[low.pfile]

Getting more pissed at these sound engineers really screwing up recordings.

I recently came across a cool band, Asobi Seksu, by listening to online music streams, I especially liked the song Walk On The Moon. So I bought the CD. After a few listens I learn that this album is very poorly recorded/mastered. OK, This is indie music. I am not expecting flawless-I expect some quirks. But when I hear nasty crackles caused by clipping during the beautiful vocals of Yuki, on the song that I really like, I get pissed. Ugh.

So I grabbed that song and dumped it into Audacity and sure enough - major clipping. [Song link] It's at its worse @ 2:40 on. This occurs on nearly every track to some degree. Disgusting.



      Asobi Seksu levels


To compare, I grabbed some similar style music.

Between The Wolf And The Dog, by Electrelane.... alternative crunchy, fuzzy guitar music, the levels show decently and sounds good.



      Electrelane levels

Then I looked at a song from the album I recommended in the Best Recording thread here on AC: When The Night Comes, by Dan Auerbach. The levels are as they should be. And it sounds amazing.



      Dan Auerbach levels

I am using iTunes equalizer to tame the Asobi Seksu CD, but it barely has impact.  So, I won't listen to this CD as much as I would if this were not the case.

I needed to vent.

Cheers, ed


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

[bprice2]

Just an idea, but what if you sent the CD back to the record company with a "nice" note?  Maybe if enough of us did this in protest, the message would sink in.

[Bob in St. Louis]

Just an idea, but what if you sent the CD back to the record company with a "nice" note?  Maybe if enough of us did this in protest, the message would sink in.

Or politely ask if you could have a version cut off the master?  aa

Bob

[nathanm]

Eek, some really crunchy vocals there.    When the chorus part kicks in it gets really BLARING and you can't hear yourself think.

My guess is that there's too many computer screens and visual distraction in mixing rooms.  Too much eye use and not enough ear use.

[orthobiz]

I saw Hard-Fi about three years ago at the Magic Stick in Detroit. Fantastic show. While they were playing to a couple hundred people here, their album was No. 1 in England. "Cash Machine" was a single, great song, but TOTALLY unlistenable. I can only live with the memory of having heard it live, then once in awhile I'll spin it to refresh my memory. But enjoy it while it's playing? No. Makes me feel like Beethoven, doing the music thing without any sound. Except I have no talent. Well, maybe a misguided comparison but you get the idea.

Paul

[mvwhiting_83]

This is the reason I could only listen to the new Metallica album only once before I sold it for a buck.

[jimdgoulding]

Just an idea, but what if you sent the CD back to the record company with a "nice" note?  Maybe if enough of us did this in protest, the message would sink in.

Bob

Or politely ask if you could have a version cut off the master?  aa

Nice idea, Bob.  I'd be interested to know what kind of response a fellow might get.  I feel ya, Low, and I bet a lot of guys here do.  I don't know if sound enginners work for the artists or the label.  Maybe, it doesn't make a difference if in the end it's all about radio play and sales.  You gotta believe that is being given a lot of consideration.  I hate that and its taught me to be picky.

[analognut]

Actually, if you would read magazines such as Eq and Mix you would learn that the recording engineers are just as frustrated with the music scene as you are! It's not that that the engineers don't pay attention! Gimme a break! Software look-ahead peak limiters require no attention. You set the software for what you want and then go do something else while it's running. And I will guarantee it's not engineers who want to see the music so heavily compressed and limited that there are basically no dynamics left!

The engineers have to do what the customers want.

The root of the problem is the same thing that's at the root of all the world's problems! The almighty dollar! Everybody wants a loud CD because that is what sells!

Even very respected names which have been around for years have succumbed to this. Bob James, Jeff Lorber, Spyro Gyra, just to name a few! I've got most of Spyro Gyra's music. They have been putting out an album a year for over 20 years, and since the late 90's the CD's they come out with have gotten louder each year! No BS! BLAME THE CUSTOMER!

[orthobiz]

I am certain this has been posted here before:

http://www.turnmeup.org/index.shtml

Deals with this very issue. I just got my second turntable; am setting two others up for my daughters first. I've got enough pre-1990 music to keep me busy for years. I still listen to a LOT of current music also but I have a feeling it's gonna get a little bit worse before it gets better...

Oh, and fans (customers) have started to complain:
http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/09/18/fans-complain-after-death-magnetic-sounds-better-on-guitar-hero-than-cd/

Paul

[nathanm]

It is nice to see that this issue has reached a mainstream audience here and there.  (Thank you Metallica, thank you video games) My fear was that shitty brickwall limiting would be forever doomed to be an audiophile thing that only picky techno nerds would care about or understand why it is a bad thing, and thus never get overturned as standard industry practice.  Who knows, there may come a day when I see a reissued album and NOT wince when I see the word "digitally remastered".  I kinda doubt it, though.  I suspect just these giant bands will get some bad press here and there and meanwhile most albums will continue to be pumped through a daisy chain of ProTools compressor plugins.  You know, Because We Can.

[JoshK]

I'd love to hear the Guitar Hero version (of Death Magnetic) in FLAC obtained from "questionable means". 

Its funny about this DM album.  Its unlistenable on my Denon receiver using same transport and speakers.  But with my SE amp, it is "passable" although it does still seem to sound distorted.  At first, when I was listening to it on my SE amp I thought I was clipping the amp, but when compared to Tool's albums, I can play much louder even on the complex pieces and so I ruled that out.   The difference in why its passable on the SE amp I think results from the output transformer, which by its very nature acts as a sort of low pass filter.  Leading edges of clipped transients get rounded over some. 

[nathanm]

I did get the "questionable means" FLAC version myself, but listened to it briefly only once.  As much as I hate the sound of overcompression, the musical content is still the main decider.  For instance, I love Celtic Frost's "Monotheist" which is equally as brickwalled as "Death Magnetic", which does piss me off on one level, but I still love the songs.  I doubt I would be into Death Magnetic if it were magically morphed into the production value of Garage Days or Master Of Puppets.  The commentary section to the Rolling Stone article perfectly illustrates the whole muddle of the dialog.  You've got people who genuinely understand why it sounds bad mixed in with confused people who don't know the difference between audio and data compression, mixed in with people who just hate the musical content and various combinations thereof.  I mean, talk about brick walls:

Steve Franz | 9/18/2008, 8:04 pm EST

I think a lot of it has to do with length — Death Magnetic is an hour and seventeen minutes long, and the compact disc has a time limit of about an hour-twenty. Rather than split the thing into two discs (and make it more expensive), they compressed it as much as possible to fit it into the available data space. Squeeze the orange, filter the pulp, keep the juice.

I actually don’t mind it. It reminds me of Metallica’s 80s works — rough, raw, heavy on guitars, although more a function of studio equipment than producer mismanagement. Interestingly, this is exactly the kind of sound the band was going for (and ended up exaggerating) on St Anger.

Personally I would much rather able to re-mix something like Bathory, brilliant albums made with hamfisted techniques and primitive gear, resulting in some serious clipping.  But hey, this is the life on an audiophile; sitting helpless in your living room, wishing you had control over things you have no control over!

[Mike Nomad]

One of the interviews in the latest copy of Tape Op included a bit (sorry) about how the Mastering Engineer community is divided over these issues. Because they are the last link in the production chain, they get blamed for crap sound. Even when it's not their fault (meaning, they got handed crap studio tracks). A number of mastering folks do want to speak up, but when they start bad-mouthing the projects they work on (which means they finger an engineer or producer up stream), they will get fewer projects.

Speaking from personal experience, there are times when I've been hungry because I was right. Sometimes, it ain't all that.

Mike

[nathanm]

The fundamental principle is flawed; that buyers choose music based on relative volume rather than musical content.  Where do they get this information?  How can this possibly be true?  Sure, we can be duped into buying stuff based on any number of superfluous factors, but I don't know ANYBODY who prefers music based on volume.  I just don't believe such an idiot exists.  Has anyone EVER said to their friend, "Hey Joe, did you hear the new Band XYZ album?"

"Yeah, it's really loud!"

Has this EVER happened anywhere?  Ever?  Sure people are stupid, but they aren't THAT stupid!

How much of a factor is radioplay these days anyway?  I haven't discovered a new band via FM radio in AGES.  That part I might be out of the loop on, but I swear by my claim that nobody gives a shit if a song is loud relative to another.  It's an absurd notion that these people in the business act upon and we're left with clipped, flat crap mixes as a result.  Since when are bands so insecure that they can't compete on their music alone?  Is there a prize for loudest mix?  If I release a record of yodeling and brickwall it to 0db average level will it sell better than Metallica?

[bprice2]

Oh, and fans (customers) have started to complain:
http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/09/18/fans-complain-after-death-magnetic-sounds-better-on-guitar-hero-than-cd/

That was an interesting link, Paul.  I don't know if you also read The Death of High Fidelity , which was contained in your link, but it's interesting as well.  The following quote jumped out at me while I was reading it and I found it to be somewhat reassuring.

So is music doomed to keep sounding worse? Awareness of the problem is growing. The South by Southwest music festival recently featured a panel titled "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Shit?" In August, a group of producers and engineers founded an organization called Turn Me Up!, which proposes to put stickers on CDs that meet high sonic standards.

Here is the link to Turn Me Up!

[analognut]

Hi nathanm:

Apparently people are that stupid! The loud CD is what sells, according to the engineers!

It's not us that buys this material, it's young teen-agers, and what do they know?

I noted earlier and will now re-iterate that the mastering engineers can be quoted from interviews I have read they don't like the fact that much of our new music is coming out with a dynamic range of only about 13db any more than we do!

They are required to do what the customer wants.

Cheers,
John 

[Brown]

Well with all the Hi rez downloads available ad USB DACs getting better every day that CD won't matter much. Except for a few gems from the companies like RR, Chesky, Classic Records, Kimber, Acoustic Sounds and so on the scenario is changing and for the good. Maybe they are doing on purpose to sway us away from CDs and towards downloading. Remember Sony and the intro of SACD ? LPs as well when the CD was coming on. Wasn't the sound quality fooled with so the NEW formats would succeed. Dejaveau all over again.
   Has anyone tried the new Hi Rez downloads from RR ? Very impressive IMO. At least there is choice now. Rip away lads rip away.

[nathanm]

Apparently people are that stupid! The loud CD is what sells, according to the engineers!

That's the flawed principle that I am referring to.  They are conflating a loud mastering job with sales and ignoring all the other factors, like maybe the most obvious one: people like the songs!  And there is also no means of knowing before purchase whether or not a mix is loud; they don't advertise or promote their bands as having a loud mix.  There's no sticker on the front of the CD saying "HELLA LOUD!  Now over 4db louder than the leading brand!"  The loudness is a technical, behind-the-scenes thing so I just can't see how it is a meaningful way to interpret sales.  It's rather superstitious really, like a baseball player who thinks he can't hit a home run unless he has on his lucky socks.

[GregN]

.........  The commentary section to the Rolling Stone article perfectly illustrates the whole muddle of the dialog.  You've got people who genuinely understand why it sounds bad mixed in with confused people who don't know the difference between audio and data compression, mixed in with people who just hate the musical content and various combinations thereof.  I mean, talk about brick walls:

I've noticed that too, in various comment sections related to such articles.. people are all over the map addressing too many points many unrelated to this specific problem but thinking they are addressing the same problem all the same.

It's a frustrating problem, no doubt. The "loudness wars", I mean. 

[GregN]

Apparently people are that stupid! The loud CD is what sells, according to the engineers!

That's the flawed principle that I am referring to.  They are conflating a loud mastering job with sales and ignoring all the other factors, like maybe the most obvious one: people like the songs! .......

The way I understand it, when they do marketing analysis for songs, a group of several songs will be combined on a disc and shorter "snippets" of each will be played for the listening participants, one song after the other. In that kind of setup, the louder tracks do tend to stand out, grab the listeners attn. and appeal more, hence, the notion that "louder sells".

Of course, nobody listens for 30-60 seconds at a time in real life. My belief is that the net result of this type of mastering results in people listening less often to music, for shorter "listening sessions" or more often treating music as background, whether it be at home or in the car, etc., without ever realizing why they are doing it. They grow bored or tired listening quicker than they used to and never think to attribute these feelings to the way the music has been mastered. If they do think about the reasons why, they probably just assume they'd simply rather go watch tv, take a nap, read a book, etc., more than continue to listen to the music; the level of music engagement is just not as strong and other things end up holding just as much or more appeal to them at any given moment.