[Folsom]

Anyone else notice a lot of CDs that may be recorded well, and have decent dynamics... A quiet song gets just as loud as a loud song does. They master it into .1db of clipping, and that is ok, sure... but I have having to turn up the volume for a loud song to be loud, and turn it back down for a soft song. Why should it be something you do, to monitor volume, based on the songs. I could so live with just having some songs be real quiet and some being dang loud, with just letting it play. I think this would add to the overall appeal of a lot of albums. The good Pink Floyd - must listen to album to really enjoy fully - albums are like this as much as need be. Stupid loudness compitition must be driving everyone to master everything as loud as possible even if they do not compress, clip, etc, keep the dynamic range.

[Rob Babcock]

Preach on, brutha.   It's so rare to find a really good sounding disc nowadays...wtf?

[Folsom]

"Disc"! That is the word.... Tracks sure, but disc.... Why the hell not!

[Dan Banquer]

This link may help, and BTW; this is no calibration standard in audio for level. There is one for the audio that is used on video.
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/CurrentFormatTrends.php

        d.b.

[aerius]

This is why man invented computers and CD burners.  Rip the CD onto your computer, load up some editing software to adjust the volume on each song, then burn the new & improved copy onto a CDR.

Or going the other way, I'll run some mild to moderate compression on certain albums so I can listen to them in my car without having all the quiet parts getting drowned out.  The computer, it's a wonderful tool.

[nathanm]

My main buying criteria, like most people, is how loud the music is.  I don't care about what kind of music it is, or who is in the band, I mainly just care about pure SPL.  I used to be concerned with types of music I liked and didn't like, reading lyrics and looking at album covers, reading reviews and whatnot but now it's much simpler.  I just turn on an FM radio station and whichever song seems loudest, that's the one I go buy.  Doesn't matter if it's a country song, a rock song or R&B, I only care about volume.  I am glad the mastering industry has made this easier on all of us.  For awhile I was worried about the direction the industry was headed, but now that albums can be digitally corrected so that each sound is as loud as it can go the quality of loudness is much better.  My hope is that our grandchildren may one day enjoy albums which abandon the archaic alternating waveform and listen solely to pure DC signals.

[jqp]

This is why man invented computers and CD burners.  Rip the CD onto your computer, load up some editing software to adjust the volume on each song, then burn the new & improved copy onto a CDR.

Or going the other way, I'll run some mild to moderate compression on certain albums so I can listen to them in my car without having all the quiet parts getting drowned out.  The computer, it's a wonderful tool.

On a less humorous note...once the compression is there you can't undo it of course. Computers can't help us.

[Folsom]

It takes hours to do work on .wav files . I would do it if it was not such a bitch.

[Wayner]

The real problem is that many CD's have been mastered with the loudness level going into RED LINE. That equates to digital distortion. That is also why many loud sounding CD's sound harsh, cause they're filled with errors when they clip. In the old days with analog, you could RED LINE up to 3 to 4 db and not really screw things up (it was a natural clip). This technique resulted in a lower noise floor with high gain.

W

[Folsom]

I understand the too loud, I am just pissed off with stuff like "All The Roadrunning".... Amazing album right? Yeah except when I hear Red Steggerwing it should be louder than I Dug Up a Diamond. You know what I mean?

I was listening to John Fogerty, a concert CD... When Fortunate Son came on he is loud and fast, means business... However he was no louder than on Have You Ever Seen The Rain.

  Jerk Off
  producers
  And
  sound engineers

[nathanm]

If I am reading this right, I think DOS is not talking about compression\limiting but that recorded volume levels are not correlated to reality.  Meaning, the average SPL of a soft ballad w\singer and guitar must be quieter than a full band with electric guitar, bass and drums.  I think this has always been normal recording practice even before the more recent trend of brickwall limiting; you record as hot as you can to maximize signal to noise ratio and then adjust levels in the mix.  Outside of classical I am not sure if this sort of dynamics-calibrated-to-the-real-world type of thing is ever really practiced.  Certainly the end user's volume control would have to come into play. 

Completely purist, uncompressed recordings are indeed very cool, but the fact is that in order to hear a satisfying low-level crooner level you are going to have to listen at a level which blow the walls down when the full band kicks in.  I know lots of you guys CAN do this, and you should all be extremely extremely grateful for that fact! 

For the most part I think that end user playback demands some compression\unreality, just not the total overboard kind where the waveform is a solid bar.  That seems to be a modern effect which is generally hostile to music IMO.

[Russell Dawkins]

If I am reading this right, I think DOS is not talking about compression\limiting but that recorded volume levels are not correlated to reality.  Meaning, the average SPL of a soft ballad w\singer and guitar must be quieter than a full band with electric guitar, bass and drums.  I think this has always been normal recording practice even before the more recent trend of brickwall limiting; you record as hot as you can to maximize signal to noise ratio and then adjust levels in the mix.  Outside of classical I am not sure if this sort of dynamics-calibrated-to-the-real-world type of thing is ever really practiced.  Certainly the end user's volume control would have to come into play. 

That's the way I'm reading DOS - he's not so much complaining about compression as such (although he could/should be!) but the differences in overall level, or lack of them even when appropriate, from track to track.

With so many musicians recording their own stuff and having so much power at their fingertips with the ubiquitous DAWs out there, yet not having the knowledge to know exactly what effect their manipulation of the various parameters is having on the sound, the sort of thing DOS is bringing up can happen.

In this case choosing to "normalize" the track as a matter of routine as the last thing done in mixing that track is the culprit. Normalizing is the adjusting of level of the entire track so that the peak reaches some chosen level, like -0.1dB if you are greedy or -1.0dB if you are more conservative. This may be appropriate for the loudest track on the CD, but then the other tracks should be referenced to that track and their levels adjusted by ear to be appropriate.

When I master other studio's recordings I often get mixes that fit DOS's description and my first move is to do just what I've described.

EDIT: ... and my last move is to listen to the provisional master while I am distracted by some chore like washing the dishes and see if I have the impulse to touch the volume control at any point. I should never have this impulse if the relative levels of the tracks are properly set.
Most ADCs have an optimum working level. Mine, for example (in the Metric Halo I use for tracking/recording) like to see peaks of -6dB.
By the way Nathan these days levels are kept up to minimize distortion. Signal to noise hasn't been an issue since analog tape was routine.

[Folsom]

You both are on with what I am saying. There are some recordings that are good in this way. However some without it are basically butchered unless you are prepared to change the volume during the entire listening session.

[jqp]

Completely purist, uncompressed recordings are indeed very cool, but the fact is that in order to hear a satisfying low-level crooner level you are going to have to listen at a level which blow the walls down when the full band kicks in.  I know lots of you guys CAN do this, and you should all be extremely extremely grateful for that fact! 

I thought this is why singers have their own microphones with levels adjusted during recording to match the volume of the big band etc. You have seen film of Big Bands with a singer in front of a microphone stand, and is therefore not drowned out by the band. When the band picks up it can be pretty loud in the audience. But that is the effect thay want to give.

[nathanm]

I am not sure about the big band era myself.  Did they only run the vocal through sound reinforcement?  I am talking about like if they were rehearsing or playing a small club, not for a recording.  Seems like a singer and a single acoustic instrument are about the only things that can acoustically self-mix, but I could be wrong.  Outside of a symphony (or hippie drum circle) I am not sure where a person would have to go to hear unamplified live music.  They even have PA for the dudes in coffee shops fer cripes sakes. Heh!

Another issue that makes just about any recording 'non-purist' would be if the singer is working the microphone and altering how far they get from it, that's another form of compression even before the signal hits any electronics.

[jqp]

Yeah today performing means you are a rock-star complete with synthesizers, effects pedals, drum machines, chorus effect, and I'm just talking about the guy playing acoustic guitar in the coffe shop too. I kid you not, these guys are insulted if you do not treat them like a recording artist. I would rather they just go away. (I have done this coffee shop gig a few times myself and once with another guy, but we did it with no reinforcement). I see this as a kind of man-behind-the-curtain act, if the power went out, they could not perform.

And I hate that acoustic guitars are always synthesized in some way, even in a live performance in a small venue. Norman Blake never does this, always uses a mic for voice and 1 for guitar, just for reinforcemant. I think Grisman is the same way, and I have seen very few others such as the Chris Thile band.

I also hate the way they record the artists in the studio now, with everyone in a seperate room, and the drums in a plexiglass chamber. It all to give the engineer/record company control.

[Russell Dawkins]

In the "old days" a big-band-with-singer-recording would be made with one mic. The singer would be closest to that mic and the bass might also be closer than it would be in concert. Soloists would step up to a pre-determined spot for their solos then step back.
In concert there might have been a PA with only the vocal in it. This is before the days of wide range PAs.

I'm not sure what was done about the bass, maybe someone could fill us in on that.
The first electrified instrument in a big band was the guitar in the late 40s. An amp and speaker was necessary just to be heard in an all-acoustic big band.
Sure is getting OT!

[jqp]

The bass has always been a problem. Upright double bass does not carry well in many venues. I don't think you could record much bass frequency back then, or play it back on existing players.

Today 95% + of the bands (100% of pop/rock) use electric bass, I much prefer acoustic.

[Folsom]

Capturing bass is still hard even today. If you are wondering hm electric does fine, uh sure... but try listening to kick bass drums. It is AMAZING how many recordings get relatively no actual bass, just the sound that it is there; some recordings I can watch my subwoofer pound out, others nothing.

Good acoustic bass is awsome, so entertaining, and quiet some fun to pin point via imaging.

Regardless not the real problem I have with recordings, I can deal with it.