[Daygloworange]

Just for the record, what most people are disapproving of is in fact called "hard limiting", not compression.

If you look at the present day waveform in the link Russel Dawkins posted, you'll notice that the tops of the wave forms are sharply cut off. Like someone did it with a pair of scissors.

That's "hard limiting". Limiting is just as it's name implies. There is a ceiling that cannot be crossed. The limiter's ratio is set to infinity.

Compression would allow some of the strongest "peaks" to pass the ceiling, albeit at a reduced rate (depending on compressor settings). It would sound more lively then.

The problem is that the ceiling in digital exists because there is a hard line on clipping in the digital domain. Digital is unforgiving. It doesn't "soft clip". It either clips, or it doesn't. Whereas analog will compress, oversaturate and start to sound "fuzzy", digital just goes BZZZZZZZT!!!!! when it clips. Total overload, and it is brutal.

That's why the hard limiting. They are trying to push to just below the absolute knife edge threshold of digital clipping.

Cheers

[doug s.]

dgo, you're absolutely right.  but... the reason there is hard limiting in the first place, is cuz there's so much compression.  in order for compression to allow some of the peaks to pass the ceiling at a reduced rate, the overall loudness - and overall compression - would necessarily have to be set lower...

doug s.

Just for the record, what most people are disapproving of is in fact called "hard limiting", not compression.

If you look at the present day waveform in the link Russel Dawkins posted, you'll notice that the tops of the wave forms are sharply cut off. Like someone did it with a pair of scissors.

That's "hard limiting". Limiting is just as it's name implies. There is a ceiling that cannot be crossed. The limiter's ratio is set to infinity.

Compression would allow some of the strongest "peaks" to pass the ceiling, albeit at a reduced rate (depending on compressor settings). It would sound more lively then.

The problem is that the ceiling in digital exists because there is a hard line on clipping in the digital domain. Digital is unforgiving. It doesn't "soft clip". It either clips, or it doesn't. Whereas analog will compress, oversaturate and start to sound "fuzzy", digital just goes BZZZZZZZT!!!!! when it clips. Total overload, and it is brutal.

That's why the hard limiting. They are trying to push to just below the absolute knife edge threshold of digital clipping.

Cheers

[Daygloworange]

There are compression ratios, then there are the thresholds that determine where the compression (during what amplitude levels) effect takes place.

A lot of what compressors are actually capable of doing is misunderstood by a lot of people.

There are lots of settings and adjustments. Ratio, threshold, attack, release, hard knee, soft knee, sidechain, gating, etc...

I found this article real quickly that seems to touch on the basics of a compressor pretty well. I'll try and find a better one when time allows.

http://www.guitarnoise.com/article.php?id=313

Cheers,

Denny

[nathanm]

I suspect at least part of this problem has to do with the tool-driven phenomenon which can be found in many creative arts.  Rapidly advancing technology will produce a new tool or a more efficient tool than what's gone before and early adopters will want to use it ALOT and it quickly becomes a trendy cliche.  Over time the tool matures and is merged in with the rest.  But for awhile it becomes the main attraction.  Some examples:

Someone creates 3d software which allows an object to reflect its surroundings.  Whoah, cool!  We've gotta have a character made of liquid metal!
That guy from the LOTR movies who created "Massive" - Whoah cool, we've gotta have a scene with ten bajillion orcs in it!
Someone creates a fancy fur or fabric renderer - Whoah cool, we've gotta have a movie with furry creatures!

And of course there was the drop shadow overkill era of Photoshop.

The move from mono to stereo was an excuse for bands to make records with zany panning all over the place.  The Beatles and early Pink Floyd come to mind here.

Perhaps the advent of digital plugins for DAWs where you can have look-ahead compression which can smash down peaks the insant they happen is the cause of "Whoah cool, not only can we make loud mixes, now we can make FUCKING LOUD MIXES!"   Now instead of doing things by ear you can program the plugin to just mash the data to the ceiling and specify how many overs are "acceptable".    Hmmm.  Perhaps in time hard limiting will mature to be used sparingly as a creative tool for musical climaxes and not the main course.

[Russell Dawkins]

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.

That's disappointing - Lyle Lovett's CDs generally sound good.

Doug Sax mastering would not necessarily be a draw for me.

I recall about 7 years ago a client who did a recording with his band in one of the band member's home studio. I heard the results and they were very enjoyable.

Then David Geffen "discovered" them and sent them to England to be recorded at Peter Gabriel's studio at enormous (on paper) expense (to be recovered from revenues from sales and touring, dontcha know). The results, after mastering by Doug Sax, were just plain harsh - much harder to listen to than the original "demo" recording done on low budget equipment in some small home studio. I never heard the "before" mastering version, so I don't know where the harshness and in-your-face-ness came from, but it was there in spades.

[Daygloworange]

I suspect at least part of this problem has to do with the tool-driven phenomenon which can be found in many creative arts. 

Perhaps the advent of digital plugins for DAWs where you can have look-ahead compression which can smash down peaks the insant they happen is the cause of "Whoah cool, not only can we make loud mixes, now we can make FUCKING LOUD MIXES!"   Now instead of doing things by ear you can program the plugin to just mash the data to the ceiling and specify how many overs are "acceptable".    Hmmm.  Perhaps in time hard limiting will mature to be used sparingly as a creative tool for musical climaxes and not the main course.

Honestly Nathan, I have no idea why limiting has gotten to the point it is. It does suck the life right out of music, so I have no idea why anyone would let that happen.

I have heard of a few isolated instances where the artist refused to release a record due to a botched 2 track master. Perhaps there are behind the scenes politics that don't let that happen enough.

I know that Melissa Ethridge, when cutting her first album, was working with top notch producers at the request of her record label. They brought in session players, they were adding keyboards and using drum samples and compressing and adding digital studio effects to make a highly polished record, and she flatly refused to release it, upon hearing the final master.

They re-cut the record. She used her band, they recorded very close to "live off the floor". There were a lot of first takes that ended up being used on the album. This was before she had any clout. It was her first record.

That's pretty incredible.

Cheers

[Russell Dawkins]

Honestly Nathan, I have no idea why limiting has gotten to the point it is. It does suck the life right out of music, so I have no idea why anyone would let that happen.

Cheers

In the hi-fi retail industry it used to be pretty well known that, all things in fact being equal, louder usually sounded "better".

This was capitalized on by the unscrupulous element of the trade making the speaker that they wanted to sell just a little louder than the one they wanted it to sound better than. (whew, that was a mouthful!)

When demonstrating mixes to a client, if one variant has more compression, but also "make-up gain" to bring the levels up as they now can be, since the peaks are compressed, then the average level will be increased and it will sound "better" to the unsuspecting client - at least during the brief opportunity he/she has to pass judgment.

When I do this comparison for clients, I don't apply make up gain until the compression has been approved for what it does to the mix in other ways, like bring too-quiet background elements to the fore slightly or thicken or densify things a little, if that is felt to be desirable.

We all go through phases. Five years ago I used to go a little further with compression than I do now.

I find you can "enter" the soundfield of a less compressed recording easier - it could be said to be more inviting, beckoning you to enter. With hyper-compressed stuff it can literally seem like a wall of sound that makes you want to stand way back and view it from a distance, if at all.

[nathanm]

Perhaps a side issue, but I wonder if using computers for recording has resulted in using our eyes much more than they otherwise would be? Does having all the graphical stuff to look at on a screen make us a bit overly paranoid about levels?  I noticed this in my own hobby recording when I moved from using the ADAT to using a DAW.  I would be more preoccupied with watching the meters and what the waveform looked like rather than just listening.  I thought there was too much visual distraction.  I dunno.  Granted we always had VU meters and whatnot, but with the computer there's all sorts of crap to look at right in front of our face.

[Daygloworange]

I am soooooo glad that we don't have to rely on VU meters anymore. They were useless most of the time.

I do know what you're saying though in regards to seeing the waveforms on the screen. But if you work judisciously, then I don't see what the problem is.

Self control. It's all about self regulating.

Peace.

Out.

Cheers       

[AdamM]

Nathan/DGO some interesting ideas about the tool-driven aspect.  People relying on eyes more than ears?

Nathan, are you into CG / graphics / videogames?     Perhaps compression is like the 'lens flare of 1998' - new, entirely overdone, the flash du jour.    ...except, it's not new.  Compression has been around for quite a while.  I wonder what motivated the LW's to start recently-ish, instead of in the 70's ?

Loudness Wars might have a lot to do with 'Is 'High Fidelity' dead - or does it just smell funny?':  People aren't listening to this stuff much on 'hifi' rigs, the market is now mostly comprised of cheap iPod headphones, car stereos, crappy boom boxes, Stereos from Costco.  Compression sounds pretty good on that crap.

Capitalism at work friends, the Stanley Kubrick's have been replaced by Jerry Bruckheimer's and Michael Bay's.  Better?  Certainly not!   Wider market appeal, lowest-common-denominator massive sales? Yeah.  Volume over quality, every time.  (get it?  )

/A

Oh please Jerry Bruckheimer, make a good film just once

[nathanm]

Nathan/DGO some interesting ideas about the tool-driven aspect.  People relying on eyes more than ears?

Nathan, are you into CG / graphics / videogames?

Yep.  Actually a few years ago I was involved in a video game project for the band GWAR.  It was based on the Unreal engine at the time.  It never really went anywhere, though.  Made lots of cool textures, though.  The only thing I can't deal with is 3D software.  I never got into that stuff, just too complicated.  I do sometimes envy those guys doing compositing in movies, or digital color grading.  That looks like my kinda job.  But really, I prefer to stick with 2D and print.  My day job is scanning\retouching\pre-press PDF-making, fixing software problems etc.

Perhaps compression is like the 'lens flare of 1998' - new, entirely overdone, the flash du jour.    ...except, it's not new.  Compression has been around for quite a while.  I wonder what motivated the LW's to start recently-ish, instead of in the 70's ?

Ha!  Lens flare...that's a good one.  Funny how actual lensmakers work so hard to get rid of it and then here comes a filter to put it right back in!   Lens flare was always sort of cheesy effect though, whereas the drop shadow craze was more widespread.  (I'm just as guilty as anyone)  And the beveled text craze.  Don't forget the "throat lozenge" button craze thanks to Apple of course.

Totally switching subjects...there IS one tune in my collection that sounds great but the waveform looks like a big slab.  "Brick House" by the Commodores.  The thing is, I have no idea if what I have is the original recording or some kind of latter day remaster. 

I dunno if it is this way in the rest of the music biz or not, but within the heavy metal genre lately there's all sorts of re-issued albums coming out with "digitally remastered" being the big selling point.  Out of the ones I've bought the remasters are always crammed to the limit and generally sound a bit worse.  So now the word "remastered" has the complete opposite effect for me, I cringe and don't want to give it a try.  That's where I think it's a tool-driven craze.  "Hey, things are so much better NOW, so let's go back and make all those old classic albums fuckin' LOUD (fatiguing) too!"  It's just depressing. Leave the past alone!!!

[Daygloworange]

Nathan/DGO some interesting ideas about the tool-driven aspect.  People relying on eyes more than ears?

People being neurotic. People sometimes get overly swept up in all the little details. Back in the days of tape, people would pull down faders on tracks that weren't being played in order to lessen the noice floor due to tape rumble. They would pull down the fader on the lead vocal in between phrases. Later there was noise gating that would take care of that. But it's the same thing. People pursue things to the "nth" degree. Sometimes the results are great though.

It's human nature.

I wonder what motivated the LW's to start recently-ish, instead of in the 70's ?

I started a long time ago. It was due to one thing. RADIO.

It started for the legitimate reasons of the limited S/N ratio of radio, which I believe was less than 65db S/N back then. So compression was a good way to get more music out of the level of the noise floor.

Also, the saying back then was "Dead air time doesn't sell". So they went with the stuff 10 pounds of crap into a 5 pound bag approach of more volume equals better, more efficient use of the airwaves.

As for recording, before the advent of Dolby, tape machines didn't have great S/N either. The only method of getting better was to run high tape speeds. So compression there as well was a great method of getting a higher average level further above the noise floor, especially in multi tracked recordings. 24 open tracks on a multi track makes for a lot of hiss and rumble.

A lot of classical stuff however was recorded direct to 1/2" 2 track. So minimal hiss and rumble, less crosstalk and tape saturation.


Cheers