Music Into Noise: The Destructive Use Of Dynamic Range Compression part 2

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (779 of them)
Haha, note Graham Sutton quote - I told him to get in touch with him.

Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 18 January 2007 10:24 (seventeen years ago) link

why di'int u write it dog?

the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Thursday, 18 January 2007 10:45 (seventeen years ago) link

Dude pitched it before me. Plus it was in the IT section, where I don't have contacts. I saw him asking on the Steve Hoffman forum, fired him off an email, and he rang me for a chat. If I had another angle for writing about it I'd pitch it at Film & Music, but I've pretty much said everything I can at Stylus and doubt they'd be interested in a straight rewrite of something already run elsewhere.

Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 18 January 2007 10:50 (seventeen years ago) link

"He has impeccable credentials, having worked with bands from the Clash and the Smiths back in the 1970s to Madonna, Iron Maiden and the Sugababes today. "

lol factual error.

acrobat (elwisty), Thursday, 18 January 2007 12:10 (seventeen years ago) link

"There's nothing wrong with distorted over-limited CDs per se," says Graham Sutton, a musician with Bark Psychosis and a sound engineer. "It's all aesthetics, after all. But what might suit Whitehouse or Merzbow might not be right for Norah Jones. It's now at the point where CDs cannot get any louder, just more distorted.

well said

milton parker (Jon L), Thursday, 18 January 2007 19:39 (seventeen years ago) link

good article

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

I heart this thread.

sleeve version 2.0 (sleeve testing), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:12 (seventeen years ago) link

the guy we record with calls the sound of over-mastered, over-compressed records "sonic meatloaf"

M@tt He1g3s0n: oh u mad cuz im stylin on u (Matt Helgeson), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:16 (seventeen years ago) link

It's a while since I listened to the Paul Simon album, but Eno produced, meaning dynamics are less important than texture, and it's hardly Keane. That last Keane record - jesus, I can't get over how bad it sounds.

Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 18 January 2007 20:31 (seventeen years ago) link

i read the article earlier today and thought that a lot of the detail had to come from an ilm'r.
keep up the good work Nick, its an important issue methinks despite not totally understanding the science. however, since reading the stylus article i understand why after a few hours with the headphones my ears just feel battered and bruised with newly mastered releases ..

mark e (mark e), Thursday, 18 January 2007 22:24 (seventeen years ago) link

ironically the whitehouse stuff isn't actually that squashed (although in a not too dissimilar vein i have a track by xinlisupreme that is the loudest track i have ever encountered

jimbo (electricsound), Thursday, 18 January 2007 23:24 (seventeen years ago) link

Indie rock tends not to be very compressed thus allowing one with very large speakers to enjoy in depth the frequency response of dull, ironic playing.

I love how the QOTSA CD is totally squashed.

--Compression lover

Grey, Ian (IanBrooklyn), Friday, 19 January 2007 08:01 (seventeen years ago) link

how do you play guitar ironically?

M@tt He1g3s0n: oh u mad cuz im stylin on u (Matt Helgeson), Friday, 19 January 2007 15:36 (seventeen years ago) link

Plenty of indie rock is super compressed. But If You're Feeling Sinister comes to mind as a record that always strikes me with how uncompressed it is. Especially the first track, Stars of Track and Field. If I'm in the car, I can never hear the first 20 seconds or so of that song because it's so quiet.

Steve Go1dberg (Steve Schneeberg), Friday, 19 January 2007 17:21 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm still amazed by how, in modern rock songs, things actually feel like they get quieter during the big choruses, because all the instruments bottleneck into the same space that was previously just verse instrumentation. It's funny -- when things get really squashed, it almost feels like a return to listening to a Victrola, where you can once again hear natural sound kinda fighting against the medium, and your brain has to fill in what it would actually sound like if it weren't squishy and distorted.

nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:07 (seventeen years ago) link

interesting thread, and i generally agree when it comes to music with live instrumentation. whoever mastered the johnny cash "hurt" cover, where it distorts in the middle, needs to be slapped ASAP.

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

Well yeah, the advantage there is that so much hip-hop is made from the get-go as a stitching together of recorded sound, and undie guys in particular have really latched onto making it that really transparent and kind of the point -- cf the way Madlib uses weird downsampled bits and leaves odd digital artifacts hanging around everywhere. That said, my ears do get pretty bothered when a giant kick drum keeps coming in and squashing everything. Especially since in some productions people seem to have set up the attack/decay times on the compressors to make this process sound as awkward as possible -- like there'll be a second where the drum sample has ended, but the rest of the mix still hasn't sprung back out to shape yet.

nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:34 (seventeen years ago) link

all the "s's" on the vocals "momma i'm so sorry" by clipse sound really hissing and digitally...that record is really pushed.

M@tt He1g3s0n: oh u mad cuz im stylin on u (Matt Helgeson), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:37 (seventeen years ago) link

Oh and also, here in the digital home-recording age, things like weird compressor settings and digital clipping are just the new equivalents of lo-fi 4-track tape hiss. When it comes to anything built on a computer at home (including plenty of undie rap), that stuff is often just the artist's doing, weird decisions or mistakes that they've followed through to something that works.

nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:46 (seventeen years ago) link

With regard to rock, my basic position is that it's never sounded good with digital recording/playback. A nuanced stereo sound field for a rock band is never going to sound as good with digital as it did with analog. I think the real reason for the dynamic range compression trend is that it's a strategy for dealing with the problem. I see it as a way of treating rock or rock-related musics more like electronic music. You get loudness, yes, but just as important is the fact that you get this modern digital wall of sound (which, when done well, I think can sound great) so you avoid the unfavorable comparisons with nuanced analog stereo sound fields.

Tim Ellison = NUMBER ONE ADVOCATE OF YOU-KNOW-WHAT ON NU-ILX!!! (Tim Ellison), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:52 (seventeen years ago) link

I mean, I think you can do cool things with nuanced stereo sound fields using digital recording and playback. But I haven't really heard any good strategies for dealing with rock music this way (given the genre's whole history with great sounding analog).

Tim Ellison = NUMBER ONE ADVOCATE OF YOU-KNOW-WHAT ON NU-ILX!!! (Tim Ellison), Friday, 19 January 2007 18:56 (seventeen years ago) link

Stereotypes:

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 know people often get a bit *(£$^"($ when his name is mentioned. but I think jim o'rourke does some nice stuff with digital recordings.

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

George Bob is right, I think. The above differences in approach that digital/analogue generally encourage are far more significant than any perceived differences in sound quality/mixing resolution/etc.

(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 think george bob is right, too.

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

One of the worst examples of this I can think of was the opening song for the most recent James Bond movie; it was supposed to sound all theatrical and huge, but because of the dynamic compression and despite an otherwise brilliant opening sequence the entire theme of the film seemed really canned and unaffecting.

deej.. (deej..), Tuesday, 23 January 2007 17:44 (seventeen years ago) link

four months pass...

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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen years ago) link

six months pass...

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

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

three months pass...

http://turnmeup.org/

Milton Parker, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 22:57 (sixteen years ago) link

five months pass...

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

You waste. You little man.

ℵℜℜℜℜℜℜℜℜℜ℘! (Curt1s Stephens), Wednesday, 29 October 2008 15:57 (fifteen years ago) link

the vinyl vs. CD of "ga ga ga ga ga" by spoon still blows my mind how different that record sounds, i honestly cannot listen to the CD, but it sounds good on vinyl

M@tt He1ges0n, Wednesday, 29 October 2008 16:00 (fifteen years ago) link

Still tempted to pick it up on vinyl.

Sick Mouthy (Scik Mouthy), Wednesday, 29 October 2008 16:09 (fifteen years ago) link

Yeah, it sounds amazing on CD so I'm wondering how much better it'll sound on vinyl.

nate woolls, Wednesday, 29 October 2008 16:14 (fifteen years ago) link

i mean, it's a well produced record....i just think there's so much more space and less of that harsh hi-end on LP

M@tt He1ges0n, Wednesday, 29 October 2008 16:18 (fifteen years ago) link

Going back and listening to A Series Of Sneaks shows up Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga massively; the songs are stronger, arguably, but ASOS is just so much more pleasurable (on CD at least) to listen to.

Sick Mouthy (Scik Mouthy), Wednesday, 29 October 2008 16:20 (fifteen years ago) link

four months pass...

Effortless slip from one sort of "compression" to another midway through that article without any attempt to explain the difference. Kind of expected really.

Michael Jones, Thursday, 5 March 2009 13:19 (fifteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.