badly mastered commercial CDs

  • Thread starter Thread starter PenguiN
  • Start date Start date
P

PenguiN

New member
The other day I was bored, and just extracting the wav data from some tracks on some CDs to examine them under a wav editor and get a feel of how they were mastered..

it turns out that some "professional" mastering jobs could have used the advice of pages like this one!!

some examples:
Depeche mode "Violator"
It barely ever went over -2.5dB for the whole cd -- i could have increased the levels by simply normalizing!! could have also used some limiting

Red Hot Chili Peppers "Californication"
The exact opposite problem -- this disk was mastered so hot that there's actually *AUDIBLE* digital clipping at points! I first thought it was my headphones or cd player or something, but when i looked at it under a wav editor it was plain as day.


How do so-called "professionals" get away with such obvious errors? anyone know of any other badly mastered popular cds?
 
You're confusing "relative loudness" with "meter levels." In the end, it's your ears that you "master" for - your meters don't do your hearing for you!

Bruce Valeriani
Blue Bear Sound
 
huh??....but if the entire CD was -2.5 dB down, why would you not take the advice of the *meters* and raise the entire CD project up?....maybe not at the mastering stage, but at least increase the signal to noise ratio with hotter levels. Yeah..normalizing will bring up the noise floor, but prior to this...ya know?? ...like maybe some expansion?!?

I do agree...the general "public" will never judge your music by looking at .wav files and audio meters...but as a well rounded musician/recording artist, these things are important.
 
That's a pretty interesting question.

The one record that immediately comes to mind is the 1st Porno for Pyros.

I really like most of the songs, and I think its a great record. Whether it was a mastering issue, I don't know, but I've never heard anything sound so squashed.

Also, while I think it is their best work, Smashing Pumpkins' Gish is a pretty sterile recording.
 
mixmkr said:
huh??....but if the entire CD was -2.5 dB down, why would you not take the advice of the *meters* and raise the entire CD project up?....maybe not at the mastering stage, but at least increase the signal to noise ratio with hotter levels. Yeah..normalizing will bring up the noise floor, but prior to this...ya know?? ...like maybe some expansion?!?
Click to expand...

Well, for one thing - I'll bet if you normalize the entire CD as a single entity, you'll find that there really isn't 2.5 db to pull up in the first place. The meters are NOT foolproof - they don't give you the whole picture by a long shot, so you can't simply say "well - the meters show that the song could be bumped up 2.5db..." And you can't start taking it track by track because you are then changing the relative levels from track to track (and you don't want a say, ballad, to playback at the same level as the hard-driving cut from the previous track - unless you happen to subscribe to the idea that dynamic range is a bad thing...)

And exactly WHAT are you going to accomplish raising the level another 2.5? The current trend towards "peak everything so it hits the max" is a very bad thing to do to audio. It's called AIR, and SPACE, and more importantly, DYNAMICS. There's very little of any of those things in much of today's record productions - and that's NOT a good thing.

BTW, didn't Ed just finish a long thread on this very topic???

Bruce
 
>>>>........And exactly WHAT are you going to accomplish raising the level another 2.5? The current trend towards "peak everything so it hits the max" is a very bad thing to do to audio. It's called AIR, and SPACE, and more importantly, DYNAMICS. There's very little of any of those things in much of today's record productions - and that's NOT a good thing.......>>>>> Bruce

by raising everything up 2 1/2dB BUT keeping the noise floor where it is at, you'll obviously get a *cleaner* recording...but I am sure you know that. It will allow for a greater dynamic range as the softer passages won't dissapear into the noise inherent in the[any] recording medium. And don't mistake that I might be confusing compression with just raising overall levels. I do agree Bruce, that there probably isn't 2.5dB leftover in the aforementioned particular recording, as the meters may indicate, but a mild taming of some of the onruly peaks might let that margin be realistic, without squashing the music...which I agree is the current trend in music. I think actually you will be creating more of the "air" and "space" that you mention, and will also increase the dynamic range. Hence, my preferences of digital recording over analog for its increased S/N...allowing for a greater dynamic range. I think we are on the same page but preaching different ideas.

Peace...
 
I hear ya... I think you're right, we're kinda on the same wavelength, just looking at different angles. You brought up the point of compressing peaks - it's possible, but given the trend to overusing compression, I doubt that this is the case in this particluar example.

But anyways, the main point I wanted to bring out was that although you can learn a lot by looking at the waveforms of particular tracks, one has to be aware of the different ways that info can be interpreted. Meters and the eyes that see them are tools - it's the ears that make the decisions....

:)

Bruce
 
Originally posted by bvaleria

"it's the ears that make the decisions...."



there ya go...110% correct-toe-moon-doe....

and the ears that buy the CD's too at blockbuster!!:-D
Click to expand...
 
I don't know about the drums but the drums on metallicas ...and justice for all are the worst sounding studio drums I have ever done. They sound like the set was miked live with some pmz's from radio shack.
 
no code by Pearl Jam. the second song is, like, twice as loud as anything else... is sucks.


xoxo
 
The drums on "And Justice For All.." aren't bad soudning at all. They pretty much redefined that whole genre's drum sound, in my opinion. I hate Lars and knows he's a "no talent hack" but that drum sound was inventive and different. Whether he's a good player or not (which I know he isnt) that sound was original, and was copied by many people over the years. To me that doesn't make it a bad recording. Watch me get flamed for that one....
Jake
 
you wont get flamed for it...but I agree that the drum sound is awful. If everyone copies a bad drum sound, it's still a bad drum sound.

On a sidenote: Lars can obviously play, why do you say he's a hack?
 
Lars sucks?

hmm.. i dont know who has been drumming on the metallica albums ive been listening to lately.
 
Is bad production/mastering a hallmark for Pearl Jam? :)
I only got their first (I think) album, the one with the red cover, "Ten"? It sounds like its recorded with two mics direct to the CD in their rehearsal room, or something. It just sounds boxy and crappy, and well, bad.
 
Oh my..... I won't even get into that Lars discussion again, but believe me when I say a whole lot of people on this board agree with me, and you are the first 2 I have seen that don't. Look around for the old thread on most over rated drummers. I can't believe this thread. Pearl Jam's "Ten" is the album I use as a reference to do my mixes. I believe it is one of the best mixed albums I hav ever heard. It has a really "live" feel, and just sounds awesome. I don't know what the hell you were listening to it on.
Jake
 
It has a live feel, sure. Does it have to sound boxy and cruddy for that?
 
Today's trend seems to be making your master as loud as possible, doing whatever it takes, even if it means loosing sound quality. It's brutal, I've heard some really good mixes turned it to heaps of crap but "pro" mastering houses. It's a shame, but thats what people want, CD's that are really loud so they can cruise on friday nights and show off their parents honda accord! (Okay not everyone, but a huge demographic)
 
Violater came out in 1989 if I remember correctly and that was the way it was done then.. It sounds thin mostly though due to the electronic nature of that badns music, but even then most cds from that era sound similiar

that RHCP album is pretty new and thats the way most cds are released these days.

even then, compression aside, I would say that most albums these days are mixed to have a little more sonic weight.
 
reggie... I have to disagree as well. "ten" is widely regarded as Great-Sounding rock album. For the goodness of the conversation, it was Mastered By Bob Ludwig @ Masterdisc, and I too use it as a reference. Perhaps the sound you are referring to is the Peavy Classic 50 guitar amps they used for the whole thing....?

xoxo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top