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!!!!

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

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?

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

Tocaor wrote:

[...]
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?


It would be much better if it were all distributed uncompressed but with
a compression option built into the players.

This would extremely cheap to include in CD players, car radios and many
other consumer devices which already handle sound in the digital domain.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

In article nvalid lid writes:

It would be much better if it were all distributed uncompressed but with
a compression option built into the players.

There are several problems with this.

- There would be a considerable difference in how it sounds depending
on the player. Of course there's some difference now, and we can't
control the listener's speakers or placement, but there's some
consistency in the sound of a modern CD when moved from system to
system.

- If the compression was adjustable or even selectable by the user
(none, low, medium, high) most wouldn't know what it does and would
just set it so that it was loudest. Remember the Dolby "it mutes
the treble when I turn it on" complaints?

- If it was not adjustable, we'd be no better off than we are now,
and probably worse since this aspect of "mastering" would be
decided upon by the manufacturer of the player rather than someone
who actually has an opportunity to listen to the music before
turning the knobs.

This would extremely cheap to include in CD players, car radios and many
other consumer devices which already handle sound in the digital domain.

These days, a switch is about the most expensive thing that a
manufacturer of consumer equipment can add. And who wants a CD player
with a menu? While the compressor chip might be cheap, controlling it
wouldn't be as cheap as you think. I do recall renting a car once with
a radio that had a compressor that could be switched in by pushing the
"audio" button enough times. But it was a nice, quiet car so the radio
sounded better with the compressor off.


--
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

Mike Rivers wrote:

In article nvalid
lid writes:

It would be much better if it were all distributed uncompressed but with
a compression option built into the players.

There are several problems with this.

- There would be a considerable difference in how it sounds depending
on the player.

Well, yes. - It would sound good on a player without the compression
and bad (which many people seem to like) on a player with the
compression.

At the moment we don't have a choice, it just sounds bad.


- If the compression was adjustable or even selectable by the user
(none, low, medium, high) most wouldn't know what it does and would
just set it so that it was loudest.

Yes again. They would get the nasty noise they deserve (just as they do
now) and wouldn't know any better.


- If it was not adjustable, we'd be no better off than we are now,
and probably worse since this aspect of "mastering" would be
decided upon by the manufacturer of the player rather than someone
who actually has an opportunity to listen to the music before
turning the knobs.

But if the CD producer is ruining it by compressing it to hell, we would
be better off by stopping him and having the opportunity to buy a decent
player so as to hear it properly. (Unless you are saying that we really
ought not to hear what the artiste actually sounds like, in case we
suddenly realise the true worth of some modern performers).


This would extremely cheap to include in CD players, car radios and many
other consumer devices which already handle sound in the digital domain.

These days, a switch is about the most expensive thing that a
manufacturer of consumer equipment can add.

So there would be three types of player:

1) No switch - permanent compression

2) No switch - no compression

3) Switchable (but more expensive).

Sounds like a good marketing opportunity for someone there ...and still
the discerning user would have a no-compression option which he/she
doesn't have at the moment.



--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

In article .invalid lid writes:

It would be much better if it were all distributed uncompressed but with
a compression option built into the players.

There are several problems with this.

- There would be a considerable difference in how it sounds depending
on the player.

Well, yes. - It would sound good on a player without the compression
and bad (which many people seem to like) on a player with the
compression.

That's not what I meant. I meant that not all compressors are the
same. It's likely to sound different on two different players, each
with their own compression engaged. Players sound different because of
other things too, from the power supply to the transport, and all the
components in between, but difference between compressors could be far
greater.

But if the CD producer is ruining it by compressing it to hell, we would
be better off by stopping him and having the opportunity to buy a decent
player so as to hear it properly.

But they'd still strive to make it loud on every player. That's the
way the business works. Until you can convince the general public that
they don't need every disk they buy to be at the same maximum-loud
level, then you won't convince the producers and artists.

So there would be three types of player:

1) No switch - permanent compression

2) No switch - no compression

3) Switchable (but more expensive).

Sounds like a good marketing opportunity for someone there ...and still
the discerning user would have a no-compression option which he/she
doesn't have at the moment.

Any time you give the average consumer a choice of technical options,
the device usually fails in the market. Either that or all the options
get incorporated into all of the devices.


--
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

lid (Adrian Tuddenham) writes:

It would be much better if it were all distributed uncompressed but with
a compression option built into the players.

This would extremely cheap to include in CD players, car radios and many
other consumer devices which already handle sound in the digital domain.

I'd buy it. I listen to a lot of classical music in the car,
and it's a pain to ride gain while driving just to hear the
little tinkly parts.

--
J. Porter Clark

In article writes:

I'd buy it. [compressor] I listen to a lot of classical music in the car,
and it's a pain to ride gain while driving just to hear the
little tinkly parts.

You're just not getting the full effect of the big loud parts. Turn it
up! Support the fight against RAP-spewing SUVs.



--
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 11 Jun 2005 17:40:37 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

You're just not getting the full effect of the big loud parts. Turn it
up! Support the fight against RAP-spewing SUVs.

trouble is, with car noise at what? 60 dB, hearling the loudes arts of
a symphony at 80+ dB with the quietest parts just above the noise
floor puts you into ear damaging range.

Maybe I should wire my extra RNC into my car.

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.

"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.

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.

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?

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."

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

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

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.

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

Mike Rivers wrote:
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.

I think it's also a matter of relative loudness when comparing two
different recordings. Somewhere (perhaps an old issue of Stereo
Review), I heard the advice that if you are auditioning two sets of
speakers, you should adjust the volume somehow so that they play
at the same loudness; otherwise, you will tend to favor the more
efficient speaker. Why? Because, all other things being equal
and the volume being somewhere in the normal listening range,
louder sounds are more stimulating and people like them better!

And, I think the same thing applies to comparing the music on two CDs.
If they play at equal volumes, it's a fair comparison. If not, you
tend to be more interested in the one that's louder. So, it's possible
to stack the deck of musical comparison with a technological trick.
And that's what people do.

Also, this doesn't justify the extermination of dynamic range, but
there is actually one advantage of compressing things within an
inch of their lives: it's easier to listen to them and hear stuff
in environments where there's lots of ambient noise competing with
the music, like in the car. People used to listen to FM (already
compressed like nuts) and cassettes (compressed like nuts because
of its limited dynamic range and because of noise reduction systems)
in the car. Now, they listen to CDs, which have more dynamic range.
But unless you have a Rolls Royce or only listen while sitting in
a parking lot with the engine turned off, dynamic range is not all
that useful in the car. A few car audio systems have some kind
of volume levelling or ambient noise compensation, but many do not.

Maybe the ideal format would contain material with wide dynamic
range and also some kind of subcode that would give parameters
for compression you could turn off and on, depending on whether
you're listening in an ideal environment or you're using the music
to drown out the noise around you. In most cases, you can't make
a recording that's good for both purposes...

- Logan

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.

As I've said elsewhere, MusicMatch (mostly) solves that by storing
normalization info separately from the audio file and making it
optional. Turn it on when shuffling, turn it off and it doesn't get in
the way.

"Joe Kesselman" wrote in message ...
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.

As I've said elsewhere, MusicMatch (mostly) solves that by storing
normalization info separately from the audio file and making it
optional. Turn it on when shuffling, turn it off and it doesn't get in
the way.


Are you saying that there's any new music out there that can
handle being normalized *again* ?!?

;-)


DM

"Joe Kesselman" wrote in message
...
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 the radio stations still do their (often drastic) EQ and compression as
well !


geoff

But the radio stations still do their (often drastic) EQ and compression as
well !

Well, sure. It made their station stand out from the rest of the dial...
until the rest did it too...

Remember, their goal is not to deliver the best sound; it's to make you
hold still long enough for them to hit you with a commercial.

(Though I must admit, I really am tempted to to something equally ugly
to make a set of CDs specifically for listening to in my car, which is a
noisy econobox.)

Joe Kesselman wrote:

Well, sure. It made their station stand out from the rest of the dial...
until the rest did it too...

I just don't get this. When searching the dial, do you stop at songs you
like or do you listen for the loudist song and choose that one?

Who ever came up with this logic?

"Joe Kesselman" wrote in message
...
(Though I must admit, I really am tempted to to something equally ugly
to make a set of CDs specifically for listening to in my car, which is a
noisy econobox.)
If it's pop music, don't bother; they're preconditioned for that very
environment!

"Geoff Wood" wrote in message...

But the radio stations still do their (often drastic) EQ and
compression as well !


That's part of the problem with current mastering techniques, isn't it?
If the station's gear can't really do what it was designed to do, due to
the program material running through it, it can actually sound worse
after broadcast, no?

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.

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?

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!!!!

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!!!!

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!!!!

One of the Sound On Sound guys (I think) did a nifty comparison. He's
a big Rush fan, so he reduced each Rush album to one big stereo
envelope and compared them visually. The results were amazing. While
2112 sounded like crap (what an awful recording of some great music!),
its envelope looked like an audio waveform - crests, troughs, runs.
ie, music.

Then he looked at a recent Rush CD - it was one solid block. Just a
big, long rectangle. I realize that a highly-compressed recording can
resemble a ripply block when squeezed visually, but this damn
recording looked like someone made one long swath across the track
with a goddamn paint roller.

I'm guessing that the current "compress the living **** out of
everything all the way to 0dB" trend was an evolutionary thing. Just
as some early producers "juiced up" their 45's so they would sound
louder on the local malt shop jukebox, today's well-heeled vultures
want to squeeze every bit out of 16/44 so when the stuff is played on
radio or cheezbag CD players, it will woof the woofers and "fill the
room".

Feh. I see no end to it, either. When we start migrating to 24/96
media, they'll just pump the Christ out of that, too. Then we can all
hear even MORE of some sampled hi hat going TSISK TSISK TSISK in our
eardrums. Hooray!

- TR