LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  July 2007

ARSCLIST July 2007

Subject:

Fw: [ARSCLIST] Why new CDs sound worse

From:

Dick Spottswood <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:51:46 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (563 lines)

What a good treatise!

I remember hearing that compressed pumping sound on a DC-area country 
station in 1980;  even the anouncers sounded like that.  It drove me nuts 
but my brother (who liked the station) said he couldn't hear what I was 
talking about.   As music becomes more industrialized it becomes less 
musical, but that's nothing new.

Dick


----- Forwarded by Dick Spottswood/dick/AmericanU on 07/11/2007 09:46 AM 
-----

Matthew Barton <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
07/11/2007 08:59 AM
Please respond to
Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>


To
[log in to unmask]
cc

Subject
Re: [ARSCLIST] Why new CDs sound worse






Very interesting. That X album discussed here was actually an analog 
recording released on vinyl in about 1980 or 1981. I wonder how the vinyl 
compares to the different CD editions mentioned.

Matthew Barton
MBRS
The Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20540-4610
202-707-5508
email: [log in to unmask]

>>> David Lennick <[log in to unmask]> 7/10/2007 6:26:39 PM >>>
This isn't new..the following (long, but interesting) came across my 
screen 
almost a year ago.

Everything Louder Than Everything Else : Have the loudness wars reached 
their
final battle?

      By Joe Gross <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
      Wednesday, September 27, 2006
      "You listen to these modern records, they're atrocious, they have 
sound
all over them. There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing,
      just like - static."
      - Bob Dylan in Rolling Stone magazine
      The ranting of a cranky old man? Perhaps.
      One man's opinion? Hardly.
      In August, an open letter from a music industry executive on the 
state of
commercial compact disc mastering and manufacturing was sent to
      an industry tip sheet/e-mail list run by a music pundit named Bob 
Lefsetz.

      The letter was written by Angelo Montrone, a vice president for A&R 
(the
folks who scout and sign music acts) for One Haven Music, a
      Sony Music company.
      "There's something . . . sinister in audio that is causing our 
listeners
fatigue and even pain while trying to enjoy their favorite music. It has
      been propagated by A&R departments for the last eight years: The 
complete
abuse of compression in mastering (forced on the mastering
      engineers against their will and better judgment)."
      This compression thing has been a topic of discussion among 
audiophiles
and music fans for nearly a decade. But hearing a music industry
      executive cop to it was pretty unusual.
      The letter was almost immediately reprinted online in audio 
discussion
forums.
      "The mistaken belief that a 'super loud' record will sound better 
and
magically turn a song into a hit has caused most major label releases in 
the
      past eight years to be an aural assault on the listener," Montrone's
letter continued. "Have you ever heard one of those test tones on TV when
      the station is off the air? Notice how it becomes painfully annoying 
in a
very short time? That's essentially what you do to a song when you
      super compress it. You eliminate all dynamics."
      For those already confused, Montrone was essentially saying that 
there are
millions of copies of CDs being released that are physically
      exhausting listeners, most of whom probably don't know why their 
ears and
brains are feeling worn out.
      He continued, citing an album that proved very popular with 
Austinites.
      "Just to prove that the 'super loud' record has no correlation to 
actual
sales, when we mastered the first Los Lonely Boys record I went to the
      session and specifically told our mastering engineer NOT to make 
this a
loud record. Could it be that a record that actually had dynamic range
      could compete? Two and a half million records and a year of constant
airplay of 'Heaven' confirmed my suspicion. Loud records are for the
      birds."
      Loud records? Can't you just turn it down? Well, yes and no.
      Let's say you go to the store to buy a CD, a brand-new CD of a 
popular
rock band. The group is your favorite, you've been looking forward
      to this CD for some time. You have the band's other recordings, 
you've
seen them live, perhaps you've even heard the new songs once or
      twice at a show.
      You buy the CD. You take it home and throw it in the CD player. You
couldn't be more excited as it starts to play.
      But something weird happens as you listen to it. You like the songs, 
but
you don't really want to listen to it for very long and you're not
      entirely sure why. You take it off. A few minutes, later you put it 
back
on. Same thing happens: You like the music, but you still want to take
      the CD off. It's more than a little weird.
      Condolences. You are officially a casualty of the loudness wars, the
ongoing competition among bands, labels and A&R folks to make
      ever-louder albums.
      * *

      Artists, recording engineers and record companies have been trying 
to make
the loudest possible record since the dawn of 78 rpm technology
      back in the early 20th century.
      When 33 1/3 rpm and 45 rpm became the industry standard, engineers 
strove
to make those records as loud as possible as well, often using
      something called compression during the mastering stage.
      Compression means squeezing the dynamic range of an audio signal, 
usually
to boost the perceived volume of a song or performance.
      Compression works on recorded music the way MSG works on food: It 
makes
everything sound more more. Used with discretion in the
      recording stage (and even in the mastering stage) it's an invaluable 
tool
for recording engineers.
      The idea was the greater the perceived volume of the record, the 
more
attractive the sound would be to the listener. Which meant more
      attractive to potential DJs, which meant more airplay, more exposure 
and
more sales of the record.
      But there were literal physical limitations to this process when 
vinyl was
the primary recording medium - the music's dynamic range was
      naturally restricted by the medium itself. During mastering, you 
could
only compress so far; if the sounds were too extreme, the needle would
      pop out of the groove.
      With the advent of compact disc technology in the early 1980s, 
almost all
of this went out the window, as CDs lacked the physical
      limitations of vinyl.
      In theory, this was a good thing. The dynamic range of CDs was far 
larger
than vinyl, and could closer replicate the highs and lows of actual
      performance. But something else happened.
      For the past 10 or so years, artists and record companies have been
increasing the overall loudness of pop and rock albums, using ever
      increasing degrees of compression during mastering, altering the
properties of the music being recorded. Quiet sounds and loud sounds are 
now
      squashed together, decreasing the recording's dynamic range, raising 
the
average loudness as much as possible.
      As Jerry Tubb at Austin's Terra Nova Mastering puts it, "Listening 
to
something that's mastered too hot is like sitting in the front row at the
      movies. All the images are in your face."
      This is why the reissued X album 'Los Angeles' (see story at right) 
sounds
louder at the same volume as the old version, why you turn the
      2005 X album down and still hear music, parts that are supposed to 
be
quieter and louder, up front and buried in the mix, at the same time.
      For some of you, this difference might be hard to notice at first.
Consider yourselves lucky. For some of us, hearing this sort of mastering 
is
      like seeing the goblet between two faces in that classic optical 
illusion
- once you perceive it, you can't unperceive it. Soon, it's all you can 
see
      - or hear.
      * *

      Erik Wofford is a producer and mastering engineer in Austin at 
Cacophony
Recorders. He's worked on albums by such local bands as
      Explosions in the Sky, Zykos and Voxtrot, and finds the loudness 
wars
exhausting to deal with.
      "Over-compressing stuff gives everything a flatness," he says. "If 
loud
sounds are the same as quiet sounds, you've destroyed any excitement
      or natural dynamics that the band creates."
      We're sitting with Wofford in Bruce Robison's Premium Recording 
Service
studio, listening to various CDs old and new, running them though
      the ProTools computer software and looking at their relative 
loudness. The
studio has a woody, '70s vibe. You can totally see Fleetwood Mac
      recording here (which seems fitting for a man related to the Dixie
Chicks). It seems a weirdly inappropriate place to talk about the 
limitations
      of modern pop music.
      We're looking at the wave forms generated by a number of modern 
albums.
Sound waves should look like what they're called: waves, with
      sharp peaks and valleys. But the music we're looking at is all peak. 
It's
like looking at a butte or a brick.
      "These square waves are a very unnatural occurrence," Wofford says. 
"It
sounds wrong to the ear. You can't hear detail."
      There are all sorts of metrics usable to measure loudness, but the 
Root
Mean Squared (RMS) number is a reasonably useful one. It's a measure
      of average sound level. A smaller RMS number means higher average 
level;
i.e., minus 10 dB RMS is 2 dB louder than minus 12 dB. The
      maximum RMS value is zero.
      Here's the weird part. In the early to late '80s, most pop records
averaged around minus 15. (The peak level we see for the old version of 
"Los
      Angeles" is minus 14.4 dB RMS.)
      Now, modern CDs average at around minus 12 to minus 9 dB. Average.
      When a soundwave squares off, something called "clipping" can occur.
Clipping in the digital realm means digital distortion, which different
      CD players handle different ways. Some just won't play that 
frequency,
resulting in loss of dynamic range (you're literally not hearing the
      whole song). Some digitally distort, which is quite an unpleasant,
static-like sound indeed. Some really old CD players skip the song 
entirely.
      There's plenty of clipping on the contemporary songs Wofford and I 
look
at; a red light goes on and stays on the screen when a song clips.
      Christina Aguilera. Red Hot Chili Peppers. Mastodon. Brick, brick, 
brick.
Clip, clip, clip.
      Wofford sighs. "Clipping should just be forbidden," he says. "You 
used not
to be able to turn a redbook CD (the CD from which all others are
      made) into a manufacturer with clipping on it. That's not true any 
more."
      Thanks to folks on the Internet, there are lists of famously loud 
CDs. The
Red Hot Chili Pepper's 1999 album "Californication" is a notorious
      example. It clips constantly, and the title track peaks at a 
whopping
minus 5.6 dB, which was really uncomfortable for almost everybody.
      That Los Lonely Boys CD Montrone was so proud of? The song "Heaven"
averages at around minus 12.5 dB, and peaks at minus 8.9,
      completely reasonable for modern records.
      But the song "Diamonds," on the band's new album "Sacred," clips
throughout, averaging at about minus 8.9 dB, peaking at minus 7.7 db
      RMS.
      "I wasn't able to go to that mastering session for the second one,"
Montrone says from his New York office. "The first record came out when
      I was with Or Music (the label that released the first Los Lonely 
Boys
album before being acquired by Sony). I wasn't as involved with this
      new one. I wish I had been."
      Who knows if consumers are sick of the band, or the songwriting 
isn't up
to snuff or it has something to do with that louder sound, but
      "Sacred" thus far has sold about 185,000 copies, and continues to 
drop on
the Billboard albums chart.
      * *

      So why aren't more people noticing this sort of thing? One word:
      lifestyle.
      We listen to music in completely different ways than we did 20 or 30 
years
ago. For most people, music is listened to on the go, in cars, on
      headphones while running, on computers at work. Music has to compete 
with
the sound of your car's engine, has to punch through the
      background noise of street traffic or a loud office.
      "Ours is a culture of competition," Wofford says. "Maybe labels 
think the
music has to be super aggressive, super bright, like a kid screaming
      in a supermarket, to get your attention."
      The idea is that louder recordings automatically sound better on
low-quality reproduction systems, but this isn't really true in practice. 
MP3
      players such as iPods have their own compressors and limiters, 
further
reducing the dynamic range of recordings, as do computers. A CD
      doesn't have to be mastered loud; the iPod can make it as loud as
everything else it plays.
      This is especially true of radio, which, in order to make sure that 
every
song played has a uniform loudness, uses its own compressors and
      limiters. The idea that a sound has to be mastered loud to be 
noticed on
the radio is just false.
      "It's a myth," Tubb says. "Actually, a really loud CD might sound 
worse on
the radio after being fed through a station's processors. (This is
      what Montrone was talking about with "Heaven.")
      This is why the Christina Aguilera song "Ain't No Other Man" 
(average RMS:
about minus 8.4, peak: minus 6.3), which sounds
      OK-to-irritating on the radio or an iPod, sounds like you are being
punched in the face on a real stereo system.
      * *

      Yet, bands keep asking for it. That rustling you hear is the 
mastering
community shrugging its shoulders.
      "Ours is a service business," Tubb says. "If that's what the client 
wants,
I try to explain the trade-offs in clarity. In reality, we're just trying
      to accommodate requests from labels or A&R guys or the artists 
themselves.
They'll walk in with a handful of CDs and say, 'I want it to be as
      loud as this one.' The last five years it's gone absolutely mad."
      "Ask any mastering engineer which they prefer," Wofford says, 
"Something
that's super-compressed or not compressed. But they keep their
      mouths shut about it if they want to keep working."
      "It becomes part of (a mastering engineer's) reputation," Montrone 
says.
"Suddenly, you become known for your really loud records. Unless
      you specify that you don't want it to be loud, they just make it 
loud.
It's become the standard now.
      "And it's infected other steps in the chain," Montrone continues.
      Mixing engineers often make spec mixes of songs to try and win the 
bid to
mix a particular song or album. "Mixing engineers will turn in spec
      mixes of tracks that they just slam the heck out of because they 
think
that will get them the gig," Montrone says. "And they're not wrong."
      So we're at the chicken-or-egg stage. Is it changing the way we 
listen to
music, or because the way we are listening to music has changed?
      * *

      Here's the punch line: The brain can't process sounds that lack a 
dynamic
range for very long. It's an almost subconscious response. This is
      what Montrone was talking about when he mentioned the TV test tone.
      "It's ear fatigue," Tubbs says, "After three songs you take it off.
There's no play to give your ears even a few milliseconds of depth and 
rest."
      Alan Bean is a recording/mastering engineer in Harrison, Maine. He's 
a
former professional musician and a doctor of occupational medicine.
      "It stinks that this has happened," he says. "Our brains just can't 
handle
hearing high average levels of anything very long, whereas we can
      stand very loud passages, as long as it is not constant. It's the 
lack of
soft that fatigues the human ear."
      This is part of the reason that some people are really fanatical 
about
vinyl. "It's not necessarily that vinyl sounds 'better,' " Bean says. 
"It's
      that it's impossible for vinyl to be fatiguing."
      And yet, record companies wonder why consumers are buying less of 
them.
      "I definitely think it's a contributing factor," Montrone says. 
"People
have a lot of entertainment options. If listening to music is not a highly
      enjoyable experience, we're just giving people another reason not to
purchase the stuff."
      Of course, that's the weird part: Consumers may not know why they 
are
buying fewer CDs or listening to them less or are perfectly happy
      with low-def MP3s from the Internet.
      "That's the big 'too bad' about all this," Bean says: The music is 
not
necessarily at fault.
      * *

      The story of popular music is a materialist one - as playback 
technology
has changed, so has the music.
      The LP could hold about 50 minutes of sound (25 minutes a side) if 
you
really squashed the grooves together. As a result, most albums came
      in at about 40 to 45 minutes. CDs can hold about 80 minutes of 
sound, and
artists have filled them up; the majority of major label pop CDs
      are an hour or more. The rule seems to be, if you can do it, you 
should do
it.
      So it is with mastering: We can make it incredibly loud, so we 
should make
it incredibly loud. Though there is talk in the mastering community
      of universal mastering standards, it's still just talk.
      Again, there is, of course, an element of subjectivity to all this. 
It is
entirely possible that anyone younger than 18 reading this has no idea
      what we're talking about. They may not bother to buy CDs anymore, 
such is
the availability of MP3s single downloads. To them, popular
      music has always been hyper-compressed, square-wave stuff, able to 
punch
through background noise with a single snare drum hit, clipping
      all over the place.
      To them, one can say only: You don't know what you're missing.
      X: A study in volume vs. loudness
      Without getting technical, it's probably important here to define 
the
difference, for our purposes, between "loudness" and "volume." (It's also
      important to recall that this all gets very relative very fast and 
that
many would argue that there are few true absolutes involved.)
      When we talk here about volume, we're talking about the thing which 
you
can control with the knob on your stereo or iPod or boombox.
      When we talk here about loudness, we're talking about your 
perception of a
sound at any particular volume.
      For example, if you listen to the 1988 CD version of the album "Los
Angeles" by the noted roots-punk band X, you have to turn it up to a
      certain volume to enjoy it. Turn it down low and much of the music
vanishes, which is what you might expect when you turn something
      down.
      Now listen to the 2005 CD remaster of the same album. At the same 
volume
as the first version, the songs seem to jump out of the speakers
      more. The quiet sounds sound almost as loud as the guitar sounds. 
Turn it
down, and you can still hear the quiet sounds almost as well as the
      louder sounds. This is because the CD has been remastered to bring 
it more
in line with contemporary CDs, which are often mastered louder
      than ever.
      As one employee at a local record store put it, "When we put in 
older CDs
into the CD changer to play in the store, you can't even hear
      them."
      Can't you turn it up?
      "Not really," he said. "Because then the newer CDs would be 
incredibly
loud at the new volume. So we don't even play older CDs in the store
      that often."
      - Joe Gross

--dl

Tom Fine wrote:
> I still think the music business is in the crapper for market reasons -- 

> the physical product they are selling is not appealing enough for the 
> price point and the content of that physical product (ie "talent") is 
> inferior and uninspiring compared to past "glory" eras. But the loudness 

> thing certainly doesn't help -- if it's painful to listen to something 
> not so inspiring or compelling in the first place, people will _really_ 
> run for the exits.
> 
> -- Tom Fine
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger and Allison Kulp" 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 5:38 PM
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Why new CDs sound worse
> 
> 
>> Why New Music Doesn't Sound As Good As It Did Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:17PM 
>> EDT
>> See Comments (21)
>> Never mind that today's factory-produced starlets and mini-clones just 
>> don't have the practiced chops of the supergroups of yesteryear, pop 
>> in a new CD and you might notice that the quality of the music 
>> itself-maybe something as simple as a snare drum hit-just doesn't 
>> sound as crisp and as clear as you're used to. Why is that?
>> It's part of the music industry's quest to make music louder and 
>> louder, and it's been going on for decades, at least since the birth 
>> of the compact disc. Click the link for a nice little video, a mere 2 
>> minutes long, which explains it in detail, with audio cues that you'll 
>> be able to hear in crisp detail.
>> The key to the problem is that, in making the soft parts of a track 
>> louder (in the process making the entire track loud), you lose detail 
>> in the song: The difference between what's supposed to be loud and 
>> what's supposed to be soft becomes less and less. The result is that, 
>> sure, the soft parts of a song are nice and loud, but big noises like 
>> drum beats become muffled and fuzzy. But consumers often 
>> subconsciously equate loudness with quality, and thus, record 
>> producers pump up the volume. Anything to make a buck.
>> The bigger problem is that this is all unnecessary. Stereo equipment 
>> is more powerful today than ever, and last time I checked, every piece 
>> of music hardware had a volume knob.
>> Don't take my word for it: Pop in the first CD you bought and play it 
>> at the same volume level as the most recent one you bought. You might 
>> be shocked by what you hear.
>> Anyone still wondering why the music business is suffering?
>>
>> http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/33549 
>>
>>> From comments:
>> CDs just don't sound as good as vinyl, although they're certainly more 
>> convenient and don't have the pops, etc. I'm surprised about the 
>> raised volume levels on CDs - I thought one of their big strengths was 
>> improved dynamics, which seems to have helped in a resurgence of the 
>> popularity of classical music. Even with old music, most of the CDs 
>> I've bought in recent years have been remixed, and seem to have lower 
>> sound quality. In particular, the volume levels of the vocalists seem 
>> to almost drown out the instruments.
>>
>> Maybe I'm old but I still prefer the sound of my vinyl records to most 
>> cds. I own a Super Audio/DVD Audio player and I must say some 
>> recordings in both formats rival the sound of vinyl. The transient 
>> response and detail on "The Dark Side Of The Moon" SACD is better than 
>> the record and there are 3.5 more channels of it. Contemporary music 
>> sucks at any volume.
>>
>>
>> Actually you are close but a little off track. The record companies 
>> actually know what they are doing. They aren't doing it to make them 
>> seem to sound better, they are actually over-driving the tracks to 
>> make encoded/ripped mp3 copies of the CD-tracks sound like totally 
>> over-driven crap. I've been looking for someone to post an inquiry 
>> into this for years now and this is the first I have seen it brought 
>> up. I have asked the question many times on different forums if anyone 
>> has figured out a fool-proof way to keep the encoded versions from 
>> sounding over-driven with not much luck other than utilizing an 
>> encoder that enables normalization factors which works most of the 
>> time but not all. There are still a few niche record companies like 
>> Telarc that use the latest techniques and technologies to produce as 
>> close to perfect sounding CD's, SACD's etc. for the audiophiles that 
>> appreciate the quality even more so than the subject. I would much 
>> rather listen to a high-quality SACD of
>> a not-so-favorite genre or artist than listen to a bad recording of a 
>> favored artist. I'm actually listening to a hybrid-SACD of 
>> Rachmaninoff Symp. #2 by Telarc 2007 while I am writing this and it 
>> sounds great.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
>>
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager