Yes, this is something that I've been thinking about alot lately too. There are now endless examples of records that are so "loud" that they audibly distort and are compressed to death. And not in a good or cool way. Morrissey's current album is the one that drives me crazy, it seems like it was recorded very well, but I just can't listen to it. It gives me a headache. It truely seems as if they took mastering settings for the "single" and used that boilerplate for all the other songs without even listening to the results.
Is it really the bands that ask for this? And does anyone else wonder if this will ultimately hurt big studios?
I, as a home recordist, find myself less inclined to even think about going to a "real" studio these days. I know it isn't the studio's fault, but CD's that I buy commonly sound like crap. Why bother with paying for studio time, I can make crappy sounding recordings here at my house with what I've got!
That's an unfair statement, I know...but I'm just trying to point out my perception (right or wrong).
I think that it would be great for studios to demand that this over-compressed sound stops (or demand that there's a "radio version" and the real version of an album). This, I think, will help studio business.
There seem to be gobs of new people making recordings, and there seems to be a perception that this is hurting big studios. I think, on the other hand, of this as gobs of new "leads" for studios. When home recorders get frustrated with their sound, they should consider going to a studio for important projects, or even parts of projects. Home recorders should not hear crappy sounding commercial releases and think, "why bother with the real studio?" and then buy a new "tube warmth" plug-in.
