what is CD compression? and how does it damage music?

[admin_exported]

I`ve heard snippites about record companys artificaly boosting volume levels and applying compression on most modern CD`s whats does this mean excatly and how does it affect the recording?

In fact I was listening to the killers sams town the other day and it sounded way to bright and upfront is this an example of this?

 

[the record spot]

For more information over and above what anyone is going to add in here, ask this question at the Steve Hoffman forum. He's a near legendary mastering engineer and his site's forum is very popular. Plenty of thoughts, opinions and advice there, not only on the subject you bring up, but on some of the best examples you can find for your preferred music (mostly rock, but it's all catered for). Highly recommended.

 

[hammill]

A lot of music has very quiet bits and very loud bits - you will hear talk of fthe dynamic range, the ratio between the quietest and loudest sound. In noisy environments (cars, public transport etc) it is difficult to listen to music with a large dynamic range because if the volume is high enough to hear the quiet bits, the loud bits are deafening. The average radio also does not cope well with dynamic music. Because (sadly) most people listen to music in the environments described above, record producers/masterers have taken to flattening the dynamics, making the quiet bits louder and the loud bits quieter. This makes music that sounds better in noisy environments and terrible elsewhere.

 

[jc.com]

hammill:A lot of music has very quiet bits and very loud bits - you will hear talk of fthe dynamic range, the ratio between the quietest and loudest sound. In noisy environments (cars, public transport etc) it is difficult to listen to music with a large dynamic range because if the volume is high enough to hear the quiet bits, the loud bits are deafening. The average radio also does not cope well with dynamic music. Because (sadly) most people listen to music in the environments described above, record producers/masterers have taken to flattening the dynamics, making the quiet bits louder and the loud bits quieter. This makes music that sounds better in noisy environments and terrible elsewhere.

www.turnmeup.org

 

[RCduck7]

hammill:A lot of music has very quiet bits and very loud bits - you will hear talk of fthe dynamic range, the ratio between the quietest and loudest sound. In noisy environments (cars, public transport etc) it is difficult to listen to music with a large dynamic range because if the volume is high enough to hear the quiet bits, the loud bits are deafening. The average radio also does not cope well with dynamic music. Because (sadly) most people listen to music in the environments described above, record producers/masterers have taken to flattening the dynamics, making the quiet bits louder and the loud bits quieter. This makes music that sounds better in noisy environments and terrible elsewhere.

I know about this to, it's like knowing a nightmare is gonna happen to your beloved hifi when you go to sleep. I hope HiFi will be on a revival but it's unlikely. Only then studios would stop this nonsense. Can't they bring out specific recordings for radiostations so people wouldn't have to buy this sh$t?

 

[The_Lhc]

RCduck7:Can't they bring out specific recordings for radiostations so people wouldn't have to buy this sh$t?

There shouldn't be any need to, broadcasters are quite capable of applying their own compression.

 

[Anonymous]

Try REM "Adventures in Hifi" - the mix sucks. Then try one of REM's classics from the early / mid 90s.

 

[chebby]

the_lhc:
RCduck7:Can't they bring out specific recordings for radiostations so people wouldn't have to buy this sh$t?

There shouldn't be any need to, broadcasters are quite capable of applying their own compression.

Quite right. And that sounds pretty awful too. Even on a small portable radio.

So how come in 30 years of Walkmans, ghetto blasters, personal CD players etc. (and 80 years of radios of all sizes and shapes) companies have not felt the need to massacre all the subtlety and dynamics out of music before?

Why is this generation throwing away 100+ years of advances in music recording/replay technology?

I think it must be because there too few decently trained technicians coming into the industry any more, and as the 'old guard' retire they are replaced by cheap idiots (or chimps) who have neither the knowledge nor the will, or the status to stand up to the anodyne 'suits' who run these corporations and don't have the guts or professional pride to insist on being associated with a quality product.

Add to this the fact that nowadays there are thousands less venues in which to hear live music (compared to 20 or 30 years ago) and that new bands prefer to debut on 'Myspace' rather than the hard work of doing gigs (if they had anywhere left they could gig). Given all this how can bands or audiences know what live music sounds like? Why should they even care?

Presumably the same 'lowest common denominator' ethos will hit movie production standards pretty soon, given how many people are 'consuming' them on laptop screens, televisions and iPhone screens.

 

[Anonymous]

chebby:the_lhc:

RCduck7:Can't they bring out specific recordings for radiostations so people wouldn't have to buy this sh$t?

There shouldn't be any need to, broadcasters are quite capable of applying their own compression.

Quite right. And that sounds pretty awful too. Even on a small portable radio.

So how come in 30 years of Walkmans, ghetto blasters, personal CD players etc. (and 80 years of radios of all sizes and shapes) companies have not felt the need to massacre all the subtlety and dynamics out of music before?

Why is this generation throwing away 100+ years of advances in music recording/replay technology?

I think it must be because there too few decently trained technicians coming into the industry any more, and as the 'old guard' retire they are replaced by cheap idiots (or chimps) who have neither the knowledge nor the will, or the status to stand up to the anodyne 'suits' who run these corporations and don't have the guts or professional pride to insist on being associated with a quality product.

Add to this the fact that nowadays there are thousands less venues in which to hear live music (compared to 20 or 30 years ago) and that new bands prefer to debut on 'Myspace' rather than the hard work of doing gigs (if they had anywhere left they could gig). Given all this how can bands or audiences know what live music sounds like? Why should they even care?

Presumably the same 'lowest common denominator' ethos will hit movies pretty soon given how many are 'consumed' on laptop screens, televisions and iPhone screens.

And yet the suits wonder why CD sales are falling year on year. Once we've replaced all our Zeppelin, Floyd, whatever, what else are we going to buy?

 

[RCduck7]

It's like how more popular the artist (mostly USA artistist) the more rubbish the recording is.

In Belgium where i live studios seem to mix rather very good judging from the CD's i bought that were recorded there.

I'm not much into dutch music but some songs like from "Bart Peeters" , "Allemaal door jou" for instance sound like he is singing in your room.

Very impresive what a good recording can do, it tend to sound good on every system.

 

[Anonymous]

As mentioned, go through a artist that has a decent span of time say 20 years and listen how much louder the later records are.

Dynamic range is a serious issue.

 

[Xanderzdad]

For a demonstration of true dynamic music try "Seldom Seen Kid" by ELBOW. They firmly support the benefits of non compressed music.

The website TurnMeUp.org explains it really well - essentially record companies make all parts of the recording louder so it is 'more hearable' (sic) on the radio or in a club - but at the expense of dynamics.

 

[Anonymous]

Xanderzdad:
For a demonstration of true dynamic music try "Seldom Seen Kid" by ELBOW.

I was interested to see mention of turnmeup in the sleeve notes, but disappointed when actually listening to hear compression still evident. OK it is better than say The Killers (love their music, hate their mastering) but the Elbow album is still compressed. I think that Kings of Leon - Only by the Night has a better dynamic range. Better still try some Bat for Lashes. Seldom Seen Kid still doesn't quite have the euphoric climaxes it should have, they are still squashed. I've also noticed on this album and others that the singles that are on the album are worse than the other tracks with more compression.

It isn't necessarily down to poor engineers but rather the record company execs breathing down their necks imploring them to make it louder, no louder, LOUDER!!! The problem is well known in the industry (it happens in cinema too) and the Audio Engineering Society amongst others have been campaigning against it. There's a paper somewhere on how compression increases cognitive load and listener fatigue. Dolby are even in on the act with Dolby Volume processing in a TV or AV receiver specifically designed to reduce the volume of those painful loudness-maximised commercial breaks on TV.

Turn of the century tech has brought us perceptual encoding (mp3 et al), lookahead limiting / loudness maximising, autotune and lots-of-channels-but-low-bitrates digital radio and TV. High Fidelity seems to have reached a new low.

 

[Tonestar1]

I love Arcade Fire and have been to see them a few times however i rarely listen to it via my hi-fi as it sounds absolutely awful. It's sad that I can only listen to one of my favourite bands of recent years via ipod.

Have to second the vote for the the seldom seen kid, I think it sounds absolutely fantastic as does the live at abbey road version. I also think in rainbows sound brilliant though my ears may be slighty rose tinted due to my radiohead obsession lol

 

[Tonestar1]

Also forgot to mention Davy Gilmour "Live in Gdansk", sounds sublime.

 

[the record spot]

Pink Floyd's "Meddle" - Japanese/UK black face EMI CD, Genesis "A Trick of the Tail" first edition, or US Atco 38102-1, also stunning. Very dynamic, lots of space in the recording and good senses of placement for the instruments too.

 

[Anonymous]

I more in to electronica/dance but iIlistened to the the Beatles no 1`s album and it sounded sublime. were as like I mentiond at the beginning the killers sounded terrible it was brash really tiring to listen too.

just a thought on some of the DVD players I`ve owned there was always an option to control the dynamic range to lower the differnce between quite and loud bits for say late night viewing (as described in the manual in fact) so this begs the question why does this have to be done at the mastering of the CD at all?

If compression helps cheap micro systems and radios sound better then surly it should be just a case of pushing a button on the remote/front panel to toggle it on or off. that way everyone's happy.