Folks,
Some of us understand the distinctions in this topic, but not everyone may
and the distinctions are important to the way the debate over MFiT is
framed. There is also an inescapable political dimension.
Compression, as regards music-signal dynamic range, is a creative tool. It
was developed to address limitations in recording or broadcasting
technology, but probably almost immediately was also recognized as a way to
bring the energy of a live experience into the media. Used with taste and
understanding, it helps create the sound of popular music, which is
primarily (sometimes exclusively) its recorded sound. In the classical
realm, automatic compression/limiting was little used until record
mastering, when the lacquer was being cut and one needed protection from a
cymbal crash or a soprano screech. Manual gain-riding took care of passages
too loud or too quiet for the level of tape or surface noise, its
application reflecting the musical sensitivity, or technical daring, of the
production team.
Digital freed us from those mechanical limitations (others remain) and made
dynamic compression much more a purely creative element, one to be used,
abused, and argued over. The loudness wars are not a creative, but a
commercial battle that has been waged longer than Afghanistan, and is no
better understood, except by the solders on the front lines - the artists,
engineers, and producers being the cannon fodder.
There is some parallel to the entirely separate issue of data compression.
While I'm not aware of data compression being used as a creative element
(who knows, it makes an interesting noise), it was developed to address
limitations of a more recent past: network bandwidth/throughput, storage
capacity, and system processing speed.
All of these limitations have been overcome to the extent that excessive
data compression is no longer necessary. It is now purely a
commercial/institutional consideration. What's different than past examples
of imposed standards is that it is one company (maybe one person) that has
the dominance to enable it to impose on the whole industry a defacto
standard that is arbitrary and obsolete.
All this cutting-edge transcoding is in support of an obsolete standard,
however Apple tries to represent it as some kind of God-given immutable
reality. It is also requiring, in the worst tradition of personal computing,
the customer to solve a problem the company creates.
I understand the need of many creative people in the industry to go along to
get along. They smile patronizingly and bury us in nice advice, but we
should not give up to this backwards relationship. iTunes depends on us and
should be responding to our demands. We have to keep educating our customers
and the public about these issues. Archivists have to defend their
standards. We need to support alternative distribution on the question of
quality, as well as diversity, and especially democracy. Apple can make a
huge strategic error and drive a vital element of the market back to
'gaslight' (ie. LP), but the rest of us shouldn't go down with that ship.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bob Olhsson
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 6:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Does "Mastered for iTunes" matter to music?
The limitations of tracking a vinyl record prevented the level of
toothpasting that we now have with digital music. We certainly cut some of
the hottest vinyl at Motown but there was considerably less compression or
limiting involved than today's typical buss compressor settings, much less
the additional brickwall limiting we are expected to employ in mastering.
Bob Olhsson
615.562.4346 http://www.bobolhsson.com http://audiomastery.com
-----Original Message-----
From Tom Fine:
The toothpasting problem was there in the LP era too. There were plenty of
big-selling LPs with almost no dynamic range, and in fact once cutting got
automated you could compress even more. Pop singles for AM radio were
notoriously compressed before that. So it's been ever thus. The problem with
toothpasted CDs and lossy-format digital files is that they sound even worse
than the earlier stuff for a variety of reasons.
|