Is Louder Better? 544
GoodNicsTken writes "Rip Rowan over at prorec.com did an
analysis of 5 different Rush CD's released from 1984 to 2002. The results show a definite trend in the recording/mastering style from each album. Rip contends that louder is not necessarily better as the record execs believe. The artist however, is often left with little choice in the matter."
I totally agree. (Score:5, Interesting)
to the same LOUDER IS BETTER butcher job Rush's Vapor Trails went through. One example is the song "Here Comes the Pain" on Slayer's latest album. I can barely make it past the intro because it simply sounds so terrible. Or if I really want to listen to it, I turn my volume down so my speakers don't peak or bottom out. Turning metal DOWN??? That just ain't right. Damn their sound engineers to hell.
On the other hand, In Flames' latest album entitled Reroute to Remain sounds absolutely beautiful on any speakers I play it on. Same holds true for other Nuclearblast artists such as Old Man's Child and Dimmu Borgir. Kudos to foreign audio engineers!
CD vs Vinyl (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see how things could change. (Score:2, Interesting)
Mastering engineers use all sorts of multiband compressors and loudness maximizers so that if you use the CD in a multiple CD charger, you don't have to ride the dial and ajust the level to make it sound even.
That means that the louder one goes, everyone bassicly has to follow so that they are not the softest playing CD in the set...which most people will perceive as inferior (psychoacoustics phenomenon here).
It really is a sad state of affairs because the role of the compressor is to limit dynamics in the sound wave which in turn, makes it harder to create climax and release in the song. The jazz and classical recordings seem not to be affected so much, fidelity is the word here...but for pop/rock records...they go as close as possible to digital 0dB.
Alternative solution for loud recordings (Score:2, Interesting)
http://replaygain.hydrogenaudio.org/
Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
This guy doesn't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
Rush was on like a 6-year hiatus. They produced the album (along with another longtime Rush producer guy). Do you think that they would have put out an album that didn't sound like they wanted it to?
Vapor Trails does sound different. There's more distortion, the amplifiers are more overdriven, being pushed to their maximum more... But that is more a style thing than anything else. There's been a lot of Rush stuff that has been very clean, very free of distortion, very clear.
And Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson, and Niel Peart have said that they chose to make things 'louder' and less clean to give the album a bit more of a 'jam' feeling. They wanted to get back to their roots, and distinguish themselves from the different clean and synthy sounds they had in the '80s.
So... Vapor Trails doesn't sound loud and overdriven because it is engineered poorly, or because not enough effort went into producing it... it sounds that way because that's the sound Rush was going for
And for the (slashdot) record, Vapor Trails has generally been recieved well by fans, and has gotten very good reviews. And I like it, so you KNOW it's good stuff.
Re:No kidding. (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm am not a recording recording engineer, but after a few courses on analog and digital signal processing, I thought I knew enough to understand at least the basics of the recording process. Isn't it common practice to optimize the loudness of the recording right at the analog source while you're recording it? I've heard what happens when you don't. Why would(/do?) record companies do that on purpose?
Compression could save hearing (Score:5, Interesting)
Bingo! (Score:5, Interesting)
My brother tought me this 20 years ago when he showed me how to make tapes. I would sit there and stare at the VU meter throughout the WHOLE song, turning down the record volume slightly every time it hit red. Then rewind the song, and now with the volume properly set, record it.
Later I learned to let a bit of red slip in there, to taste. If its loud and distorted, its just pure garbage.
Personally I do not like rock and roll. But if its lound and 'clear' I can dislike it with a sort of appreciation...
Re:No kidding. (Score:5, Interesting)
What annoys me is the poor audio engineering in movies and DVDs today. I have fine hearing, but I often have to turn on the subtitles because if I turn up to hear alot of the dialog, other sections of the movie will fry the voice coils on my speakers. I like dynamic range and all, but there's such a thing as a signal that is too low.
Re:Bingo! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, this is most likely the problem. It probably isn't a louder is better trend. More than likely, it is the next generation of recording engineers that learned on Avids and cheap PC based eqipment, and ignored the whole measurement part. They ruined the whole job market for the experienced engineers. Now, no longer able to get work for more than $20/hr when they were getting $50-$75/hr, the experienced guys go to low-key post houses and mix sound effects into TV and radio commercials. At least that work is steady.
Of course, I've been called an elitest pig for suggesting that the Avid jockeys out there should not have gotten to where they are now with so little time learning to do the job. Now there are tons of these cheap engineers that are only good as long as the producer does not know how to read a VU meter. I say reap what you sew, and I'll stay an elitest. Perhaps when someone finally realizes what went wrong, it will be like the Cobol programmer's watershed of the late 90's.
When is louder better? (Score:3, Interesting)
So what can we do about this? It would be nice with some analysis software to evaluate individual CDs. Not that software can tell you how good something sounds, only the ear can tell you that. But still it is good with some subjective meassures instead of only objective meassures. But that is not all. How about releasing two masterings only differing in the volume. One of those too loud, and another one that is simply scaled just enough to not cause clipping. So people could listen to whatever version they prefer, or even mix the two in a way that would actually reproduce the original with more than 16 bits of quality.
What would be even better was a new format and a standard somehow forbiding this practice. From the article it sounds like they are pushing the volume about 9dB too loud. How about a format the forbids an average volume higher than the -18dB of the range allowed by the given number of bits. The problem is that everybody wants to have the highest volume, so standardizing a volume below what will cause damages to the sound seems like a good plan.
Of course requiring a lower volume will loose some bits of quality. 18dB equals to 6 bits of your samples, so my suggestion would be to use 32bit samples which is a nice number and 8 bits more than I have heard about anybody using. Sure it is not going to happen with CDDA, but it is about time to get a replacement format anyway. Unfortunately I'm afraid those designing that stuff today are not focusing on quality, but a lot of other stuff like screwing their customers as much as possible.
Vapor Trails (Score:5, Interesting)
to the same LOUDER IS BETTER butcher job Rush's Vapor Trails went through.
The article mentions that artists usually don't have a choice in the matter, but Geddy Lee himself did Vapor Trails. He stated in interviews that he was having breakdowns because everything was digitally clipping, but that he was reassured that it sounded okay by the rest of the band.
Audio Processing (Score:2, Interesting)
I design broadcast audio processors for a living, and most people would probably categorize me as an audiophile!
CDs have been mastered louder and louder since the beginning of time, but around 5 years ago is when they ran out of bits (headroom) and first started using limiting, later clipping, to go over the top.
As the article points out, noone wants to release a CD that is quieter than the other CDs! It must be just a little bit louder, always.
Forget any quality arguments, it's not about that. I used to think that 24bit/96khz (DVD-Audio) would be the salvation, but the same thing has already started to happen there!
Here's something the article missed:
Broadcast Audio Processors will in many cases actually *penalize* the overly loud/distorted audio, and make it quieter than clean audio would be, regardless of the original loudness of the CD! This is (very simplified) because they will normalize to an average "loudness" rather than a maximum "peak level", and when the input signal contains peaks it will subjectively sound louder than if it didn't.
I'm almost contradicting myself here, we're talking *subtle* loudness differences, but at the very least it will NEVER sound louder on the air because the CD was mastered louder.
By the way, Radio Stations have had loudness wars all on their own since the early 80's (when a company named Orban, http://www.orban.com introduced the Optimod 8100 audio processor, paving the way for broadcast loudness wars).
So the question is, if there's nothing to be gained, why do it? And if people don't care (which they obviously don't), again, why do it.
But they're doing it. Not just to Rush CDs but to virtually EVERY mainstream CD released.
Why?
Beats me, guys. It's gotten to the point where I'm moving away from mainstream music simply because I can't stand to listen to the ruined sound. Maybe that's a good thing in the end!
Linear PCM vs. logarithmic (Score:3, Interesting)
I've always wondered about why (more or less) permanent audio storage formats like CDs or DAT use linear PCM when it's fairly clear that the human auditory system uses a logarithmic transfer function. Wouldn't we be better off using 16 bit logarithmic samples instead of linear samples on CDs and such?
Note also that the article points out the legitimate uses for pushing up the volume without any distortion. For example, many pre 1980s recordings are now getting a second workover: the original release was on vinyl, then there was the simple 1980s digital transfer to CD, and now many classical recordings (e.g. most of Rudy Van Gelder's recordings for Blue Note) are released a third time after 24 bit remastering and mixing. (Plus there are the Japanese 20 bit releases from the 1990s.) This does make sense, since you when transfering your final 24 bit mix to a clunky old 16 bit audio CD, you need to make sure that you keep the volum as high as possible without introducing distortion, coz if you don't, you lose detail in the softer passages due to the fact that you have to drop the least significant byte of each sample. So louder is in fact better, as long as you don't clip the peaks.
Re:CD vs Vinyl (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:More cowbell (Score:5, Interesting)
I just wonder if a monkey can keep a beat, that'll show 'em. Hey, you know you aren't doing a good job if a beat-box can replace you.
Personally, I think what music needs is some of the cooler instruments out there. I can't imagine why none of the metal bands out there have heavily used low-pitch chimes, or tympani. It would have such a different sound than people are used to that they'd certainly get serious airtime. And in case your monkey of a drumer can't handle it, I can certainly find millions of Jr. High band students that can replace him in an instant...
What I want to see is a drummer for a mainsteram band stand up in the middle of a song, and go over and play the vibraphone for at least a minute or so. That would show they aren't all chimps with sticks.
Re:This guy doesn't get it (Score:1, Interesting)
Rip Rowan
Liner notes from the White Stripes album Elephant (Score:5, Interesting)
"All songs on this record recorded to eight track reel to reel at Toe-Rag Studios, Hackney, London, England by gentleman Liam Watson in Apil 2002 except track 4 recorded at the BBC Maida Vale studio by Miti"
I haven't seen liner notes like this (i.e. referring to the recording process) on a rock album in a really long time.
This was the same album that was sent to radio stations in vinyl only, the speculation being, they were trying to avoid it being uploaded to a P2P network. But accoring to an interview, vinyl is their preferred listening medium, and they wanted people to hear it in that same manner.
I have both versions of this album, and I must say, that the vinyl disc, on a VPI Aries Scout [vpiindustries.com] and a tube phono preamp are not subtle.
And the detail! It sounds glorious!
Re:CD vs Vinyl (Score:2, Interesting)
It's heavy, fragile (even moreso than cds, enter warps), sounds worse most of the time, about the only thing it has going for it is the fact that it is an analog medium. This makes not much of a difference as the tracks of the song have been through quite a few digital medium states (although at a very high resolution) by the time it is mastered, and in most cases vinyl records are dance material, which was almost entirely generated on a machine.
In the end it's mostly the image that keeps vinyl alive. It is the heart and soul of the "DJ". Seeing a guy up there on a pair of gimpy CDM's just doesn't convey the same feeling, although it's becoming far more commmonplace for celebrity status dj's to playback entire sets off of CDMs (very fresh material that hasn't made it to the pressing facility or early promo's).
The electronica/dance scene pulseline is new material and your ability to integrate that into sets properly. Vinyl is dying a (long overdue) silent death. The best dj's in dance circles aren't necessarily the best mixers, they are the ones that can work the crowd and have insane tracklists.
Re:Bingo! (Score:4, Interesting)
Try explaining to a client why they should someone hire a good Avid editor for (say) $150/hr (or audio- or lighting- or camera-person) when they can have their son do their company's commercial on the family's Final Cut Pro machine with their $700 digital camera?
I'm a TV guy and very interested in where the market is going to go in the next few years. I know your comment was about music production but it's really the same thing...people who used to get paid decently can't get work because potential clients don't understand that they're paying for experience.
I'd rather work in sports...
Crap FM compression, the US leads the way as usual (Score:3, Interesting)
I used to live in Britain, and travel to the US frequently. Now it's the opposite way around. In all this time I have had the strong impression that US FM and TV audio is horribly compressed and disgusting compared to Britain. (This is by no means a more general point about the two countries. I'm not trying to stir up anything.)
Anyway, I recently watched the Foo Fighters DVD single of "times like these" and it has US and UK versions of the video. To my ears, the mix for the UK video was quite different and much better. It had more punch... so I wonder now if engineers perhaps pre-crappify video soundtracks for the US market. Perhaps the Foo Fighters engineer thought he could compress the signal to broadcast standards and achieve a better result than if it was left to the TV stations.
My theory is that the BBC lead the way with reasonable dynamic range in the UK, because if they needed more powerful transmitters the taxpayer picked up the bill, and so commercial TV had to follow their lead. (But it's all pure speculation!)
Re:CD vs Vinyl (Score:2, Interesting)
(after determining the SNR for the grooves made on a diamond disc to be around 110 dB)
You know what? I've heard what this guy means!! (Score:3, Interesting)