Ultra-compression of new CDs is depressing. (1 Viewer)

[Philip Hamm]

I was listening to the latest CD by Bruce Cockburn, probably my single favorite musical artist, today, and it depressed me. The CD is a collection of his more recent "greatest hits" with two new songs throwin in for good measure.
The CD, particularly the new songs, are so compressed that the whole thing sounds lifeless. It really sounds awful, I could barely stand to listen to it. :frowning: His last full fledged studio album "Breakfast in New Orleans, Dinner in Timbuktu" is just as bad, too. Bruce Cockburn is not a big "radio play" artist, he's a true "art" rocker with compelling poetry and wonderful music in his songs. One of the most talented songwriters alive today as far as I'm concerned. And his new CDs sound like absolute dogshit. There's a card insert that touts new remastered versions of his older albums. If this is what they're going to sound like, no thank you!
Recently I've been mastering many of my LPs to compact disc using my MiniDisc deck to convert to analog and a digital connection to my computer. The results are excellent, these CDs sound really great. What is so striking is that my old LPs where I can only manage an average 45-60dB dynamic range have much better dynamics than current CDs. It's depressing. Music that I otherwise would enjoy on a medium capable of fantastic quality is pumping with compression out the wazoo and sounds like total shit.

 

[DonaldB]

Here's a brilliant tirade from an article called "The Problem With Music" by Steve Albini, the world's greatest record engineer:
Producers and engineers who use meaningless words to make their clients think they know what's going on. Words like punchy," "warm," "groove," "vibe," "feel." Especially "punchy" and "warm." Every time I hear those words, I want to throttle somebody.
Producers who aren't also engineers, and as such, don't have the slightest fucking idea what they're doing in a studio, besides talking all the time. Historically, the progression of effort required to become a producer went like this: Go to college, get an EE degree. Get a job as an assistant at a studio. Eventually become a second engineer. Learn the job and become an engineer. Do that for a few years, then you can try your hand at producing. Now, all that's required to be a full-fledged "producer" is the gall it takes to claim to be one.
Calling people like Don Fleming, Al Jourgensen, Lee Ranaldo or Jerry Harrison "producers" in the traditional sense is akin to calling Bernie a "shortstop" because he watched the whole playoffs this year.
The term has taken on pejorative qualities in some circles. Engineers tell jokes about producers the way people back in Montana tell jokes about North Dakotans. (How many producers does it take to change a light bulb? "Hmmm. I don't know. What do you think?" Why did the producer cross the road? "Because that's the way the Beatles did it, man.") That's why few self-respecting engineers will allow themselves to be called "producers."
Trendy electronics and other flashy shit that nobody really needs. Five years ago everything everywhere was being done with discrete samples. No actual drumming allowed on most records. Samples only. The next trend was Pultec Equalizers. Everything had to be run through Pultec EQs. Then vintage microphones were all the rage (but only Neumanns, the most annoyingly whiny microphone line ever made). The current trendy thing is compression, compression by the ton, especially if it comes from a tube limiter. Wow. It doesn't matter how awful the recording is, as long as it goes through a tube limiter, somebody will claim it sounds "warm," or maybe even "punchy." They might even compare it to the Beatles. I want to find the guy that invented compression and tear his liver out. I hate it. It makes everything sound like a beer commercial.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Wait, when did Steve become the worlds greatest engineer?
LOL
-V
PS: Thanks Donald for the link to my site.

 

[Rachael B]

Hi Phillip! I bought 100 60 minute MD's to archieve LP's on to recently. I'm not going to bother to transfer to CD. The well-conditioned records sound hot.
Donald, that was amusing!
Maybe they'll make all the CD's sound like shit as a ploy to swing the market to a better format that's copy-guarded? Who knows? Who knows? Could there be a big push for SACD or DVD-A or both soon? It seems like that's what they did with records, well worse, the vinnyl was so BAD in the twilight of it's age. Damn, they wanted us to switch, not fight.
All kidding aside, maybe my jest could come true? Best wishes!

 

[Ryan Spaight]

They're mixed to sound good on computer speakers, boom boxes, bass-happy car stereos, discmen and "home-theater-in-a-box" systems.
Quaint folks like us who listen on real stereo systems are out of the loop.
In a way, new CDs are premixed for MP3. How ironic.
Ryan

 

[Philip Hamm]

They're mixed to sound good on computer speakers, boom boxes, bass-happy car stereos, discmen and "home-theater-in-a-box" systems.

Actually a good friend of mine does a lot of major label mixing, and I can assure you that he does not mix stuff this way with the exception of the heavy radio focused alterna-pop stuff. If I want to get him really mad I ask him what he thinks about mastering technicians. They often ruin his work. :frowning:
The irony here is that Bruce Cockburn's music is not the type of thing that should be aimed at the "MP3, boom box, and effin' big sub car stereo" crowd. It's extremely sophisticated adult rock that has no business being mastered like this.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Phil,

Speaking as another engineer, I can say the artists are often involved in these butcheries as well. Certainly no engineer, even mastering people, really are fans of squeezing 2db of dynamic range out of the first real medium (CD) we've ever had which allowed real dynamics.

There are pressures from all sides, the label specifically-- but I have certainly seen some pretty "smart" artists get caught up in the loudness game and push me to squash the poop-snot out of recordings.

The continuing emphasis on album as product (where, IMHO, the industry would be seriously reformed by taking all emphasis of the album and shift it to the performance-- making the album promo for the gig, instead of the other way around)--- you're going to see this get worse and worse. I find it funny that we push for a 20 or 24bit playback format, yet engineers use the top 3db of the available headroom.

-vince

np: Sunny Day Real Estate Diary.

 

[Ted Lee]

slightly off-topic, but i bet you guys will know the answer.
why do today's cd's sound louder? if someone could explain this in layman's terms that would be helpful to my not-so-technical brain.
i know when i listen to my older cd's, i have to turn the volume up..sometimes by quite a bit. also, when i'm making compilation cd's, i'll encounter this.
i suspect it must have something to do with this compression bru-ha-ha?

 

[Fredrik E]

Yes, the compression makes them sound louder, it increases the average sound level on the CD.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

why do today's cd's sound louder? if someone could explain this in layman's terms that would be helpful to my not-so-technical brain.

Here's the basic explanation I usually use with "non technical people":
CD is a digital medium, which means it has a very specific maximum level. The loudest amount of sound you can put on a cd is called "0", and anything below that level is expressed as a negative number (-10, -20, etc). All cds have this maximum-- sort of like a global speed limit.
So, if all CDs have the exact same maximum level, why do some cds (specifically "modern" recordings) sound so much "louder" than other recordings. If the CD format has a global "speed limit"- one disc shouldn't be able to sound louder than another.
Most people assume it is because the older recordings do not exploit the full level of CD- they are simply quieter- and never achieve sound equal to that maximum level. That isn't usually the case.
What is the case, is the reduction of dynamics. Newer recordings have much reduced dynamic range which results in the illusion of "loudness". By squashing the dynamic range of a given sound using tools like compression and limiting, more of that sound can be crammed closer to the maximum level-- which causes the listener to perceive it as "louder".
Here's an analogy that often helps:
Say you were bouncing on a trampoline. Above your head, there is a ceiling made of brick. You begin bouncing, and you find yourself bumping your head slightly on the brick ceiling. However, you really want to bounce higher...
So you start bouncing higher, and as you get up to the ceiling, you tuck your head a little, to prevent it from hitting the ceiling. And you want to bounce even higher...
So you start bouncing even higher, and now you have to tuck your head and shoulders a little, to prevent them from hitting the ceiling. You bounce higher. Now you tuck your whole upper body to prevent from hitting the ceiling.
Now think about what has just happened. Have you really bounced "higher"? No, not really- because the brick ceiling was always the limit of how high you could go. However- by ducking parts of your body out of the way, you created the illusion that you jumped higher, because more of your body was at the max point at any given time.
So, modern recording use tons of compression and limiting to basically "tuck parts of the music" so that they can cram more up to the very tip top.
For a visual example, here is a visual representation of the Creedence Clearwater Revival song Fortunate Son, recorded circa 1969:
[c]

[/c]
Notice that the peaks of the song reach the maximum level- but the average level of the material under the peaks is pretty low- like -6 or so.
Here is a visual representation of the Watchmen song Stereo, recorded circa 1996:
[c]

[/c]
Notice that the peaks of this song also reach the maximum level- but the average level of the material under the peaks is pretty giant. The dynamics of the song have been squashed- creating a "loud" mix that sounds "better" in your car or on the radio. You can see the material has just be smashed into a big block of sound.
Hope that helps
Vince
NP: The Police, Message in a Box (Discography Boxed Set)

 

[James RD]

Thanks, Vince. That was a great explanation.

 

[Jeff_A]

That WAS a beautiful analogy, Vince!

 

[Philip Hamm]

Beautiful analogy.
But you forgot to stress that the compressed music often sounds like total ass.
Most of my LP record recordings look at least as dynamic the CCR sample above, and some are amazingly dynamic (T-Bone Burnett's "Proof Through The Night" particularly). Even with a 50dB noise floor they have MUCH better dynamics than typical modern CDs. Depressing.
Rachael, I'm abandoning MiniDisc. I got screwed by Sony's 510, and a 920 went dead on me one week out of warrantee and Sony didn't stand behind it. How long before my other MD gear dies? I need a long term solution and CD-R, not MD, is it. So far my results have been very good. I've transferred about 30 albums to CD using the MDS-JB920 to convert analog to digital, using a digital in on my PC and Sound Forge to record. Not running any noise reductionn other than eliminating major ticks before normalizing.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

But you forgot to stress that the compressed music often sounds like total ass.

Certainly a point that could be made- however I personally attempt to avoid opinion as much as possible when explaining concepts like this one.
However- to be fair- it doesn't have to sound like complete ass. In some music styles, and contexts- I kinda prefer a squashed recording to a super dynamic one. Certain, I have a few spoken word CDs that I have personally "remastered" to allow me to listen to them on road trips.
I absolutely feel your pain Phil- but again, like most other things, I tend not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because a tool has been abused doesn't mean I would swear it off forever. Often (heck in fact as I type this) I have used limiting quite effectively on drums to offer a specific effect sound, to add punch.
It is a tool like any other- Like Man himself, compression and limiting have the potential for evil-- but we all hope good will win out in the end.

-Vince

 

[Brian Perry]

The crazy thing is that the studios will eventually try to sell us DVD-As and SACDs of these albums, and they WILL sound better; not because of the inherent superiority of those formats (which is real) but because the compression was removed. We are going backwards...

 

[Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm]

It can't be removed if it's in the original mastering.

Speaking as something of a home studio enthusiast (see link below), I use compression for almost every part I record--but not very much of it. Fact is, I'm not very good at recording, and compression helps me cheat. It makes my work a lot easier, especially on drums. But then if you compress the drums too much, all the crash cymbals sound like "WHOOSH-OOSH-oosh-oosh..." as the other drums intrude on their decay. This is audible almost to comic effect on the new Cockburn song "My Beat," as well as Sixpence None the Richer's "Breathe."

Why is everybody so damn afraid to be quiet for a few bars? Write something worth listening carefully to and they will listen carefully.

NP: Bruce Cockburn - Inner City Front (because I just learned "Broken Wheel" on guitar)

 

[Philip Hamm]

It can't be removed if it's in the original mastering.

But it's usually not in the original mix to the ridiculous extent that we hear on CD. Mastering engineers add the compression when they transfer the original mix to CD. Somebody like our friend El Duce takes the multitracks and mixes down to stereo. Duce will run the entire mix through some compression as part of his step. His job is to make the stereo mix that we hear on CD. The mastering technician's job is to make a CD master from that mix. Next time you're in town we should get Jeff & Katy over and talk to him about what mastering does to his mixing work.
NP: Joe Jackson: Night and Day II
P.S. Ange - Try "Justice" on guitar.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Speaking as another engineer, I can say the artists are often involved in these butcheries as well. Certainly no engineer, even mastering people, really are fans of squeezing 2db of dynamic range out of the first real medium (CD) we've ever had which allowed real dynamics.

Vince,
I have enjoyed your posts and agree with all but the above.
Why?
Good old-fashioned analog my friend! oodles of dynamics if done right....
Have you ever listened to a top-notch LP on a solid turntable?
DYNAMIC Sound to rival even my preferred Super Audio format.
Then again, I think that Super Audio is the first real format with real dynamics. For some strange reason, many of us hear above 20khz.
Just my two cents...
Lee

 

[Philip Hamm]

Lee if you've never heard dynamics on CD then I recommend picking up DMP's gold re-release CD of Flim & The BB's "Tricycle" and listening to the track "Thunder & Birdies".

Also, my CD copies of my LPs all have similar dynamic presence as the original. I guess the A-D converter on my MDS-JB920 is fairly decent, but the key is that I'm not modifying the WAV files in any way and there is no additional compression in the chain.

But you're right, the LP format has fantastic dynamic abilities, even with the poor "on paper" s/n ratio.

 

[Ted Lee]

vince - thanks for that information. your post was totally helpful in explaining it in a way i could get.