Louder! When Will It End?

  • Thread starter Thread starter crawdad
  • Start date Start date
crawdad

crawdad

Dammit, Jim, Shut Up!
I, for one, am getting tired of the louder CD wars. You know--you look at the waveform and it looks like a solid black line! Whats the point anyway? When the music loses all its dynamics from getting squeezed to theoretical zero, I think it loses something.

I say all this because I tried to approach this super loud thing, but I felt like the mixes got altered in the process. When I did add final limiting but just tamed the transients, the mixes sounded much fresher and more dynamic to me. In the end, mastering a whole album, I ended up turning mixes down a bit to achieve a balance between 12 songs.

Yes, I had to turn the CD up SLIGHTLY, but in every system, it sounded cleaner and more pure. I felt like the line amps in most equipment liked seeing a level that was not so maxed out. I don't know the technical side, but my ears preferred the less limited mixes.

Opinions? Views? Ideas? Where is the best compomise between giving the mix volume and preserving the mix itself?
 
Great thread Crawdad!

Indeed, you've hit on something vitally important here. I can remember 20 years ago having a friend who owned (amongst other things), an extraordinary state of the art turntable, 4 Hafler power amps, a pair 4515 JBL Studio Monitors (really REALLY big boxes) and a dbx 3bx dynamic range expander.

A what you say? A dynamic range expander? Yes, that's right. This glorious box was made by dbx and any signals below the threshold setting were expanded DOWNWARDS in volume, and volums above the threshold were expanded UPWARDS by the same ratio. THe optimum setting for the threshold level was at about 2/3rds of the source signal's average levels. This seemed to give the best results we found.

Obviously, the 4 Hafler amps were divided into 2 amps per monitor after having got their signals split by a passive crossover. The 4 amps were needed to provide heaps, and heaps of head room - after all - they were going to be getting turntable transients which were expanded upwards even greater than the source signal intended!

The result? Assuming your neighbours didn't mind - almost EVERY album you listend to sounded like you were at a live concert. It absolutely was breathtaking.

And the best I ever heard? Believe it or not, it was during the dreamy fuzz guitar lead break by Jimmy Page in Led Zeppelin's song Zeppelin 2 named "Ramble On" - when John Bonham's drums kicked back in it was like getting hit by a Mack Truck.

That 3bx unit really did some amazing stuff.

And my point is? Probably, by today's standards, fewer than 1 thousandth of one percent of music listeners will EVER know such a music listening experience.

All of this poor buggered up generation of music lovers have been entirely brought up on 'maximum ceiling' sound sources - and they are all totally convinced that LOUDER is better without being remotely aware of what totally unexpected sound artifacts leaping out with no warning actually means.

These poor buggers will never know what it was like to hear an original quadrophonic recording of "Dark Side of the Moon" played on a monster turntable system with no 'maximum ceiling cap'.

Yesterday I was playing some of my latest work to some youngsters in their early 20's - and I made a point of asking them to play it on their car stereos (and let me tell ya, these guys have got monster stereos).

I was totally pleased to hear my stuff sounding as monster as it did - and yet these young men, as polite in their praise as they were, were nonetheless non plussed. They explained that their tastes were more 'dance oriented' and that my music is classic rock in the style of the greats - and it was lost on them.

Yet, they were totally transfixed with my descriptions of the compromises my music had to go thru to get so 'loud' on my CD's - they had no idea about zero ceilings and the like. It was only AFTER I enquired if my stuff was as LOUD as what they are used to listening to that they conceded that, hey, yeah it was! Good job they said.

It was at that point I told them how sad I was that I had to make the compromises I did to get it that loud. They were gobsmacked to learn about all the glorious peaks I had shaved off to raise the general height of the mountain range. It was at that point they went back to their 'dance stuff' and listened with a slightly more educated set of ears that they finally realised that their dance music, whilst not exactly monotone in nature, is definitely monovolume in nature, and they were actually a bit disappointed to learn such things.

So as I said Crawdad, a great post.

I personally think that no one could have predicted this problem with CD's - but ultimately it hasn't been good for music at all...

Foo Fighters make a point of releasing their albums on vinyl as well as CD and they point out on the vinyl that the vinyl masters were mastered at different mastering houses to the CD versions of the same album. They make a point of telling their fans that the vinyl mixes are actually superior. It's a lovely thing to be sure - but I'm afraid they are a lone voice sadly.
 
Anyone heard the new Rush CD? It makes me sick. Don't get me wrong...I like the band, but the guy responsible for mastering that should be shot! It's "squashed" so hard there's audible distortion. They might as well have run the final mix through a guitar amp with the gain on 10...(er, maybe that's what they did?). Too bad...good songs, good playing, good band, SHITTY production.
 
"And the best I ever heard? Believe it or not, it was during the dreamy fuzz guitar lead break by Jimmy Page in Led Zeppelin's song Zeppelin 2 named "Ramble On" - when John Bonham's drums kicked back in it was like getting hit by a Mack Truck."

Let's see, the 70's, hi-fi, expander, Led Zepellin.... hmmm. You don't think the dope helped with that experience do ya?

:D
 
Cyan - "do we really need dynamic range in pop music and rock?"

Damn right we do.

Although, I'll say a good percentage of rock music out these days doesn't have any dynamics at the songwriting level - so either way it doesn't matter. Make that shit a square wave for all I care.

But there is still good rock out there, that does have real dynamics in the music, and not squashed do to the 'volume wars'.

Oysterhead is cool stuff, check it out, cant lose with Copeland on drums.
 
Emeric hit on a good point with the songwriting. The other issue is the actual performances. I wouldn't be surprised to find that a lot of these new bands sound like crap without a lot of compression and slick production tricks.
 
I'm going freakin' deaf. :) So I for one can appreciate being able to hear all the softer parts of a tune . . . without having to turn it up only to have my ears blown even further by John freakin' Bonham (out of nowhere) pounding his skins away in my fragile ears. :)

Aaaarrrrghh ! ! !

I agree with you Crawdad, for the most part. Great thread.
 
Good Point Emeric

Hey Tex! I RESEMBLE that remark sir! I think I just got 'aced' my friend! Please note, I was explaining my story in the context of that particular hifi system and the albums which were available to play at that time. I know of many albums since which are superior in production obviously. But my comments regarding the sound artifacts 'leaping' out of the speakers till stand.

Oh, yes, MONTE, in regards to new "Rush" album I hear what you're saying there. Another new album along those lines is the "Beautiful Garbage" album by Garbage - produced and engineered by none other than Butch Vig himself - of Nirvana's "Nevermind" fame.

I made a point of listening to "Nevermind" again the other night just to get some reference points on Dave Grohl's kick drum levels (basically the same level as his snare - real loud) and I was astonshed how quiet the album was compared to today's stuff - and that was just 10 years ago. I would contend the album, on average, is at least 4.5 to 6db quieter than a modern album - and something has to give when you squash it like that.

Neil Peart from Rush is a very, very famous drummer. And the drumming on Nevermind was a very large part of what made Nirvana famous - I am sure that "Nevermind" would not sound as good if it was squashed that final 4.5db - as I am equally sure that the legendary Neil Peart is probably quite sad about the lack of dynamics in his own finished drum sound now.

It all comes down to this - most modern hi fi owners are of the mistaken belief that louder is better - when in actual fact, it's the potential for menace which is ultimately more thrilling.

I will say something though - it has to be considered that the vast majority of people listen to music in fairly harsh environments. They often have little boom boxes in clothes shops in shopping centers with oddles of background ambient noise, as do cars which have at leat 70db of background noise.

Engineers have simply accepted this reality and have started producing music which sounds 'best' in those shitty environments. The true audiophiles amongst us are aware that pure silence is the perfect environment to listen to a recording, but we're definitely in the minority sadly.

Accordingly, in the context of a noisy hair salon for example with 80db of hairdryers and various other shit running in the background, modern squashed music actually does have more 'presence' - but in the absence of said aural competition, it definitely does NOT sound as good as an album with lots of dynamic range.

Such are the compromises involved...

And Tex, I agree wholeheartedly with you. As I wrote in an article recently regarding Pro Tools - an article which responded to the assertion that Digital Audio Ware has killed music - I pointed out (rather correctly I feel) that Pro Tools et al has made music easier to make but it hasn't made music any better. The bottom line is that we are currently going thru a real shortage of quality songwriting and it shows.

Good songwriting in and of itself is very dynamic - combine it with great musicianship and you have timelessness. I would argue that very little of what we're hearing nowadays is genuinely timeless. But I live in hope that the landscape will change shortly.
 
I agree completely about the songwriting aspect. Its damn hard to write a great song. Unfortunately, we are in an era where record companies seem to have forgotten to market the song. They are too busy with the video and the image and the press releases to worry too much about high quality songs on those plastic discs.

As for recording technology coming into the hands of the masses, its a double edged sword. It will be a blessing for people who can already write and perform to a high level. It will also mark an increase in recordings that consist of poor songwriting and playing. Yet, I am kind of optimistic. Today's newbie can be tomorrows treasure. Its just a matter of desire and wanting to learn everything--the playing, singing, songwriting, engineering and production. The ones with the passion will overcome their obstacles and shortcomings.

Back to the mastering and squashing issue, I hope that a few people read this and begin to see the sonic value of not altering the final mixes with too much limiting and compression. I think it can be done within reason, but there is a point where that track doesn't breathe anymore. Too much can really change how the track sounds. I suppose with certain music, that might be a plus--but not for everything. Its getting done to death--even country records are getting the big squeeze. I miss the feeling of space and air in music. Just my opinion.
 
High!

Remember the 80's with the gated verbs or even the verbs in general. There's a lot of stuff, that I would not wanna have mastered that way as it simply distorts in the high end or something like (and I'm just kind of a beginner with VS880s MTK and a triple c !)

Personally I like punk rock a lot and there you can use a lot of compression to have the sound 'fit'. Perhaps I'm overdoing it, but at least I get into getting a feeling for compression now. And even I went backwards with the loudness of our demo, as I felt it was coloured too much. That's just the second point. The stuff is not only 'non-dynamic', it often has the well audible artifacts...

IMO, not every kind of music needs to have strong overall dynamics. It somehow is like a colour saturation in pictures: most pictures need a lot of not so saturated colours or they look shit. But some only consist of base colours in full saturation. But then the rest of the composition has to be ok. Anyway, these are a style you get tired of quite fast.

Just my 2c,

Axel
 
I know how this goes even from my first recording not so long ago. It was a hardcore band and haveing been in a metal band I know there is very little dynamic range in that music . . . but something that is odd is how much radio compresses it. . . that will do some disasterous things to uncompressed songs.

For me if it's punk or hardcore I run it through what is basically over drive. . . it's clipping like crazy but there is so much distortion you can't tell anyway. . . now I wouldn't think of doing that for the acoustic celtic rock group I'm working on. . . but I think that audience is more likely to turn up the volume rather than say "that sucks". . . and another interesting thing is that softer musicians usually have better control of their tone so it sounds more present at a lower volume.

Its a marketing thing. . . does the audience want loud or dynamic. . . rock = loud . . . classicial = dynamic etc
 
That's just what I meant with the 80s verbs. So many records seemed to HAVE TO have these monster verbs...

And it's true when you hear the sound in the radio, it's completely different than from CD... The problem with me might be that I listened to the radio a lot in my car... Perhaps shouildn't have done...

Axel
 
Man...this is a great thread and it hit the nail on the head of something that has been bothering me for a while. Over the past few weeks, I worked with a jazz group and then a metal band. I had just finished the jazz cuts and the main artist said; "Make is sound like I'm in the room with you, playing an acoustic guitar." We worked to get that sound. Very little compression, limiting, etc. Went purely for the quality of the sound, and it was nice.

Later, after walking on air cause the jazz guys were so pleased, I worked on the metal cuts. All the metal guys were saying was "make the CD louder!!!" I ended up with something so loud that when you play it in rotation with other CDs you feel like something bashed you in the forehead when it kicks in. Now I feel so bad about the CD because any artistry that existed at all in their stuff has been compressed out. Squeezed until the waveform looks like a solid highway stripe!

The bad thing is that the metal band loved it. It was exactly what they wanted. Bummed me out because it killed the music and took all the fun out of the engineering.
 
Sonic--you echo my feelings exactly. Louder doesn't always equate to better. I suppose for a recording thats balls to the wall and in your face from start to finish, sure--max it to the ceiling. But, why go that far with everything. I'm not saying not to bring up the level. In most cases that can be done and still preserve the sonic integrity of the recording that you've worked so hard on. No point in having a CD thats 12 db under, but I think there is a line between enough and too much. For one thing, I don't think the preamps in most consumer stereos don't want to see super strong levels--they start to crap out a bit. Brickwall the transient peaks and bring the rest of the mix up to a point where it still breathes--thats what i like to do.

Louder for the sake of louder. Its like the 30 watt amp has the best tone while the 100 watt amp sounds not as good--but, by God--its LOUDER, so gimme that loud thing. Anybody that bases their artistry on volume is...well, I'm not even going there. I want something that sounds good. I can get the extra 3 db with my volume control if I really need it.

Maybe as engineers, we should take the responsibilty to educate our clients about this whole loudness issue. There is much more to mastering than making the mix loud. Ten years from now, all these people will probably regret that they pushed their masters so hard. Its just my opinion, but I like music that sounds like it was played by real musicians, full of human feel and vibe. Theres peaks and valleys in it. I say keep 'em. Next thing you know, we will be quantizing guitar solos. Oh, boy. Can't wait for that, eh?
 
one of the really sad and ironic things about the whole loudness thing is that the labels keep pushing the volume up in an attempt to sound louder than the other songs on the radio.... what happens is the compressors at the radio end up working even harder on the already compressed to the limit songs then they do on just lightly compressed stuff...... the volume doesn't get any louder, but the songs start to sound like absolute SHIT!!!
 
VotaIdiota

That is 100% correct.. I knew something had changed since my recording days in the early ninties. You hit it on the head...

The radio stations have compressed it to a lifeless waist of time.
 
If I may contribute, it is my experience as a metal recording artist that in this particular genre especially, loudness is a necessity. You don't just have people listening on standard cd anymore, most of the listeners build huge mp3 playlists or make mp3 cd mixes for their car.. so one of your songs is much more likely to come up back to back with another band.

Still, dynamics are important for many reasons, and it's also important to avoid distortion. I struggled with eliminating crackle for some time, it is easy for it to creep in if you don't have everything just as it should be.. The most important things to have are proper EQ balances and proper RMS levels.. an RMS level of -10db believe it or not is about where you want to be. Distortion will begin to creep in audibly if you go much higher than that. I mix down my final mixes with a bit of EQ and sonic maximization/compression (ie. Dynasone) on the master levels.. Leaving a buffer zone of a couple of db from the maximum PEAK will allow me to do some final molding of the WAV file.. a VERY cautious application of Steinberg Loudness Maximizer (all levels at rock bottom, boost button ON should do just fine) will bring it right up to digital 0, and your RMS SHOULD lay around -10 if you haven't overcompressed to this point. (your DAW app should have a statistics tool to measure this and other information) Dynamics intact, loud track, win win.
 
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Compression was designed for recording on cassette tapes because of the low (50-60db) of dynamic range. And even then we (or they, I wansn't alive), used a lot of it. Now we have even more dynamic range than ever, and we use so much less! Radio, I can understand, and the same goes for tape. But in the digital world, it's just insane.

Although...

It would seem to me that dynamics are better when you're paying attention to the music, and you have the CD in a great system, and are really focused on everything. For instance, at a dance, people aren't really gonna care. They just wanna hear the music. Though I do think dynamics would be cool, break the windows and crap like that. Also, are a lot of stereos designed to handle a lot of dynamics today? Some of that stuff, that normal people buy is really crap and I don't think it could take the level changes easily. I think it would blow those little speakers out in about a week, assuming the music was played at a relatively loud level, (like 8 or 9, not 1, haha, the simplicity, LOL). I could be wrong because I haven't really played with a boombox in years.

Anyway... I don't like squished music at all, but I think it'll be quite a few years before anything changes. Consumers really don't know, or care.

Spinal Tap: Our amps go up to 11, for that extra kick! Couldn't you just make 10 louder? Duuuuuuude! What the fuck are you talking about? ...consumers HEHE
 
High!

A nice thing (but we've somehow missed this opportunity) would have been:

1) use dvd instead of CD (as example of a new medium)
2) have every song in a 'dynamic' and in a 'compressed' version.
3) have a possibility of selecting the 'play' mode you want...

The only problem is that 'noone' will be there wanting to pay for these extra features (or how's the percentage of audiophiles in 'normal' cd customers?).

Ciao,

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