I'm sure many here have talked with clients or others regarding their
hypercompressed mix and received comments such as the following:

"The reason it looks like a block of cement is probably because of the
limiting... Pretty much most modern music looks like that. Now, I'm not
saying that it's a good thing, but it just is how it is. The louder is
better attitude. Things almost need to be loud to compete now a days I
guess."

What advice do you normally offer your clients who make such observations?
Obviously if that's what they really, really want, you have to accomodate,
although it's obvious such attitude only serve to reinforce the problem.

"J.C. Scott" wrote in message
m...
I'm sure many here have talked with clients or others regarding their
hypercompressed mix and received comments such as the following:

"The reason it looks like a block of cement is probably because of the
limiting... Pretty much most modern music looks like that. Now, I'm not
saying that it's a good thing, but it just is how it is. The louder is
better attitude. Things almost need to be loud to compete now a days I
guess."

What advice do you normally offer your clients who make such observations?
Obviously if that's what they really, really want, you have to accomodate,
although it's obvious such attitude only serve to reinforce the problem.

Maybe I mispoke. You don't _have_ to accomodate.

In article ,
says...

I'm sure many here have talked with clients or others regarding their
hypercompressed mix and received comments such as the following:

"The reason it looks like a block of cement is probably because of the
limiting... Pretty much most modern music looks like that. Now, I'm not
saying that it's a good thing, but it just is how it is. The louder is
better attitude. Things almost need to be loud to compete now a days I
guess."

What advice do you normally offer your clients who make such observations?
Obviously if that's what they really, really want, you have to accomodate,
although it's obvious such attitude only serve to reinforce the problem.



That assumes that it's a problem. I don't find it to be a problem, rather I
find it to be a solution to masters that don't sound loud and tight. You have
to prove that it's a problem before you can convince me that it needs fixing.
I have seen no credible data thus far which demonstrates that any 'problems'
that occur due to 'hypercompressed mixing' are greater than negligible

one word - dynamics


"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:tUllg.53829$771.3844@edtnps89...
In article ,
says...

I'm sure many here have talked with clients or others regarding their
hypercompressed mix and received comments such as the following:

"The reason it looks like a block of cement is probably because of the
limiting... Pretty much most modern music looks like that. Now, I'm not
saying that it's a good thing, but it just is how it is. The louder is
better attitude. Things almost need to be loud to compete now a days I
guess."

What advice do you normally offer your clients who make such observations?
Obviously if that's what they really, really want, you have to accomodate,
although it's obvious such attitude only serve to reinforce the problem.



That assumes that it's a problem. I don't find it to be a problem, rather
I
find it to be a solution to masters that don't sound loud and tight. You
have
to prove that it's a problem before you can convince me that it needs
fixing.
I have seen no credible data thus far which demonstrates that any
'problems'
that occur due to 'hypercompressed mixing' are greater than negligible

In article ,
says...

one word - dynamics


That one word doesn't constitute credible evidence, and neither would any other
single word. It would at least have to be a series of words arranged to
communicate a coherent statement.


"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:tUllg.53829$771.3844@edtnps89...
In article ,
says...

I'm sure many here have talked with clients or others regarding their
hypercompressed mix and received comments such as the following:

"The reason it looks like a block of cement is probably because of the
limiting... Pretty much most modern music looks like that. Now, I'm not
saying that it's a good thing, but it just is how it is. The louder is
better attitude. Things almost need to be loud to compete now a days I
guess."

What advice do you normally offer your clients who make such observations?
Obviously if that's what they really, really want, you have to accomodate,
although it's obvious such attitude only serve to reinforce the problem.



That assumes that it's a problem. I don't find it to be a problem, rather
I
find it to be a solution to masters that don't sound loud and tight. You
have
to prove that it's a problem before you can convince me that it needs
fixing.
I have seen no credible data thus far which demonstrates that any
'problems'
that occur due to 'hypercompressed mixing' are greater than negligible

(Chevdo) wrote in news:YIolg.69856$JX1.40456
@edtnps82:

one word - dynamics


That one word doesn't constitute credible evidence, and neither
would any other single word.



You have mucho to learn, grasshopper.













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:tUllg.53829$771.3844@edtnps89...
In article ,
says...

I'm sure many here have talked with clients or others regarding their
hypercompressed mix and received comments such as the following:

"The reason it looks like a block of cement is probably because of the
limiting... Pretty much most modern music looks like that. Now, I'm not
saying that it's a good thing, but it just is how it is. The louder is
better attitude. Things almost need to be loud to compete now a days I
guess."

What advice do you normally offer your clients who make such observations?
Obviously if that's what they really, really want, you have to accomodate,
although it's obvious such attitude only serve to reinforce the problem.



You have to prove that it's a problem before you can convince me that
it needs fixing.

Assume it's a problem. I have no interest in convincing you.

"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:YIolg.69856$JX1.40456@edtnps82...
In article ,
says...

one word - dynamics


It would at least have to be a series of words arranged to
communicate a coherent statement.

Prove it.

In article ,
says...

(Chevdo) wrote in news:YIolg.69856$JX1.40456
@edtnps82:

one word - dynamics


That one word doesn't constitute credible evidence, and neither
would any other single word.



You have mucho to learn, grasshopper.



Something tells me you won't be teaching me anything, cockroach.

In article ,
says...


"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:YIolg.69856$JX1.40456@edtnps82...
In article ,
says...

one word - dynamics


It would at least have to be a series of words arranged to
communicate a coherent statement.

Prove it.



I don't think I need to, but you have proven you're just as much of a troll as
the 'dynamics' guy.

In article ,
says...


"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:tUllg.53829$771.3844@edtnps89...
In article ,
says...

I'm sure many here have talked with clients or others regarding their
hypercompressed mix and received comments such as the following:

"The reason it looks like a block of cement is probably because of the
limiting... Pretty much most modern music looks like that. Now, I'm not
saying that it's a good thing, but it just is how it is. The louder is
better attitude. Things almost need to be loud to compete now a days I
guess."

What advice do you normally offer your clients who make such observations?
Obviously if that's what they really, really want, you have to accomodate,
although it's obvious such attitude only serve to reinforce the problem.



You have to prove that it's a problem before you can convince me that
it needs fixing.

Assume it's a problem. I have no interest in convincing you.


And I have no more interest musing about that non-existent problem than I have
interest musing about the problem of godzilla and mothra fighting on the moon
and possibly kicking up enough debris to send deadly stray asteroids hurtling
towards earth.

The actual problem you failed to elucidate but I managed to glean from what you
did say, is that as a member of the anti-loudness cult, you think you have to
do something about 'clients' who aren't members of the anti-loudness cult.
That's your problem, not anyone elses. If you want to work for a living you
should quit the anti-loudness cult, then the problem is solved. If you want to
lose all your clients, remain a member of the anti-loudness cult and start
talking your anti-loudness religious nonsense to them so that they know to fire
you and hire someone less nuts and/or stupid. It's that simple. You're MAKING
the problem. YOU are the problem. If YOU join the anti-loudness cult YOU
sabotage and sacrifice YOUR livelihood. If you DON'T join or remain a member
of the anti-loudness cult then you will not be confronting your clients about
this issue therefore the problem won't exist. It's entirely up to YOU, J.C.
Personally, I don't need to create problems where there aren't any, because I
have enough real problems as it is. Like the problem of being stuck in a world
where everyone I ever have any contact with whatsoever is terribly incompetant
compared to myself.

"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:nurlg.56217$771.34073@edtnps89...
In article ,
says...


"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:YIolg.69856$JX1.40456@edtnps82...
In article ,
says...

one word - dynamics


It would at least have to be a series of words arranged to
communicate a coherent statement.

Prove it.



I don't think I need to

You think? Oxymoron.

"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:XDrlg.56290$771.4161@edtnps89...
In article ,
says...


"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:tUllg.53829$771.3844@edtnps89...
In article ,
says...

I'm sure many here have talked with clients or others regarding their
hypercompressed mix and received comments such as the following:

"The reason it looks like a block of cement is probably because of the
limiting... Pretty much most modern music looks like that. Now, I'm not
saying that it's a good thing, but it just is how it is. The louder is
better attitude. Things almost need to be loud to compete now a days I
guess."

What advice do you normally offer your clients who make such
observations?
Obviously if that's what they really, really want, you have to
accomodate,
although it's obvious such attitude only serve to reinforce the problem.



You have to prove that it's a problem before you can convince me that
it needs fixing.

Assume it's a problem. I have no interest in convincing you.


And I have no more interest musing about that non-existent problem than I
have
interest musing about the problem of godzilla and mothra fighting on the
moon
and possibly kicking up enough debris to send deadly stray asteroids
hurtling
towards earth.

The actual problem you failed to elucidate but I managed to glean from
what you
did say, is that as a member of the anti-loudness cult, you think you have
to
do something about 'clients' who aren't members of the anti-loudness cult.
That's your problem, not anyone elses. If you want to work for a living
you
should quit the anti-loudness cult, then the problem is solved. If you
want to
lose all your clients, remain a member of the anti-loudness cult and start
talking your anti-loudness religious nonsense to them so that they know to
fire
you and hire someone less nuts and/or stupid. It's that simple. You're
MAKING
the problem. YOU are the problem. If YOU join the anti-loudness cult YOU
sabotage and sacrifice YOUR livelihood. If you DON'T join or remain a
member
of the anti-loudness cult then you will not be confronting your clients
about
this issue therefore the problem won't exist. It's entirely up to YOU,
J.C.
Personally, I don't need to create problems where there aren't any,
because I
have enough real problems as it is. Like the problem of being stuck in a
world
where everyone I ever have any contact with whatsoever is terribly
incompetant
compared to myself.

Leave the loudness cult, join the anti-loudness cult and guys like me will
no longer be a problem. It's entirely up to you.

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 10:31:03 GMT, "J.C. Scott"
wrote:

Leave the loudness cult, join the anti-loudness cult and guys like me will
no longer be a problem. It's entirely up to you.

Don't call it anti-loudness; call it pro-music. Much more to the
point, I think.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Chevdo wrote:

Personally, I don't need to create problems where there aren't any,_ because I
have enough real problems as it is_. Like the problem of being stuck in a world
where everyone I ever have any contact with whatsoever is terribly incompetant
compared to myself.

Yes this is a problem, is it _everyone else_ that is wrong?

Music has dynamics as part of its language (pp-ff). Dynamics is
something that the musician/composer uses, while the need to be "loud"
is driven by the broadcast industry, to ensure it's signal is strong,
they sell advertisement based on how many people they reach.Or the A&R
person needs it loud to pitch it's product to the broadcast
industry.Product has loud as part of its marketing.
As a composer, I want to use dynamics as a tool.
Quiet as oppossed to loud, pianissomo (pp) as oppossed to
fortissimo(ff).
this contrast of dynamic sound is a tool that stimulates the listner
and triggers emotions.
Me, I will opt for music while you opt for unenlightened product !!

"J.C. Scott" wrote in
m:

I'm sure many here have talked with clients or others regarding their
hypercompressed mix and received comments such as the following:

"The reason it looks like a block of cement is probably because of the
limiting... Pretty much most modern music looks like that. Now, I'm
not saying that it's a good thing, but it just is how it is. The
louder is better attitude. Things almost need to be loud to compete
now a days I guess."

What advice do you normally offer your clients who make such
observations? Obviously if that's what they really, really want, you
have to accomodate, although it's obvious such attitude only serve to
reinforce the problem.

I explain that there's a finite limit to the loudest sound on a CD. If
you want your CD to be as loud as the next one, I can't make the loudest
part any louder. All I can do is make the quiet parts louder. If the
customer decides that having no dynamic difference between the sections is
a good thing, then out comes the compressor and limiter.

Some people actually want the music to build to a climax. Those don't get
"the block of cement".

Now, wouldn't all this depend on the client? If client wants loudness,
and you just refuse to squash everything, they can go somewhere else.
If you don't care, so long as they're paying you - go ahead and squash
it, after all that's what they want. You can make all the conclusions
you want about everything from composition to psychoacoustics, and make
a great case for dynamics - if the client doesn't care, it seems
illogical to educate them unless that's part of your job. An ear
that's used to a particular sound, in this case one that excludes
dynamics, is difficult to retrain after a certain point, and your logic
just won't be enough to cut it. Sad but true...


Carey Carlan wrote:
"J.C. Scott" wrote in
m:

I'm sure many here have talked with clients or others regarding their
hypercompressed mix and received comments such as the following:

"The reason it looks like a block of cement is probably because of the
limiting... Pretty much most modern music looks like that. Now, I'm
not saying that it's a good thing, but it just is how it is. The
louder is better attitude. Things almost need to be loud to compete
now a days I guess."

What advice do you normally offer your clients who make such
observations? Obviously if that's what they really, really want, you
have to accomodate, although it's obvious such attitude only serve to
reinforce the problem.

I explain that there's a finite limit to the loudest sound on a CD. If
you want your CD to be as loud as the next one, I can't make the loudest
part any louder. All I can do is make the quiet parts louder. If the
customer decides that having no dynamic difference between the sections is
a good thing, then out comes the compressor and limiter.

Some people actually want the music to build to a climax. Those don't get
"the block of cement".

I explain that there's a finite limit to the loudest sound on a CD. If
you want your CD to be as loud as the next one, I can't make the loudest
part any louder. All I can do is make the quiet parts louder. If the
customer decides that having no dynamic difference between the sections is
a good thing, then out comes the compressor and limiter.

Some people actually want the music to build to a climax. Those don't get
"the block of cement".

I hear what you're saying and I agree on the most part, but some music has
no climax... it's just boring crap to begin with... Look guys, it's pretty
obvious that you have to limit the dynamic range somewhat just to account
for the variety of playback devices out there (no you can't listen to very
dynamic music on a jambox, you just don't have the power to playback all of
the dynamic range), so we know that we have to reign in the dynamics to some
degree. How much you have to do this is up to personal taste. Some folks do
this to an extreme degree, some don't. Some do it to the point that it
degrades the audio, some don't. Most of the crappy sound that we hear today
isn't so much hypercompression, but **** poor techniques in general and
really ****ty material that's hypercompressed to make up for a lack of
quality. Hypercompression has been around for a long time, just listen to
old 45's from the fifties... "La Bamba" for example is compressed to hell
and back and distorted as well, way worse than a lot of things out today.
Today's tools are cheap and often fall into the hands of folks that have no
business whatsoever recording anything. That's the real problem here. You
can use today's tools to make a master that is very hot indeed and have a
minimal amount of artifacts, especially if you mix with the hypersompression
in mind... that is if you know what you're doing... some folks don't know
what they're doing... If they want it hot, give it to them hot... if you
know what you're doing, it will still sound reasonable when it's done.

Chevdo wrote:
In article ,
says...

one word - dynamics


That one word doesn't constitute credible evidence, and neither would any other
single word. It would at least have to be a series of words arranged to
communicate a coherent statement.


On the contrary. IMHO, it conveys and communicates the argument quite
coherently, succinctly and cogently...but since you require more than
this to understand the concept here's a little help for you:

Dynamics is the difference between the quietest musical passages and
the loudest...the loudness war kills that...if everything is loud, then
there are no dynamics. Period. Just a continual blast of loud until it
is over...the only quiet moments are in the 2 second between tracks.

Indeed...here's a link to a graphic examples of the damage done by the
"fear" of being the quietest CD in the CD changer:

http://www.prorec.com/prorec/article...256C2E005DAF1C

That's quite a lot to paste, so here the same link as a Tiny URL:

http://tinyurl.com/3jak

Other articles can be found he

http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm

All say the same thing...the loudness war is destroying the Dynamic
range of modern recorded rock and roll (and indeed, other genres are
feeling the effect)...indeed, chopped (clipped) wave forms are now the
norm. Add to this that there is no need for it (most sound reproduction
units offer a control that can make your CD sound louder if you
wish...it is called a volume knob) and it is pushed by ignorant labels
who don't really have a clue about what makes music good.

What is the best argument against the loudness war: One word -
Dynamics.

Hope you get it now, CS

Chevdo,

It's clear, from your many pronouncements, that YOU don't hear the
deleterious effects of too much compression and limiting. Except that
you will admit to "listener fatigue" after a period of time. That
period of time seems to be a lot shorter for most of us than it is for
you. It's entirely possible that your lack of sensitivity in this area
mirrors that of the general population. Just I wouldn't hire Joe Blow
off the streets to run FOH, or master a record, I similarly wouldn't
hire an engineer whose couldn't hear the non-musical artifacts of
excessive compressing and limiting.

I don't know if you ever listen to classical music, but what is
happening in the industry today is as if one took an orchestral score,
and replaced every pianissimo with a fortissimo. The irony of all this,
is that CDs were finally going to free the recording industry of the
dynamic limitations of vinyl and of cassette tapes.

As an example of musical dynamics, listen to Telarc's '70s recording
of Stravinsky's Firebird Suite. If you don't hear how dynamic range is
an integral part of the music, an integral part of the composer's
intention, then you are truly a hopeless case.

But maybe it's not really your fault, Chevdo. Maybe your hearing
aids are defective. Try cochlear implants. That would certainly be an
improvement for you.


-glenn


Chevdo wrote:

The actual problem you failed to elucidate but I managed to glean from what you
did say, is that as a member of the anti-loudness cult, you think you have to
do something about 'clients' who aren't members of the anti-loudness cult.
That's your problem, not anyone elses. If you want to work for a living you
should quit the anti-loudness cult, then the problem is solved. If you want to
lose all your clients, remain a member of the anti-loudness cult and start
talking your anti-loudness religious nonsense to them so that they know to fire
you and hire someone less nuts and/or stupid. It's that simple. You're MAKING
the problem. YOU are the problem. If YOU join the anti-loudness cult YOU
sabotage and sacrifice YOUR livelihood. If you DON'T join or remain a member
of the anti-loudness cult then you will not be confronting your clients about
this issue therefore the problem won't exist. It's entirely up to YOU, J.C.
Personally, I don't need to create problems where there aren't any, because I
have enough real problems as it is. Like the problem of being stuck in a world
where everyone I ever have any contact with whatsoever is terribly incompetant
compared to myself.

All say the same thing...the loudness war is destroying the Dynamic
range of modern recorded rock and roll (and indeed, other genres are
feeling the effect)...indeed, chopped (clipped) wave forms are now the
norm. Add to this that there is no need for it (most sound reproduction
units offer a control that can make your CD sound louder if you
wish...it is called a volume knob) and it is pushed by ignorant labels
who don't really have a clue about what makes music good.

What is the best argument against the loudness war: One word -
Dynamics.

Hope you get it now, CS

Modern rock and roll has dynamics? News to me... :-)

As an example of musical dynamics, listen to Telarc's '70s recording
of Stravinsky's Firebird Suite. If you don't hear how dynamic range is
an integral part of the music, an integral part of the composer's
intention, then you are truly a hopeless case.

Not relevant to the discussion, though... unless of course there is a new
rash of hypercompressed classical recordings that I'm not aware of... :-)

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

Not relevant to the discussion, though... unless of course there is a new
rash of hypercompressed classical recordings that I'm not aware of... :-)

It's not as bad as pop music, but the classical folks are doing it now
too. Some people like to listen to classical music with their iPods
while they're out on their morning run in traffic.

My Jukebox 3 has some settings (called "smart volume") that muck with
the playback dynamics for different listening environments when you
have it turned on - Plane, Train, Car, Late Night. I don't really
understand it, so I don't expect a normal consumer would understand it,
but the concept is good.

If playback devices let you adjust them for the dynamics that suit your
listening situation, we could make recordings that had ideal dynamic
range for "hi fi" listening. Of course this would lead to the users
asking "Why don't they must make the reocrdings sound better so I don't
have to fix every one myself?"

"iliace" wrote in
oups.com:

Now, wouldn't all this depend on the client? If client wants
loudness, and you just refuse to squash everything, they can go
somewhere else. If you don't care, so long as they're paying you - go
ahead and squash it, after all that's what they want. You can make
all the conclusions you want about everything from composition to
psychoacoustics, and make a great case for dynamics - if the client
doesn't care, it seems illogical to educate them unless that's part of
your job. An ear that's used to a particular sound, in this case one
that excludes dynamics, is difficult to retrain after a certain point,
and your logic just won't be enough to cut it. Sad but true...

That's where the "If the customer decides..." part comes in.

I find it easier to reach those who often perform live. They usually
know about not fatiguing the ear of the listener.

Carey Carlan wrote:
"J.C. Scott" wrote in
m:

I'm sure many here have talked with clients or others regarding
their hypercompressed mix and received comments such as the
following:

"The reason it looks like a block of cement is probably because of
the limiting... Pretty much most modern music looks like that. Now,
I'm not saying that it's a good thing, but it just is how it is.
The louder is better attitude. Things almost need to be loud to
compete now a days I guess."

What advice do you normally offer your clients who make such
observations? Obviously if that's what they really, really want,
you have to accomodate, although it's obvious such attitude only
serve to reinforce the problem.

I explain that there's a finite limit to the loudest sound on a CD.
If you want your CD to be as loud as the next one, I can't make the
loudest part any louder. All I can do is make the quiet parts
louder. If the customer decides that having no dynamic difference
between the sections is a good thing, then out comes the compressor
and limiter.

Some people actually want the music to build to a climax. Those
don't get "the block of cement".

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in
.net:

I hear what you're saying and I agree on the most part, but some music
has no climax... it's just boring crap to begin with... Look guys,
it's pretty obvious that you have to limit the dynamic range somewhat
just to account for the variety of playback devices out there (no you
can't listen to very dynamic music on a jambox, you just don't have
the power to playback all of the dynamic range), so we know that we
have to reign in the dynamics to some degree. How much you have to do
this is up to personal taste. Some folks do this to an extreme degree,
some don't.

snip

My strongest argrument in favor of compression is distorted electric
guitar. This instrument gets its sound from overdriving and compression.
Anything recorded with it must get similar compression to stay in balance.

I'm still against hypercompression, but its usually not my call.

Not relevant to the discussion, though... unless of course there is a new
rash of hypercompressed classical recordings that I'm not aware of...
:-)

It's not as bad as pop music, but the classical folks are doing it now
too. Some people like to listen to classical music with their iPods
while they're out on their morning run in traffic.

Wow! I didn't know that. Geez, is nothing sacred?


My Jukebox 3 has some settings (called "smart volume") that muck with
the playback dynamics for different listening environments when you
have it turned on - Plane, Train, Car, Late Night. I don't really
understand it, so I don't expect a normal consumer would understand it,
but the concept is good.

If playback devices let you adjust them for the dynamics that suit your
listening situation, we could make recordings that had ideal dynamic
range for "hi fi" listening. Of course this would lead to the users
asking "Why don't they must make the reocrdings sound better so I don't
have to fix every one myself?"

Good concept, except that I wouldn't want a switch deciding what's done to
my song. Then there's the "our digital tabuflabulator mp3 player/ cellphone
and pda is louder than the competition" ensues :-)

My strongest argrument in favor of compression is distorted electric
guitar. This instrument gets its sound from overdriving and compression.
Anything recorded with it must get similar compression to stay in balance.

I'm still against hypercompression, but its usually not my call.

I hear ya! I don't like it either, but I've been able to do some pretty hot
stuff without it sounded too bad by mixing into the plug-in. Call me crazy,
but if I hear distortion I usually panic... it's means something is broken
:-)

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

Good concept, except that I wouldn't want a switch deciding what's done to
my song.

I don't imagine it's any worse than having a producer or record label
executive deciding what's done with your song. But that only happens
when you're lined up to sell 100,000 copies, not when you're putting
your song up for free downloads to a cell phone. g

Then there's the "our digital tabuflabulator mp3 player/ cellphone
and pda is louder than the competition" ensues :-)

Fortunately, they're still limited by low power designs for long
battery life, so they'll have to develop more efficient earphones to
get much louder.

"Romeo Rondeau" writes:

Not relevant to the discussion, though... unless of course there is a new
rash of hypercompressed classical recordings that I'm not aware of...
:-)

It's not as bad as pop music, but the classical folks are doing it now
too. Some people like to listen to classical music with their iPods
while they're out on their morning run in traffic.

Wow! I didn't know that. Geez, is nothing sacred?

We do mostly classical and acoustic work. In the "basic mastering" we
provide I will put some very gentle compression to get the loudness up,
for a couple of key reasons:

1. I generaly record and mix at 24 bit with 6-10 dB of headroom, so once
the dynamic envelope is known and set in concrete, it makes sense to shift
it up to full scale, or nearly full scale.

2. It never ceases to amaze me how crappy many stereos and listening
environments tend to exist, particularly in the homes of professional
musicians!

While it didn't used to be this way, nowdays it seems as though one can
better take advantage of what reproduction abilities are in a lo-fi system
by going closer to full scale rather than away from it. I'm thinking s/n,
the performance of crappy D-A converters and filters 20-40 dB down and
below, that kind of thing.

That said, the resulting reduction of the dynamic window in our shop is 2,
maybe 4 dB at most.

Pop/rock hypercompression is a bit like some of the empty-intellect
"modern art" paintings of the 1960s -- an entire canvas of one color, or
if really "deep" maybe a one color stripe down the middle. You were an
insensitive moron if you didn't "get it".

It's gratifying that this kind of crap fades over time, and that great
music withstands that time filter (JS Bach, as just one example --
nearly 400 years later and the man's music is just a fresh and genious
as it always was).

Even now, a lot of the hypercomp'd pop/rock stuff has probably already hit
the landfills as some slightly vacant teeniebopper has gotten bored with
a CD and labeled it "so yesterday", flipping it into the garbage can on
the way out to the mall to buy something new.

We'll continue to have a constant turn-over of trash but most of it will
never survive very long. Hypercompression is perhaps a minor symptom of a
much larger cancer on aesthetic, but one that hopefully, with time, will
be kept at bay.

I feel fortunate to have at least a few clients who think "hi-fi" when it
comes to production. They're the reason for the tedious sweat put into
building my kit; to hell with the crap music.

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio

--

It's entirely relevant to a discussion of musical dynamics. I was
making a broader point that Chevdo seems to not understand, and
therefore picked the most obvious example that came to mind in the
moment.

Even in a purely pop recording, SOME dynamic range is essential to
making music. If we applied a similar "more is better" aesthetic to
frequency, as is now typically done with loudness, we'd have the
musicians play all the notes, all the time. The end result would be
noise, not music

I had an acoustic project that I had mixed for a client "mastered" by a
local guy who does a lot of rock stuff. Fortunately, I was able to
talk them out the last 3 or 4 dB worth of squashing. There was a point
where the tone of the instruments started to change for the worse. This
tonal shift was very evident to me, but the mastering guy didn't seem
to hear it, even when I pointed out several examples in a comparative
playback.

There's just way too many deaf guys in the business.

-glenn


Romeo Rondeau wrote:
As an example of musical dynamics, listen to Telarc's '70s recording
of Stravinsky's Firebird Suite. If you don't hear how dynamic range is
an integral part of the music, an integral part of the composer's
intention, then you are truly a hopeless case.

Not relevant to the discussion, though... unless of course there is a new
rash of hypercompressed classical recordings that I'm not aware of... :-)

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
All say the same thing...the loudness war is destroying the Dynamic
range of modern recorded rock and roll (and indeed, other genres are
feeling the effect)...indeed, chopped (clipped) wave forms are now the
norm. Add to this that there is no need for it (most sound reproduction
units offer a control that can make your CD sound louder if you
wish...it is called a volume knob) and it is pushed by ignorant labels
who don't really have a clue about what makes music good.

What is the best argument against the loudness war: One word -
Dynamics.

Hope you get it now, CS

Modern rock and roll has dynamics? News to me... :-)

Touché...and my guess is that you were born in 1972 and began
seriously listening to rock at the height of Disco "the lost sonic
years" in the late 1980's (no disrespect intended) ...otherwise, you'd
have heard the news, read the letter and mailed it to yourself. PEACE
and DyNaMiC Love.

All the best, C[tongue firmly in my cheek]S

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

Good concept, except that I wouldn't want a switch deciding what's done to
my song. Then there's the "our digital tabuflabulator mp3 player/ cellphone
and pda is louder than the competition" ensues :-)

Actually, a switch is a LOT better than ruining the record, because
you have the option of setting the switch to "off". Back in the 60's
and 70's, I didn't have a big problem with loudness contour buttons
that started appearing on audio gear. I didn't generally like what it
did to the music, and I generally didn't use 'em. But I at least had
the option. If that correction had been mastered in, it would have
wrecked countless great recordings.

-glenn

In article .com, "Cyberserf" wrote:

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
All say the same thing...the loudness war is destroying the Dynamic
range of modern recorded rock and roll (and indeed, other genres are
feeling the effect)...indeed, chopped (clipped) wave forms are now the
norm. Add to this that there is no need for it (most sound reproduction
units offer a control that can make your CD sound louder if you
wish...it is called a volume knob) and it is pushed by ignorant labels
who don't really have a clue about what makes music good.

What is the best argument against the loudness war: One word -
Dynamics.

Hope you get it now, CS

Modern rock and roll has dynamics? News to me... :-)

Modern rock has no meaning. 100 years from now modern rock is what
is played then, not now.

Compressed music will not stand the test of time.
greg

Touch=E9...and my guess is that you were born in 1972 and began
seriously listening to rock at the height of Disco "the lost sonic
years" in the late 1980's (no disrespect intended) ...otherwise, you'd
have heard the news, read the letter and mailed it to yourself. PEACE
and DyNaMiC Love.

All the best, C[tongue firmly in my cheek]S

In article , says...

In article .com,
"Cyberserf" wrote:

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
All say the same thing...the loudness war is destroying the Dynamic
range of modern recorded rock and roll (and indeed, other genres are
feeling the effect)...indeed, chopped (clipped) wave forms are now the
norm. Add to this that there is no need for it (most sound reproduction
units offer a control that can make your CD sound louder if you
wish...it is called a volume knob) and it is pushed by ignorant labels
who don't really have a clue about what makes music good.

What is the best argument against the loudness war: One word -
Dynamics.

Hope you get it now, CS

Modern rock and roll has dynamics? News to me... :-)

Modern rock has no meaning. 100 years from now modern rock is what
is played then, not now.

Compressed music will not stand the test of time.


does 'compressed music' have to 'stand the test of time'? That's a ridiculous
statement. What format people will be listening to 100 years from now is not
even imaginable. Compressed music on CDs at 16/44.1 is what people are
listening to today. Masters without compression will always exist and anything
the public wants to buy can be released in the future, including uncompressed
versions of 'compressed music' commercially available today. Just because the
CD in the store is compressed doesn't mean that the master tapes aren't intact.
And furthermore, this also means that any musician or engineer who wants to
hear a non-compressed version of their work can run one off for themselves
without having to deny the public the compressed music they want. It's so
ridiclous the way you people carry on as if a serious problem exists that
doesn't. The typical anti-loudness cultists acts like he is rallying to feed
the third world children and bring world peace.. get over yourselves already.

In article 1hh74dj.1drdc9616kpzswN%see.bottom.of.page.for.la ,
says...

In order to encode loud on a CD you also must encode soft. Only then can
you refer to something as loud on a CD. The loudness comes from the
contrast to soft. Dynamics is a fundamental property of music. Just as
rythm, melody, tempi, harmony etc.



very good point, Lars. In fact, the popularity of the over-compressed mix is
congruent to the popularity of loud/quiet grunge music formula. In fact the
over-compressed mixes accentuates the dynamics of a typical
loud/quiet/loud/quiet grunge formula, as the quiet portions are quiet relative
to the loud portions, so the loud portions sound bombastic and the quiet
portions are easy to hear. Without compression the listener would get annoyed
each time the loud passage kicks in and want to lower the volume, and when the
quiet passage comes in the listener wants to raise the volume. Compression
and/or limiting on the master fixes the mix so that it sounds great to the
listener on the loud portions and the quiet portions. NOBODY is squashing
their mix so extremely that quiet portions and loud portions are the same
amplitude, other than perhaps Merzbow and other 'noise' artists.

geezer wrote:

Chevdo,

It's clear, from your many pronouncements, that YOU don't hear the
deleterious effects of too much compression and limiting.

Glenn,

If you google "Chevdo" and "rec.audio.pro", you'll find you're actually
addressing a student (college, high school... I'm not sure) who gets a kick
out of trolling RAP during summer and Christmas vacation. Since his
demographic is the primary target market for that hypersquashed program
material, his POV is not surprising.

In article .com,

says...

Chevdo,

It's clear, from your many pronouncements, that YOU don't hear the
deleterious effects of too much compression and limiting. Except that
you will admit to "listener fatigue" after a period of time. That
period of time seems to be a lot shorter for most of us than it is for
you. It's entirely possible that your lack of sensitivity in this area
mirrors that of the general population. Just I wouldn't hire Joe Blow
off the streets to run FOH, or master a record, I similarly wouldn't
hire an engineer whose couldn't hear the non-musical artifacts of
excessive compressing and limiting.


That's your problem, not mine. I've already expressed the opinion that A) most
people working in the music industry have worse hearing than the average person who
hasn't spent their lives being exposed to loud music, and B) people with worse than
average hearing make the best engineers since they engineer to the lowest common
denominator rather than engineering to suit the few 'golden ears' in the population.
Conversely, I believe that people with good ears make the best musicians..

By the way, before deciding you know all about me from a single post, I suggest you
read as many posts of mine as you can to this group to ascertain my actual
perspective so that I don't have to keep repeating myself when people like you fail
to keep up with my discourse on topics like this.

OH and format for under 78 columns according to usenet protocol, PLEASE.

In article .com,
says...

It's entirely relevant to a discussion of musical dynamics. I was
making a broader point that Chevdo seems to not understand,

bull****. Don't use my name as an excuse for posting your nonsense. I fully
understand that music 'needs dynamics'. What you don't understand is that
typically compressed commercial CDs are mastered to make the dynamics MORE
pronounced and, thus, enjoyable. You have a fundemental misunderstanding of
what is actually going on in the recording and playback process and,
therefore, what the effect of compressed mixes actually is. It's GOOD for
dynamics, not BAD... and until you figure that out I don't think you'll be
producing very good masters, assuming you produce masters.




and
therefore picked the most obvious example that came to mind in the
moment.

Even in a purely pop recording, SOME dynamic range is essential to
making music. If we applied a similar "more is better" aesthetic to
frequency, as is now typically done with loudness, we'd have the
musicians play all the notes, all the time. The end result would be
noise, not music

I had an acoustic project that I had mixed for a client "mastered" by a
local guy who does a lot of rock stuff. Fortunately, I was able to
talk them out the last 3 or 4 dB worth of squashing. There was a point
where the tone of the instruments started to change for the worse. This
tonal shift was very evident to me, but the mastering guy didn't seem
to hear it, even when I pointed out several examples in a comparative
playback.

There's just way too many deaf guys in the business.

-glenn


Romeo Rondeau wrote:
As an example of musical dynamics, listen to Telarc's '70s recording
of Stravinsky's Firebird Suite. If you don't hear how dynamic range is
an integral part of the music, an integral part of the composer's
intention, then you are truly a hopeless case.

Not relevant to the discussion, though... unless of course there is a new
rash of hypercompressed classical recordings that I'm not aware of... :-)

In article ,
says...

geezer wrote:

Chevdo,

It's clear, from your many pronouncements, that YOU don't hear the
deleterious effects of too much compression and limiting.

Glenn,

If you google "Chevdo" and "rec.audio.pro", you'll find you're actually
addressing a student (college, high school... I'm not sure) who gets a kick
out of trolling RAP during summer and Christmas vacation. Since his
demographic is the primary target market for that hypersquashed program
material, his POV is not surprising.


That's a complete load of ****. Talk about Poisoning the Well...

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


What I am is a 35 year old man who remembers the days when usenet WASN'T
full of morons like you. I've witnessed the entire rise of the usenet
troll-culture over my 15 years of usenet activity. And due to that experience,
I decided to make a concerted effort to make sure I never contribute to it. I
worked HARD to learn how to accurately determine true from false. I know that
most people haven't because most people act the same way I did before I made
the effort to better myself. I am the only person who posts to RAP who is
dedicated to critical thinking, valid argumentation, and
scientifically-derrived evidence over anecdotal evidence. Most of the rest of
you, and you especially, have developed your means of argumentation
evolutionarily, therefore you don't even realize when you're making fallacious
statements. It sure would make my life easier if everyone who communicates via
the internet made a concerted effort to gain a working knowledge of critical
thinking.

In article XiGlg.70866$JX1.6049@edtnps82, says...

In article .com,

says...

Chevdo,

It's clear, from your many pronouncements, that YOU don't hear the
deleterious effects of too much compression and limiting. Except that
you will admit to "listener fatigue" after a period of time. That
period of time seems to be a lot shorter for most of us than it is for
you. It's entirely possible that your lack of sensitivity in this area
mirrors that of the general population. Just I wouldn't hire Joe Blow
off the streets to run FOH, or master a record, I similarly wouldn't
hire an engineer whose couldn't hear the non-musical artifacts of
excessive compressing and limiting.


That's your problem, not mine. I've already expressed the opinion that A)
most
people working in the music industry have worse hearing than the average
person who
hasn't spent their lives being exposed to loud music, and B) people with worse
than
average hearing make the best engineers since they engineer to the lowest
common
denominator rather than engineering to suit the few 'golden ears' in the
population.
Conversely, I believe that people with good ears make the best musicians..


And by the way, I find it hard to believe that everyone doesn't prefer a
compressed mix to a non-compressed mix. That's because no matter how golden
one human's ears are compared to another, all human ears are pretty much
composed of the same structures and operate the same way. It's simply a fact
that human hearing doesn't like to hear something really loud after something
really quiet, it hurts our ears. And when something really loud is followed by
something really quiet, it's hard for our ears to adjust to be able to hear
the quiet part.. and when they do, we're just setting ourselves up for more
pain when the loud part kicks back in. The people who claim that they prefer
hearing non-compressed mixes are simply expressing a delusion. That's why I
find this whole thing so weird. We don't get many people complaining about the
20hz-20,000khz bandwidth of the human hearing. We don't get too many people
complaining that 44.1khz gives us an unacceptable nyquist rate, but why is that
we get all these people insisting that human ears prefer uncompressed mixes
when they simply don't? It's equivelent to claiming that all recorded music
sounds terrible because the nyquist rate of 22khz reduces the bandwidth
unacceptably. Human ears don't hear much over 22khz and human ears don't hear
dynamics well enough that recordings don't need to be compressed. Recordings
need to be compressed to match the dynamics the human ear is capable of
hearing. The dynamic range allowable with 16/44.1 is greater than the dynamic
range the human ear is capable of accurately hearing. And that, folks, is why
compression is placed on master recordings.