Dynamic Range Day, March 16, 2012: What Think Ye?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Telegram Sam
  • Start date Start date
Telegram Sam

Telegram Sam

New member
Loudness War

So, I was listening to my original issue vinyl Queen Album; Night at the Opera, and got to thinking about it.
With Ipod earbuds taking over, is dynamic range dead once and for all?
Is there anything we can do to encourage its survival?
I for one don't really see how, most people in the public don't even know what it is. :(

At least it has a day now...

Dynamic Range Day 2012 - NO MORE Loudness War!
 
I have most of Queen's albums on vinyl, as well as a few singles as well as the digital remasters.

I've always thought that Roger Taylor's drums just sound huge on "Night at the Opera", and "Day at the Races".

I live in hope that the "Loudness War" has not been lost.

Paul
 
Your hopes will be crushed like a Kid Rock (or Katy Perry or Metallica) mix.
 
Dynamic range is nowhere near dead, yet the loudness war has been decisively won by loudness. How can this be? Simple. Make your mixes however you want and don't listen to things that you deem as too "loud". There. You can have your dynamic range and you don't have to cry about loudness anymore.

Loud masters have been made since the mid 90's. It's now 2012. Time to get over it. And really, with the exception of a few disasters (Metallica) most modern masters are loud and have dynamic range. Go figure.

And for the record, Metallica is thrash-metal. How much dynamic range is that shit supposed to have anyway?
 
Yeah or the newer one. I forget what it's called. I'm not a Metallica fan. Like most people, I like their first 3 or 4 albums, and the rest are all shit.
 
Greg_L said:
Yeah or the newer one. I forget what it's called. I'm not a Metallica fan. Like most people, I like their first 3 or 4 albums, and the rest are all shit.
Click to expand...

I concur.

Ive saw them 3x back in the day and was each time surprised how terrible ulrich was. In Dallas they literally had to stop because he got lost during the intro part during fade to black.
 
dreib said:
I concur.

Ive saw them 3x back in the day and was each time surprised how terrible ulrich was. In Dallas they literally had to stop because he got lost during the intro part during fade to black.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that he does his drum tracks in sections because he can't play it clean the whole way through.
 
Greg_L said:
Dynamic range is nowhere near dead, yet the loudness war has been decisively won by loudness. How can this be? Simple. Make your mixes however you want and don't listen to things that you deem as too "loud". There. You can have your dynamic range and you don't have to cry about loudness anymore.

Loud masters have been made since the mid 90's. It's now 2012. Time to get over it. And really, with the exception of a few disasters (Metallica) most modern masters are loud and have dynamic range. Go figure.

And for the record, Metallica is thrash-metal. How much dynamic range is that shit supposed to have anyway?
Click to expand...

^^^This^^^

Also, in unrelated news, March 17 is officially "Find a Real Cause Day." Can't wait...
 
+1

I heard from a guitar I played with who knew a engineer from the first alblum that said he tracked his drum parts by himself from memory because he couldnt play with the band.
 
So is the Guns and Roses CD any good or do they suck too now?
I read that the band chose the version with the most dynamic range for release.
I'm ok with their first album.
 
yeah THRASH is like trash - best when compacted.
Metallica post thrash (ie: when they started playing arpeggios and not hammering chords) is just pretty metal for non metal lovers.
Oh, & about hunting bears that have just been forced out of hibernation...
I have the original Queen vinyl (well up to & including NATO as after that I didn't like the "new direction") & I digitized most of it myself whilst waiting for the CDs - the range is great & the sound on plastic was excellent.
I bought Queen I on CD in the mid 80's - amazingly for a fiver in Kmart- and it's sounds pretty good. I didn't buy any other Queen CDs until they began to remaster them with the hindsight of having not addressed RIAA EQ and not considered the limitations of the new format previoulsy.
The 1st couple - QII in particular was pretty poor - showed need for development. I was given the DTS version of NATOpera recently & the stereo version on that is GREAT - yes, loud but DYNAMIC in a BIG way.
Let's face it, there have always been bad mastering jobs be it the record company, the band or the ME making "of their time" decisions. Horslips' Aliens LP was a disaster for the excellent songs & Television's Adventure was an abomination compared to Marquee Moon's sound.
 
I'm wanting to heavily compress my tracks but I just can't bring myself to it. I'm probably terrible at it but all I hear when I do, is noise - punches and distortion. I am doing it a little though. I don't like that there can be so much variation between tracks. I'm compensating by making the whole track "richer" (more harmony, precussive fillers etc).

I will say though, that some tracks just lend themselves to it.


Daniel.
 
I personally think that it's an extreme response to an extreme problem. I will always suggest the downsides to clients with regards to excessive loudness but strive to minimize the downsides. In any event it has no bearing on the work I do personally and I have clients who want it through the roof and who have no need for level at all. I predominantly care about whether my clients are happy with the end results. Remasters should be left as the original IMO.

SafeandSound Mastering
mastering dance music
music mastering
 
Last edited:
Telegram Sam said:
is dynamic range dead once and for all?
Is there anything we can do to encourage its survival?
I for one don't really see how, most people in the public don't even know what it is. :(

At least it has a day now...
Click to expand...
Who actually decides that a day is to be held in obescience to something ?
rayc said:
Let's face it, there have always been bad mastering jobs be it the record company, the band or the ME making "of their time" decisions.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. When the old analog vs digital arguments periodically rear their heads, the impression put across by the analog brigade {of which I'm a part time agent} is that until digital, everything was fine and dandy and warm then digital came along and introduced harshness, laziness and loudness. Which ignores facts such as, there was a quest at least as early as 1963 for engineers to get the louder master and louder than your competitors because even then, loudness was perceived as better. Mastering engineers looked for ways to get maximum loudness without making the needle jump out of the groove. The Beatles music really began to take off technologically because they were tired of their stuff not being as loud as records made in America. The Stones recorded extensively in the USA because they felt their stuff was done better justice there.
But there have always been good, average and downright shit mastering, recording and mixing jobs and engineers. It's human.

Daniel England said:
I will say though, that some tracks just lend themselves to it.
Click to expand...
Which is the key. If that's what a track calls for, maximize it.
Daniel England said:
I don't like that there can be so much variation between tracks. I'm compensating by making the whole track "richer" (more harmony, precussive fillers etc).
Click to expand...
I'm the opposite. I love variation. It is tempting to fill in the soundscape to leave out space, but putting in fillers purely for that purpose harms the music. By your own admission, it's purely 'compensating'. I try to avoid 'default' positions because then, you're not really recording how you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top