Loudness wars! A great clip on why compression is ruining popular music

AdamM · « **on:** 10 Sep 2007, 07:44 am »

Everyone wants their CD to be the loudest.

Engineers are compressing tracks to a ridiculous degree.

Here's a great clip by well known engineer Bob Katz, showing what happens when you over compress a track to make it louder

http://www.digido.com/components/com_remository/Loudness_War-small.mov

/A

nathanm · « **Reply #1 on:** 10 Sep 2007, 06:28 pm »

Can't listen to the clip just now, but it looks cool.

As I have probably said before, I think this whole thing is built on lies and false assumptions. People do NOT like one album to be louder than another. Everyone always complains about how the commercials on radio and TV are louder than the content, same thing here. People automatically adjust their volume controls so that things even out. When you've got your iPod or Squeezebox in Shuffle you don't actually WANT a tune to come up and blow your head off, you want consistency. All you get with a user-compensated-volume hyper-compressed recording is a dull one with no dynamics whatever. They only work in a car with a 70db noise floor.

The only thing that matters, that has EVER mattered is good music. I refuse to believe that there is a human being on this planet who actually makes purchasing decisions based upon the average loudness of a CD and not the music itself. That artists request these things seems to be pointless competetiveness. The only argument for making a shitty, blaring mix is the shitty playback environment of the car but I don't see why we should stoop to that level. Make two mixes then, one 2x4 for the idiots and one spiky for us audiophile snobs!

Although perhaps it is simply a societal condition. Maybe doing justice to a dynamic mix is simply too hostile to other people. Because if you want those gentle string sections to be heard above the hum of the fridge you need volume boost enough to break the neighbor's collector plates when the climax comes.

Zero · « **Reply #2 on:** 10 Sep 2007, 06:58 pm »

Well said Nathan.

AdamM · « **Reply #3 on:** 10 Sep 2007, 09:41 pm »

I agree with you Nathan, but many people actually do want their music compressed and 'loud'

A typical example is a track on rotation in a bar or restaurant. Sure, the dynamic one sounds better at home, but clients want their track to 'compete' with all the other tracks which are compressed to the max! When your superior, but not as compressed, track comes on in comparison to all these other tracks the perception is that it's quieter and deemed inferior.

No question, for listening at home, the dynamic one wins hands down. But i don't think this issue is being driven from the consumer directly, it's the artists that say 'May my tracks loud!' and they do! I recorded some stuff a few weeks ago for a very talented guy, who said mentioned 'Is it a little quiet?' ...and i know he was comparing it to some current other music. It wasn't quiet, i just didn't compress the heck out of it! We compromised, but i prefer the first version.

I agree with your idea for two mixes: The radio / bar / restaurant mix, and the home version. I'm serious!

/A

nathanm · « **Reply #4 on:** 11 Sep 2007, 12:11 am »

Okay I just watched the clip and I have one thing to say:

FUCKIN' A!!!

That is fantastic, I am sending this link to my layman friends. This should be turned into a commercial and broadcast on national television as a public service annoucement or something. This is such a difficult thing to explain to the average person and the video makes it very clear. And the audio came through and made the point even through my little Norh drums next to my computer. The audio was perfect, it really represented LOUD as an unpleasant tonal shift and not simple amplitude. This is exactly the impression I get from the worst case scenario CDs I own (Celtic Frost "Monotheist" as one example) it's like the music is just mashed in your face, there's no space or dimension, it's just completely flat, and it hurts your damn ears!

Thanks for this link Adam, great find!

HChi · « **Reply #5 on:** 11 Sep 2007, 02:59 am »

Adam, this is a good educational clip.

However, this is clip is made with an assumption that compression is done at the post processing stage. If that's the case, at least we may still have hope of finding the original full dynamic track. Unfortunately I know some sound engineers who don't even pay much attention to leave sufficient headroom and to the meters or trust computer recording tools too much, ended up recording the tracks highly compressed from the get-go.

Perhaps it also explains why it is not too difficult to find some new "audiophile" tracks with spots of digital over. Once these highly compressed tracks are extracted and further compressed in MP3, no wonder they sound like crap. But I guess now is the era where loudness rules! Who cares about dynamic, detail resolution, and transparency, as long as it is loud and boomy, you gotta own a killer system!

doug s. · « **Reply #6 on:** 11 Sep 2007, 03:22 am »

compressed recordings (and commercial radio stations) is why i like a preamp w/a tape loop, so i can selectively use my dbx 3bx dynamic range expander; it really helps on overly compressed recordings & commercial fm stations. and, i can switch it out of the signal path when not needed.

i remember not buying santana's "supernatural" cd cuz i read how compressed it was. i found it on winyl, & figured it would have to be better. well, after shelling out ~$40 for the two-record set, i was dismayed to find it was also extremely compressed.

using the 3bx makes it quite enjoyable, tho...

doug s.

AdamM · « **Reply #7 on:** 11 Sep 2007, 09:23 am »

Hey Doug,
That's a pretty bad-ass solution! You're undoing all the wrongage yourself. Neat idea.

Compression has it's place, but not to smother an entire album.

HChi - fully agree with not compressing your individual tracks. With 24 bit recording there's a pile of headroom, why compress at the start? You're liable to double compress and get that nasty breathing / pumping stuff going on.

I don't think this over-compression is going to go away... with all the MP3's and crappy stereos around. It's us hifi guys that are going to get shafted (if wanting dynamic popular music)

/A

Daygloworange · « **Reply #8 on:** 11 Sep 2007, 01:15 pm »

Quote from: AdamM on 11 Sep 2007, 09:23 am

HChi - fully agree with not compressing your individual tracks. With 24 bit recording there's a pile of headroom, why compress at the start? You're liable to double compress and get that nasty breathing / pumping stuff going on.

I would disagree Adam. I much prefer to compress individual tracks as I'm printing them. Generally with ratios no greater than 4:1. You can adjust attack and release controls very carefully and avoid pretty much all the pumping and breathing effects. You still retain quite a bit of dynamics if you don't get too aggressive with your threshold settings.

It's much more difficult to setup a compressor properly to compress a 2 track mix without it doing funky stuff to the overall mix.

If you've ever tried to compress a 2 track ambient drum track, you'll know what I'm talking about. Hi-hats require a certain attack and release ratio, which doesn't work properly on the kick and snare, then add a long cymbal decay and you see what it does to the output of the decay.

Same kinda thing goes on when you try and ask a compressor to do a full 2 track mix. There are too many conflicts.

So you'll ask me, how do you predict what compressor settings will not be too much, come mix time?

Experience. Plain and simple. Just try gentle ratios while printing at first. You can always add more compression later. Learning how to use limiting during printing is a good habit as well, although nowadays in the digital domain, you can edit out really loud peaks, digitally. (I still use analog tracking techniques/habits

)

A compressor is a very important, and powerful tool, if used properly it can be virtually sonically invisible, and add a lot of overall polish to a recording.

Just try it and I think you'll see.

Cheers

AdamM · « **Reply #9 on:** 11 Sep 2007, 02:41 pm »

Interesting ideas DGO

I rarely do live drums, like practically never.. so can't comment there. I'll note your suggestions though.

Who said anything about compressing a 2 track?

Usually i compress on the bus, which gives me perfect control per group.

Compressing at capture is a one way ticket - you're stuck with it for the rest of time. Capturing dry keeps your options open.... i guess a little is ok but I've learned that trick from a few pretty well respected engineers. 4:1 max! I guess if you know exactly what you're going for and are using an outboard compressor.. Isn't it safer to go easy on the comp at capture?

Maybe we're mis communicating? I don't have issue with a comp per track if you're digital and it's non-destructive. However, outboard comp at capture per track is dicey, as you're stuck with it
Unless:
A: You totally know what you're doing, have your sound and nobody is going to change their mind
B: You absosmurfly love your outboard compressor

As for live drums, if you're doing that properly, it's on 2" tape... Nothing like tape compression

Metallica Black album: All pro-tools, except for the drums. 2" tape (then pro tools)

/A

jqp · « **Reply #10 on:** 11 Sep 2007, 02:53 pm »

That .mov file is a great illustration of the problem and degradation of recorded pop music - any more from Bob Katz, written or produced like this one, on these issues? Or other engineers/producers?

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #11 on:** 15 Sep 2007, 05:56 am »

An interesting read....here...

Quote

All these engineers tend to be audiophiles, the sort who would fuss over a track to make it perfect. But they're beginning to wonder if they should bother.

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #12 on:** 15 Sep 2007, 06:05 am »

and here:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/aug07/5429

WEEZ · « **Reply #13 on:** 15 Sep 2007, 02:43 pm »

Russell,

Thanks very much for posting that link....it's a 'must read' for all.

WEEZ

WEEZ · « **Reply #14 on:** 15 Sep 2007, 03:59 pm »

....and lonewolf's link too........

WEEZ

AdamM · « **Reply #15 on:** 15 Sep 2007, 10:41 pm »

I wonder if the loudness war will eventually subside, even if only a little? Going through a bunch of favorites this weekend, with this topic fresh in mind, it was easy to see who's playing the game and how much.

The over-compressed stuff is tiring. It's not unreasonable to suspect that in a sea of squished tracks and bands, someone comes out with an album that's NOT squished-to-the-max and has some dynamic range, which is then seen as being very big and open and of high quality. What pioneers!

It's maybe a bit much to expect from most top-40 pop crap, but not entirely. One of my favorite pop artists 'Goldfrapp' doesn't fall too far down the compress rabbit hole, they're an exception.

While we ponder the end of the Loudness Wars (or at least hopefully the limit!) Let's inquire about the start of them. Who's responsible!

Is Phil Spector the grandfather of the LW's? With his 'Wall of Sound' ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_of_Sound
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6467441.stm

"His records stood out over the crackle and hiss of AM Radio, making stars of bands like The Crystals."

Daygloworange · « **Reply #16 on:** 15 Sep 2007, 11:35 pm »

Radio stations compress what is being broadcast in an effort to increase S/N ratio. I've heard material that I had a hand in mixing and mastering broadcast on radio. They squash it. They also Eq it, and (some)add ambience effects as well sometimes.

Loudness wars originated with Mastering engineers, not recording engineers.

There have always been efforts to copy and mimick the "sound" of someone else's "work". Imitation has always existed, so engineers sometimes tried to copy another record's sound because they liked it, and other times the artist, or record label was asking to have a certain record's "sound" recreated.

Record labels also look to have hit songs written that imitate songs that are Billboard chart toppers.

Ironically, mastering engineers are now the ones complaining of receiving 2 track mixes from studios that are "pre-mastered" and overly compressed.

The record business is about money. Always was, always will be. It has nothing to do with philanthropy.

Cheers

ted_b · « **Reply #17 on:** 15 Sep 2007, 11:54 pm »

Thi is an interesting "honor roll" article I've kept for a few years It pays homage to those cd's that have tried to preserve dynamic range. It's a bit dated, but the issue at hand is even more prevalent, as this thread espouses.

http://www.digido.com/misc-content/honor-roll.html

Russell Dawkins · « **Reply #18 on:** 16 Sep 2007, 06:49 am »

I think that since with digital an absolute ceiling exists and we are so close to that ceiling that many are noticing it, the only place to go to gain an edge is towards less compression and, unavoidably, lower average levels.

I don't think this will be too hard a sell and will make life more pleasant for everyone, plus it is the only place to go from here!

lofreek · « **Reply #19 on:** 17 Sep 2007, 01:36 pm »

There is a new Lyle Lovett CD out at Starbucks, called 'It's Not Big, It's Large'. I thought his CD called 'I Love Everybody' sounded great, so I thought I would pick up this new one. Engineered by Nat Kunkel, mastered by Doug Sax. Ought to be good, right? WRONG!!!!! Massively peak limited, a total victim of the loudness wars.