stylin on u (Matt Helgeson), Thursday, 18 January 2007 19:55 (seventeen years ago) link
― sleeve version 2.0 (sleeve testing), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:12 (seventeen years ago) link
― M@tt He1g3s0n: oh u mad cuz im stylin on u (Matt Helgeson), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:16 (seventeen years ago) link
― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:31 (seventeen years ago) link
― mark e (mark e), Thursday, 18 January 2007 22:24 (seventeen years ago) link
― jimbo (electricsound), Thursday, 18 January 2007 23:24 (seventeen years ago) link
I love how the QOTSA CD is totally squashed.
--Compression lover
― Grey, Ian (IanBrooklyn), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:01 (seventeen years ago) link
― M@tt He1g3s0n: oh u mad cuz im stylin on u (Matt Helgeson), Friday, 19 January 2007 15:36 (seventeen years ago) link
― Steve Go1dberg (Steve Schneeberg), Friday, 19 January 2007 17:21 (seventeen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:07 (seventeen years ago) link
BUT over-compression kinda rules when it comes to hip-hop. madlib goes crazy on the compressors, to the point where the bass drum just cuts everything else out of the mix, but in his case it totally works as an aesthetic. same with jay dee's donuts and people flipped on that.
― nicenick (nicenick), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:17 (seventeen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:34 (seventeen years ago) link
― M@tt He1g3s0n: oh u mad cuz im stylin on u (Matt Helgeson), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:37 (seventeen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:46 (seventeen years ago) link
― Tim Ellison = NUMBER ONE ADVOCATE OF YOU-KNOW-WHAT ON NU-ILX!!! (Tim Ellison), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:52 (seventeen years ago) link
― Tim Ellison = NUMBER ONE ADVOCATE OF YOU-KNOW-WHAT ON NU-ILX!!! (Tim Ellison), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:56 (seventeen years ago) link
Analogue:
- More tendency to record instruments together, get the mix right before comitting to tape.
- Low noise recording. Noise being both aural and visual.
- More emphasis placed on what goes in!
Digital:
- Record a million different versions in a million different takes. Recordings treated as source material rather than performances.
- Lots of distractions. Operating systems, screens, the hum and whirr of a computer. (this is just my experience, but a poor understanding of signal chains. like how to best get a mic into a computer using available resources)
- More emphasis on fucking with it once its in there.
However, I don't think these factors are dependent on whether you are using digital or analgue recording gear. Its more about the approach of a producer. You can use traditional analogue approaches using digital gear and get the same the results.
― george bob (george bob), Tuesday, 23 January 2007 12:21 (seventeen years ago) link
i'm thinking of recent loose fur and some of his own stuff. very clean, seperated recordings where stuff has obviously been re-jigged, and fucked around with. he seems to strip the source material of any life and create a new ambience/soundworld when re-combining sounds. i remember people hating the drums that sound like they've been recorded in a cardboard box thing, but i love that sound. its very fake, but when done sympathetically can really re-enforce the song.
― george bob (george bob), Tuesday, 23 January 2007 12:30 (seventeen years ago) link
(I know I comp vocals like nobody's business with hard-disk recording but just aim for one good, complete performance with tape).
― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Tuesday, 23 January 2007 13:12 (seventeen years ago) link
I know I comp vocals like nobody's business with hard-disk recording
Oh yes.
― Steve Go1dberg (Steve Schneeberg), Tuesday, 23 January 2007 17:43 (seventeen years ago) link
― deej.. (deej..), Tuesday, 23 January 2007 17:44 (seventeen years ago) link
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/06/for_editors_is_music_too_loud.html
i hate people like this.
― titchyschneiderMk2, Wednesday, 6 June 2007 14:59 (seventeen years ago) link
she has written an article to declare her ignorance in being unable to tell the difference between new dynamically-compressed recordings and old ones.
WAHT'S NOT TO LIKE?
― blueski, Wednesday, 6 June 2007 15:02 (seventeen years ago) link
the way shes boiled it down to the old bollocks old farts vs youngsters today argument. and all for the sake of having an opinion (at least im guessing shes just being disengenuous and knows the deal, although worse, she might actually not).
― titchyschneiderMk2, Wednesday, 6 June 2007 15:07 (seventeen years ago) link
has been discussed on this thread: Music Into Noise: The Destructive Use Of Dynamic Range Compression
― Curt1s Stephens, Wednesday, 6 June 2007 15:19 (seventeen years ago) link
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity
― titchyschneiderMk2, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 17:39 (sixteen years ago) link
funny, I was thinking about this thread when I read the RS article last week.
http://www.irdial.com/scum.htm
― Display Name, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 19:17 (sixteen years ago) link
That's a rubbish article on the Irdial site - look, look, Sony are now agreeing with us that CD is crap! Yes, because they're trying to sell a new format, you divs.
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 3 January 2008 00:00 (sixteen years ago) link
haha it also rails against 44.1 PCM and calls it unlistenable, then encourages people to illegally download (I assume) MP3s, as if they sounded any better.
― sleeve, Thursday, 3 January 2008 00:22 (sixteen years ago) link
― Scik Mouthy, Thursday, 3 January 2008 08:13 (sixteen years ago) link
Hahaha, someone beat me to it!
― Scik Mouthy, Thursday, 3 January 2008 08:14 (sixteen years ago) link
The answer to this and the post about Virgin and other record stores closing is the same: Ban all iPods, iPhones and similar!
― Geir Hongro, Thursday, 3 January 2008 10:51 (sixteen years ago) link
geir OTM
― titchyschneiderMk2, Thursday, 3 January 2008 11:47 (sixteen years ago) link
Burn down churches and gas Jews while you're at it?
― Scik Mouthy, Thursday, 3 January 2008 11:48 (sixteen years ago) link
http://turnmeup.org/
― Milton Parker, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:57 (sixteen years ago) link
― Geir Hongro, Wednesday, 29 October 2008 15:36 (fifteen years ago) link
That's ancient, Geir, and been posted before.
I also think you don't actually understand this phenomenon AT ALL or you wouldn't be so fucking dumbstruck by the likes of Coldplay. You LIKE compressed, shiny, smooth, undynamic music. You fucking love it.
― Sick Mouthy (Scik Mouthy), Wednesday, 29 October 2008 15:56 (fifteen years ago) link