I picked up the latest Coldplay CD and I am so disgusted with the audio
quality. There is absolutely no dynamic range and it's painful to listen to
at even a moderate volume. I know I am beating a dead horse here but have we
become a nation of deaf retards? Why do labels insist on making every
release sound like **** now?

This idiotic practice of pumping up recordings to such ridiculous levels has
to some back down to earth. Lots of great music is greating destroyed. I
really don't understand this **** anymore....

Make it stop....please!!!!

wrote in message ups.com...

It could (hopefully) be a passing trend, just like the boost of treble
in the 80's. When technology made it possible to add a lot of treble
people tended to overuse it. Then came a "stabilization" period. There
are a few mastering engineers who refuses the loudness trend, for
examle Bill Inglot and Steve Hoffman. Great sounding records IMO.


With the 'marketing bits' and sample rates ever on the increase, it
would appear that high-end extension will be abused indefinitely.

I wish someone had enough valid data to put forward a proposal
to AES (who *might* be able to influence results) to set a limit to the
RMS values. I just had a record that I was really proud of, squashed
into oblivion by mastering... and what appears to be cheezy mastering
at that. Apparently nothing was done except massive limiting followed
by normalization, but the average RMS is between -6 and -8 dbfs on a
blues trio with vocal. (Essentially a quartet I suppose, due to stacked
rhythm guitars). Ear fatigue sets in after just a few minutes, and there
seems to be a buzzsaw running over everything... massive flat-topped
waves.... but I guess that's just the 'trend', eh?

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

Dana wrote:

I was sorting through all my mp3 stuff and found a few of the "Best 500
So I pop a couple into the audio system in
the den for a listen because I was in my 20's in the 1980's and even
though I'm a keyboard player, the 80's IMHO is the decade we can leave out
of music encyclopedia's.

80's all the same? No more than the 70's or any other decade.

There are some extrodinary albums from the 80's. Songs AND production.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 15:02:19 -0400, "Tocaor"
wrote:

I picked up the latest Coldplay CD and I am so disgusted with the audio
quality. There is absolutely no dynamic range and it's painful to listen to
at even a moderate volume. I know I am beating a dead horse here but have we
become a nation of deaf retards? Why do labels insist on making every
release sound like **** now?

This idiotic practice of pumping up recordings to such ridiculous levels has
to some back down to earth. Lots of great music is greating destroyed. I
really don't understand this **** anymore....

Make it stop....please!!!!


Here's a little something from my perspective as an engineer -

This week for the umpteenth time I've gotten back a mastering job that
is overcompressed, mis-equalized and useless.

The artist decided to go with a particular mastering house from the
moment they decided to do an album, so the credits would look good,
apparently.

I spent a lot of time (and unbilled time) getting subtle details right
for the artist and we get the master back from "XXXXXX" where
"everybody who is successful in this genre goes" and we get a hack
job, smashed into mediocrity. Don't these guys have ears? Why don't
they hear what they are receiving and work WITH the sound instead of
trying to shoehorn the sound into something it's not?

I hear the label work that "XXXXXX" does with other artists and the
masters sound decent, I suppose - what with not knowing what they were
working with in the first place. But I'm not sending that type of a
job. The details are different - there is reverb and dynamics and
things the artist spent two hours deciding on how to place in the mix.
I'm not using their "hit artists" as a mix reference, and I don't
think I should have to.

I'll ask the artist if they know what mastering is in the first place
and to be frank, most don't. All they know is that "everybody who is
successful in this genre goes" to "XXXXXX." I'm starting to think
that they are Mastering Mills, not Houses.

I don't have the budget to fly there and watch, and I give reasonable
notes about what may be a studio anomaly on my end (lows, etc) but
sweet holy Hell are mastering jobs getting ****ty. And not just from
"XXXXX", but "YYYYY" as well.

Unfortunately these mid-level places are famous for the mid-level hits
that come out of the mid-level artists who use them but unless you are
sitting over their shoulders there is a pretty bad standard that they
find to be acceptable.

It may just be my particular situation but frankly I can do a better
master than these places. And that's what I'm doing right now,
"mastering" mixes before I send them so they can't really do anything
else to them. Unfortunately that means I'm emulating the excellent
mastering gear I know they have with my own lesser Protools plugins.

It's my only choice - they are misusing the real gear, so I have to
narrow their window of choices with plugins. I'd rather have a better
job done by them in the first place, but given the smashed roadkill I
get back as a first attempt on their part, it would seem to be
pointless..

(Oops - it turns out that they were only using Protools for the
mastering job! Silly me! I guess we don't rate an analog stage. . .)


Kurt Riemann

In article , Joe Sensor
wrote:

Dana wrote:

I was sorting through all my mp3 stuff and found a few of the "Best 500
So I pop a couple into the audio system in
the den for a listen because I was in my 20's in the 1980's and even
though I'm a keyboard player, the 80's IMHO is the decade we can leave out
of music encyclopedia's.

80's all the same? No more than the 70's or any other decade.

There are some extrodinary albums from the 80's. Songs AND production.

Generalization is always bad.

I do agree that there were some great recordings done in the '80s.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

Sorry for some of the typos in the original post. No matter how much I read
what I just typed I still read it for what I meant in my mind and not what's
on the screen. Silly....

Anyway, I wish labels would release two versions from their top artist so we
can have a choice between a CD with reasonable dynamic range/clarity and the
distorted garbage we are be plagued with now. I bet once people start
realizing how ****y the current trends sound they will want things to back
the other way.

I guy can dream can't he?

Lines: 28
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
X-Trace: bhmkggakljkaanefdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcbokj jkhefjkoogaanepeiphjjefhhdbmabhlocmcpfoklgccdelddf bpfbhpfdfkkgmmobmnhejeihnjjgogkkdhgcopmpdglcckmkbm kngjjlijal
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:11:12 EDT
Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:11:12 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.audio.pro:1178966


On 2005-06-10 said:
. Isn't the lack of dynamic range something to do with the way
transmitters work? I believe that an equal energy signal is better
from a transmission point of view. This is how TV and radio
broadcast their sound - equal energy no matter whether its "loud"
or "quiet". As for being too loud, well that's supposed to be cool.
"Cool" seems to have nothing to do with intelligent thought or
careful consideration, and everything to do with consensus and
appearance. £0.025
True enough, but most broadcasters have their own processing to take
care of this. IN fact it can be proven that stepping on the record
with the overcompression doesn't gain you anything in the broadcast
audio chain. YEt the dumb****s continue even though imperical
evidence shows otherwise. MEthinks you're right, it's supposed to be
"cool" even if it sounds like utter ****.



Richard Webb,
Electric SPider Productions, New Orleans, La.
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--



TUning and timing are not cities in China.

Lines: 23
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
X-Trace: bhmkggakljkaanefdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcbokj jkhefjkoogaanedekajmggfglicjiihlocmcpfoklgccdelddf bpfbhpfdfkkgmmobmnhejeihnjjgogkkdhgcopmpdglcdglkke fihlmgaipk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:11:11 EDT
Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:11:11 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.audio.pro:1178967


On 2005-06-10 (ScottDorsey) said:
If artists want their pop releases to be compressed, that's one
thing. But what I am offended by is when re-releases of older
material are also squashed to hell and beyond.
THis is because we have bean counters running the industry and not
music lovers. Nobody gives a tinker's damn because they can't hear
the difference. IF they think it drives sales that's what they're
after. SHort term profit above all else. IT's the new corporate
ethos.



Richard Webb,
Electric SPider Productions, New Orleans, La.
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--



"Applying computer technology is as simple as
finding the right wrench to pound in the correct screw."

Dana writes:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:43:45 -0500, Joe Sensor wrote:

Dana wrote:

I was sorting through all my mp3 stuff and found a few of the "Best 500
So I pop a couple into the audio system in
the den for a listen because I was in my 20's in the 1980's and even
though I'm a keyboard player, the 80's IMHO is the decade we can leave out
of music encyclopedia's.

80's all the same? No more than the 70's or any other decade.

There are some extrodinary albums from the 80's. Songs AND production.

Yea I know, but OVERALL.... and top 40 pop radio play.
The Linda Ronstadt /Nelson Riddle albums were technically wonderful
sounding.

If you look at the 70;s overall, you will still find the tunes being
played, being used as music in commercials, being lifted for samples etc.
I don't hear much of that happening with 80;s tunes.
They seem to be mostly forgotten.
Maybe we have to wait another 10 years and the cycle will repeat?

I agree with you in general, but there were a few good ones. Journey (most
of their stuff was in the 80s) and Night Ranger come to mind. It seems that
era was a bit more "poppie".
--
% Randy Yates % "I met someone who looks alot like you,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % she does the things you do,
%%% 919-577-9882 % but she is an IBM."
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

I was sitting down with a few friends of mine (we are all 19) to listen
to some music on my DIY system, and also to make some ringtones out of
some of the music (yeah, I know, kids these days...haha), so I was
loading them into Adobe Audition often, and it was amazing how like
Green Day, etc, were like 100% compressed, limited, and normalized and
never changed the entire time.

There was one song that I can't remember that had one dynamic change in
it, like it went silent for just a second that my friend was entranced
with, thought it was the coolest thing in the world.

Then I pulled out some Chesky Records, and Ella Fitzgerald, etc, to
show them what a real song looks like, and it was a huge difference.
Adobe showed large peaks and valleys, and nothing went over the -3 line
that I remember and most was much softer, as to give actual dynamic
range. To say the least, they were amazed

I don't even listen to popular music with my speakers at all, they are
too revealing, and I can't stand how this compressed **** sounds on
them. So loud and so much treble, bleck. Now in my car audio setup,
it sounds great on, because I think the drivers are built for it. Not
very revealing, tweeters with low extension...etc. Not saying that car
audio has to be bad, just saying most of it is lack luster.

In article 0J1qe.21834$ld3.5217@trnddc04 writes:

I wish someone had enough valid data to put forward a proposal
to AES (who *might* be able to influence results) to set a limit to the
RMS values. I just had a record that I was really proud of, squashed
into oblivion by mastering... and what appears to be cheezy mastering
at that.

The AES has no influence on this. SPARS might, but their business is
seeing that recording engineers, producers, and mastering engineers
keep profitably busy. Among the thousand home made CDs that get
mastered every week, most request that their disk be made as loud as
commercial CDs, and the mastering engineer complies and takes their
$500. The others who want dynamic range don't really worry about
whether their CDs get played on the radio, and hope that the people
who buy them will turn up the volume if they want it louder.

The commercial projects spend a lot more in the recording studio and
the mastering lab and can turn out spectacular product if that's what
the producer wants. But most of the time, the producer wants it to
sound like the competition because that's what it will be up against.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Tocaor" wrote in message
...
I picked up the latest Coldplay CD and I am so disgusted with the audio
quality. There is absolutely no dynamic range and it's painful to listen
to
at even a moderate volume. I know I am beating a dead horse here but have
we
become a nation of deaf retards? Why do labels insist on making every
release sound like **** now?

I don't know about deaf, but clearly we've been a nation of retards for
quite awhile.

On 6/9/05 3:46 PM, in article , "Dana"
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:02:19 -0400, Tocaor wrote:

I picked up the latest Coldplay CD and I am so disgusted with the audio
quality. There is absolutely no dynamic range and it's painful to listen to
at even a moderate volume. I know I am beating a dead horse here but have we
become a nation of deaf retards? Why do labels insist on making every
release sound like **** now?

This idiotic practice of pumping up recordings to such ridiculous levels has
to some back down to earth. Lots of great music is greating destroyed. I
really don't understand this **** anymore....

Make it stop....please!!!!

Did you take tehr record back and demand your money refunded and state
Loudly and Clearly thst it SOUNDED BROKEN?

Money attched to clear and concise messages from ****ed-off consumers is all
that will talk here

On 6/9/05 4:34 PM, in article 0J1qe.21834$ld3.5217@trnddc04, "David Morgan
(MAMS)" wrote:


I wish someone had enough valid data to put forward a proposal
to AES (who *might* be able to influence results) to set a limit to the
RMS values.

It exists, it's the film mixing standards. Couple that with (somebody help
me on this next part) a mastering protocol form ?? Sony ?? HDCD ?? Some
standard that, the more you pushed the hypercompression, the more it
restricted the overall level to an equal-loudness compensation by way of
ballancing against the remaining crest-factor ...?

Then there's Bob Katz' Holy Grail of the K-meter system


I just had a record that I was really proud of, squashed
into oblivion by mastering... and what appears to be cheezy mastering
at that. Apparently nothing was done except massive limiting followed
by normalization, but the average RMS is between -6 and -8 dbfs on a
blues trio with vocal. (Essentially a quartet I suppose, due to stacked
rhythm guitars). Ear fatigue sets in after just a few minutes, and there
seems to be a buzzsaw running over everything... massive flat-topped
waves.... but I guess that's just the 'trend', eh?

On 6/9/05 7:24 PM, in article , "Randy Yates"
wrote:

Dana writes:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:43:45 -0500, Joe Sensor wrote:

Dana wrote:

I was sorting through all my mp3 stuff and found a few of the "Best 500
So I pop a couple into the audio system in
the den for a listen because I was in my 20's in the 1980's and even
though I'm a keyboard player, the 80's IMHO is the decade we can leave out
of music encyclopedia's.

80's all the same? No more than the 70's or any other decade.

There are some extrodinary albums from the 80's. Songs AND production.

Yea I know, but OVERALL.... and top 40 pop radio play.
The Linda Ronstadt /Nelson Riddle albums were technically wonderful
sounding.

If you look at the 70;s overall, you will still find the tunes being
played, being used as music in commercials, being lifted for samples etc.
I don't hear much of that happening with 80;s tunes.
They seem to be mostly forgotten.
Maybe we have to wait another 10 years and the cycle will repeat?

I agree with you in general, but there were a few good ones. Journey (most
of their stuff was in the 80s) and Night Ranger come to mind. It seems that
era was a bit more "poppie".

Good grief... Somebody PLEASE second me here with TOTO...??!

Ignoring the later re-re-release best-of's that were agressively
re-mastered, the original albums and the PAST TO PRESENT (or whatever the
first best-of-cum-extras was called) are still my benchmarks for what
rockpop arranging, playing and production is all about.... Not counting
impossible-to-achieve wonders like Steely Dan or Electric Ladyland.

"Jay Kadis" wrote in message news:jay-

Generalization is always bad.

Especially RMS generalisation to -12dB .

geoff

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:24:12 -0400, "Tocaor"
wrote:

Sorry for some of the typos in the original post. No matter how much I read
what I just typed I still read it for what I meant in my mind and not what's
on the screen. Silly....

Anyway, I wish labels would release two versions from their top artist so we
can have a choice between a CD with reasonable dynamic range/clarity and the
distorted garbage we are be plagued with now. I bet once people start
realizing how ****y the current trends sound they will want things to back
the other way.

What band was it (U2?) that got its panties in a wad maybe a year
ago when their songs showed up on P2P BEFORE they released the album?
(the rumor was they did it themselves so the could generate some press
and be "oh so offended" about the whole thing) Were these
"unauthorized" releases pre-mastered mixes? How did they sound
compared to the final product on CD?

I guy can dream can't he?


-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 03:58:45 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

On 6/9/05 3:46 PM, in article , "Dana"
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:02:19 -0400, Tocaor wrote:

I picked up the latest Coldplay CD and I am so disgusted with the audio
quality. There is absolutely no dynamic range and it's painful to listen to
at even a moderate volume. I know I am beating a dead horse here but have we
become a nation of deaf retards? Why do labels insist on making every
release sound like **** now?

This idiotic practice of pumping up recordings to such ridiculous levels has
to some back down to earth. Lots of great music is greating destroyed. I
really don't understand this **** anymore....

Make it stop....please!!!!

Did you take tehr record back and demand your money refunded and state
Loudly and Clearly thst it SOUNDED BROKEN?

I recall in high school a lot of guys would turn up their car
stereos way past the point of clipping. I couldn't imagine doing that
myself (I just wanted an amp and speakers that would go to that volume
and still sound CLEAN), but I imagine people actually liked it that
way. So now they make CD's that sound that way without having to turn
the volume all the way up, and I suspect some people like it.

Money attched to clear and concise messages from ****ed-off consumers is all
that will talk here

You may be right, but I'm cynical enough about most consumers that
I don't see a significant amount of this happening.

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

When kids listen to a lot of the so called music, that the labels are
putting out these days, they think, that it sounds great, because they
don't know any better.
If the people funding the garbage can pay some mastering guy to make it
sound like what is selling, and they think, that it could mean more
money in CD sales, that is what they're going to do.

Like or not, IT'S CALLED CAPITALISM! It isn't about art. It's about
making money.

SSJVCmag wrote:

Good grief... Somebody PLEASE second me here with TOTO...??!

White Sister !

rd

But where's the outrage? ..... I don't hear many artists complaining
about their music being ruined. Do they really care or can they even
tell that it sounds like crap. I know the listening public is OTL these
days.

Another reason I've gone vinyl. CDs sound cruddy already and when you
master them like mowed lawn it's adding insult to injury.

VB

BTW.... Was U2s last album a flatliner? You'd think with their rep.
that they'd care.

"vinyl believer" wrote in message
oups.com...
But where's the outrage? ..... I don't hear many artists complaining
about their music being ruined. Do they really care or can they even
tell that it sounds like crap. I know the listening public is OTL these
days.

Another reason I've gone vinyl. CDs sound cruddy already and when you
master them like mowed lawn it's adding insult to injury.

And LPs just skip if you master them the same way. But the problem is the
mastering, not the medium.

geoff

Geoff Wood Wrote

"But the problem is the mastering, not the medium. "

Well it's both actually. 16/44 digital isn't a great medium, but
flatline mastering is obviously a serious problem for any medium.

But are artists and engineers really doing anything about this
stupidity that is ruining their work?

When are we going to see an article in USA Today asking "IS MUSIC TOO
LOUD?", instead of that 'record your record in your condo' crap.

VB

vinyl believer wrote:
Geoff Wood Wrote

"But the problem is the mastering, not the medium. "

Well it's both actually.

Actually, you're demonstrably wrong. No matter how often we
correct you vinyl believer, you insist in reciting this old
wife's tale. It's like your badge of ignornace, you wear it
proudly!

16/44 digital isn't a great medium,

It's all we need in a distribution media.

but flatline mastering is obviously a serious problem for
any medium.

The point has been made that due to its readily-audible
technical deficiencies, flatline mastering is even more of a
problem for vinyl than the far cleaner and forgiving CD
medium.

But are artists and engineers really doing anything about
this
stupidity that is ruining their work?

It's the current style. It's what they think they need to do
to be heard.

When are we going to see an article in USA Today asking
"IS MUSIC TOO
LOUD?", instead of that 'record your record in your
condo' crap.

Probably about the same time you quit running on and on and
on about your imagined audible failings of 16/44 digital,
vinyl believer.

Tocaor wrote:
I picked up the latest Coldplay CD and I am so disgusted with the audio
quality. There is absolutely no dynamic range and it's painful to listen to
at even a moderate volume. I know I am beating a dead horse here but have we
become a nation of deaf retards? Why do labels insist on making every
release sound like **** now?

This idiotic practice of pumping up recordings to such ridiculous levels has
to some back down to earth. Lots of great music is greating destroyed. I
really don't understand this **** anymore....

Isn't the lack of dynamic range something to do with the way
transmitters work? I believe that an equal energy signal is better from
a transmission point of view. This is how TV and radio broadcast their
sound - equal energy no matter whether its "loud" or "quiet".

As for being too loud, well that's supposed to be cool. "Cool" seems to
have nothing to do with intelligent thought or careful consideration,
and everything to do with consensus and appearance.

£0.025

Chris W

--
The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
But the words of the wise are quiet and few.
---

"Chris Whealy" wrote in message
...

Isn't the lack of dynamic range something to do with the way transmitters
work? I believe that an equal energy signal is better from a transmission
point of view. This is how TV and radio broadcast their sound - equal
energy no matter whether its "loud" or "quiet".


Another strange phenomena is when something is commercially successful, even
if it's crap, the public relate that sound to "commercial/professional". So
even though it sounds much better without it, people don't think it's
professional unless it matches the crap sound of other commercial products.
The same thing happened with Autotune. People relate the screwy phased sound
it gives to professional recordings to the point that people request it on
tracks irrespective of whether there's pitch problems that need correcting
or not.

Isn't the lack of dynamic range something to do with the way
transmitters work?

My understanding is that it's a deliberate attempt to deal with the fact
that, these days, radio is often being listened to in noisy environments
in which a full dynamic range would lose the quieter portions or blast
the louder ones. The fact that an artist _wants_ to have that under
their conrol is being lost in the shuffle.

But where's the outrage? ..... I don't hear many artists complaining
about their music being ruined.

If you've been playing loud rock for a while, can you still tell the
difference? (I'm at least half serious.)

Brian wrote:
Like or not, IT'S CALLED CAPITALISM! It isn't about art. It's about
making money.

"These kids today! How can they possibly listen to that awful noise?"

I think all we can do is hope that the next generation will rebel by
going back to lyrics with meaning and music with complexity...

Joe Kesselman wrote:
Brian wrote:
Like or not, IT'S CALLED CAPITALISM! It isn't about art. It's about
making money.

"These kids today! How can they possibly listen to that awful noise?"

I think all we can do is hope that the next generation will rebel by
going back to lyrics with meaning and music with complexity...

If artists want their pop releases to be compressed, that's one thing.

But what I am offended by is when re-releases of older material are
also squashed to hell and beyond.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Recently purchased new Dave Matthew's CD.
I am unable to listen to it due to the mastering. (Distortion, Fatiguing)
I send my complaints to the artist.



Tocaor wrote:
I picked up the latest Coldplay CD and I am so disgusted with the audio
quality. There is absolutely no dynamic range and it's painful to listen to
at even a moderate volume. I know I am beating a dead horse here but have we
become a nation of deaf retards? Why do labels insist on making every
release sound like **** now?

This idiotic practice of pumping up recordings to such ridiculous levels has
to some back down to earth. Lots of great music is greating destroyed. I
really don't understand this **** anymore....

Make it stop....please!!!!

In article .com,
"vinyl believer" wrote:

[snip]

Another reason I've gone vinyl. CDs sound cruddy already and when you
master them like mowed lawn it's adding insult to injury.


If so much as ONE CD sounds good, you're proven wrong about the 44.1/16 medium.

I have at least one CD that sounds good.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

Think all "sound guys" are going deaf. Almost all pop CDs and live
shows are mixed with way too much bass. I think we know what music
genre to thank for this sorry state of affairs...


On 6/10/2005 9:22 AM, Joe Boerst wrote:
Recently purchased new Dave Matthew's CD.
I am unable to listen to it due to the mastering. (Distortion, Fatiguing)
I send my complaints to the artist.



Tocaor wrote:

I picked up the latest Coldplay CD and I am so disgusted with the
audio quality. There is absolutely no dynamic range and it's painful
to listen to at even a moderate volume. I know I am beating a dead
horse here but have we become a nation of deaf retards? Why do labels
insist on making every release sound like **** now?

This idiotic practice of pumping up recordings to such ridiculous
levels has to some back down to earth. Lots of great music is greating
destroyed. I really don't understand this **** anymore....

Make it stop....please!!!!

Chris Whealy wrote:
Isn't the lack of dynamic range something to do with the way
transmitters work? I believe that an equal energy signal is better from
a transmission point of view. This is how TV and radio broadcast their
sound - equal energy no matter whether its "loud" or "quiet".

Yes, radio stations want to be louder than their neighbors. They don't
want you to tune past them.

In one of the appendices of Bob Katz's book _Mastering Audio_ he shows
how hypercompressed CDs actually trump the intent of broadcast
processors, causing distortion without any perceivable loudness
increase (in comparison to other CDs through the same chain). He
concludes that even if a CD is intended for radio, it should be
mastered with good dynamics; let the broadcasters process it the way
they want.

Since the book was published, has any of this changed? Are newer
boradcast processors better able to deal with the F'ING loud CDs? What
happens if you have a program with a mix of hypercompressed and
non-hypercompressed CDs?

In article writes:

My understanding is that it's a deliberate attempt to deal with the fact
that, these days, radio is often being listened to in noisy environments
in which a full dynamic range would lose the quieter portions or blast
the louder ones.

Nope, it's a matter that people have forgotten that their player has
a volume control, or they think that there's something wrong with
either the player or the media if they actualy have to USE that
control.

Initially the loudness race started with radio program directors.
They'd put a CD in the boom box on their desk and if it wasn't loud
enough, would pass on putting it on the air. Also, people who had a CD
changer or jukebox at home would get annoyed when a CD they selected
wasn't as loud as the last one they listened to, or if they actually
turned up the volume to listen to a quieter CD, that they had to get
up (or find the remote) and adjust the volume again when a louder CD
came up.

Now that a large number of people don't listen to whole CDs, but
rather selections from a variety of CDs set up as a "playlist" it's
even more annoyng when the volume changes from song to song.

So, the solution is just to make them all as loud as they can, since
there's a theoretical limit to that.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:46:42 +0000, Ricky Hunt wrote:

Another strange phenomena is when something is commercially successful,
even if it's crap, the public relate that sound to
"commercial/professional". So even though it sounds much better without
it, people don't think it's professional unless it matches the crap sound
of other commercial products. The same thing happened with Autotune.
People relate the screwy phased sound it gives to professional recordings
to the point that people request it on tracks irrespective of whether
there's pitch problems that need correcting or not.

So, d'yathink that's why us old guys still dig the sound of vinyl
even though we KNOW digital is more accurate?

In article ,
Agent 86 wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:46:42 +0000, Ricky Hunt wrote:

Another strange phenomena is when something is commercially successful,
even if it's crap, the public relate that sound to
"commercial/professional". So even though it sounds much better without
it, people don't think it's professional unless it matches the crap sound
of other commercial products. The same thing happened with Autotune.
People relate the screwy phased sound it gives to professional recordings
to the point that people request it on tracks irrespective of whether
there's pitch problems that need correcting or not.

So, d'yathink that's why us old guys still dig the sound of vinyl
even though we KNOW digital is more accurate?



No. I dig the sound of good music regardless of the delivery medium.
Personally, though, I couldn't wait for a format that didn't degrade as I
listened to it.

-Jay (qualified as an old guy at least to AARP)
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

In article ,
Agent 86 wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:46:42 +0000, Ricky Hunt wrote:

Another strange phenomena is when something is commercially successful,
even if it's crap, the public relate that sound to
"commercial/professional". So even though it sounds much better without
it, people don't think it's professional unless it matches the crap sound
of other commercial products. The same thing happened with Autotune.
People relate the screwy phased sound it gives to professional recordings
to the point that people request it on tracks irrespective of whether
there's pitch problems that need correcting or not.

So, d'yathink that's why us old guys still dig the sound of vinyl
even though we KNOW digital is more accurate?

I think that mastering today is so screwy that anybody who says they
like anything or don't like anything without having the unmastered
signal to compare is foolish. And THAT is scary.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

So, d'yathink that's why us old guys still dig the sound of vinyl
even though we KNOW digital is more accurate?

No. I dig the sound of good music regardless of the delivery medium.

Personally, though, I couldn't wait for a format that didn't degrade as
I
listened to it.

-Jay (qualified as an old guy at least to AARP)

So we switched to a format (16/44 CDs) that was degraged from the
start........ Time to upgrade to at least 24bit. In the meanwhile I
prefer vinyl.

Just arguing for better quality Jay. That's what this thread is about.

But just like the fact that no one is doing anything about this
flatline mastering nightmare, we certainly aren't making any attempt
for higher quality audio. And if we ever did the Arnie's of the world
would be vehemently against it.

VB

"vinyl believer" wrote in message
oups.com...
Geoff Wood Wrote

"But the problem is the mastering, not the medium. "

Well it's both actually. 16/44 digital isn't a great medium, but
flatline mastering is obviously a serious problem for any medium.

Flat line mastering is not a problem for the CD medium. The medium and
digital part of a CD player could not care less what the data or level is.
Some inferior CD players may have problems with audio levels resulting from
data levels approaching full scale.

Just like some cartridges/arms/turntables have more problems tracking high
levels or bass (but waaaaay moreso !)

But are artists and engineers really doing anything about this
stupidity that is ruining their work?

Some are trying, but the battle is with the artists who 'need' to be as
loud/undynamic as everybody else.

geoff