This Guy's Pissed.

[demensia]

Rip talking about Rush's new CD.
He isnt very happy about it either.

http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/8A133F52D0FD71AB86256C2E005DAF1C

 

[Sennheiser]

That was a good read.

 

[scottboyher]

That is a great article!

 

[CrazyMonkey]

You know what would be great? Seeing this article somewhere other than on a website devoted to recording professionals/enthusiasts. I think that article is pretty clear and down to earth, and pretty close to understandable by Joe Average, possibly with a little explanation added and a few technical details left out. In the end it doesn't matter how much recording engineers complain to each other about the LOUD = CRAP problem -- it's the all-to-oblivious public that has the voice to make record execs pay attention to this issue.

Think about how you listened to music before you became involved with recording yourself (try and remember back that far, some of you old pros, or just pretend you once had average-guy ears ). To me, the quality of the recording fell into three categories: sounds great, sounds OK, and sounds like shit. I never had the knowledge to apply any whys or hows to "sounds like shit" -- I just knew I didn't like it. Only after many hours spent learning about recording technology and tons and tons of fiddling around with the tools am I just now barely able to start noticing exactly what it is I do and don't like about certain recordings. Unfortunately, any doofus can hear the too-quiet CD and point out that it is too quite, but they certainly can't explain what's wrong with the too-loud CD other than to say it doesn't sound right.

I would love to see this article, possibly slightly dumbed-down, printed in a home stereo magazine aimed at audio consumers, or maybe in Rolling Stone or something like that. Then there might be some attention paid to the LOUD = CRAP issue by the record company execs, and we could stop getting crappy CDs.

 

[esactun]

I think a big chunk of the problem is that most folks hear a song for the first time on the radio, which is compressed to shit. They get used to thinking that that is how music sounds, and expect it on their CDs. They also hate straining to hear a quiet passage over the roar of road noise when in the car.

When I was younger and stupider I thought it was a flaw in the recording if one would have to turn up the volume in such a situation. "Why don't they make the whole thing loud enough to hear?" I'd say. I guess I needn't mention that classical music used to drive me nuts for partly that reason. To the modern, untrained, radio-raised ear, dynamic range sounds like a screw-up.

 

[TexRoadkill]

I've been listening to the music stations on my digital cable and I had the newer rock stuff playing then switched over to the blue grass and americana stations. The difference in sound quality is amazing. The latter was clear, punchy with a lot of space and the former was stale, flat and 2 dimensional.

 

[scottboyher]

I've been listening to the music stations on my digital cable and I had the newer rock stuff playing then switched over to the blue grass and americana stations. The difference in sound quality is amazing. The latter was clear, punchy with a lot of space and the former was stale, flat and 2 dimensional.

Yeaaahhh but... Bluegrass is naturally that way. Can’t compare Alison Krauss to Korn. Another point is that a lot of the folks that are complaining about the "loudness" of music CD's these days are older and there for are partial to the music, styles, bands, etc, that they listened to in there more impressionable days.

That said, I agree that everything is being squashed and is dynamically dead so don't beat me up.


I love to put in a Alison Krauss CD and listen on a great pair of speakers. You can get lost in the depth of the recordings, it is like you are standing in the middle of the band as they play!

 

[Light]

If you read through the all caps paragraph (took me two widely spaced attempts), he unwittingly (I think) makes a point which explains why record execs like loud records. When things are that loud, your mind treats it like white noise, and starts to filter it out. The record companies like for you to not pay attention to the music, because that way, when you listen to the radio, you won’t notice you hate the song which is on, so you won’t change the station. If you don't change the station, you will hear the commercials, which is all the radio folks (Clear Channel and all) care about.

I once heard a record company president explain that, on country radio, they have learned that if you play a ballad, half the people will love it, and half will hate it. Country radio, therefore, does not play ballads, because they know that if they do, a large part of their audience will change the station, and thus will not hear the commercials.

I also am upset about all of this. The record by Audioslave (Chris Cornell and the guys from Rage Against the Machine) was mixed and mastered loud. I love the music, but I have a hard time listening to the record, because there is no dynamic range. AGH!!!

Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[ad0lescnts]

ok shoot me...
but i dont find the whole "louder is better" thing that bad...it sounds good.

EXCEPT for the the last two RHCP albums. I can hear it clipping on the californication album...

T

 

[DCMaguire]

You hear that stuff about ballads all the time, especially in country music. And yet, 7 of this weeks top 20 country singles are ballads. The Dixie Chicks latest album is currently rolling out the 3rd hit -- a ballad, as was the second hit (went to #1, as did the album) and there isn't a drum or electric bass on the whole disc.

I agree with everything Light sez. I think the music buying audience in every genre is getting screwed by the suits who know more about demographics and selling soap than they do about songs, and wouldn't know a well-crafted song or well-crafted recording if it bit them on the bum.

They've "dumbed down" radio because it was cost effective, and nobody complained loud enough (by shutting off their radios).

Maybe satellite radio will be the salvation of music - and the mix.

Maguire

 

[MISTERQCUE]

Slammin story by Rip-Tide!!!

Candy for the eyez!

Great catch demensia!!

 

[James Argo]

Great catch demensia!!

...actually Cuzin B.

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62758&



James

 

[demensia]

whoah, good call.

 

[kormaniac]

loudness

I think the culprit of the loudness issue was Nirvana crashing into the airwaves with their explosive choruses. Nirvana definately had dynamics to their music...but I think the record label people determined that the loud 'Teen Spirit' anthem was everything...and from that point on...the loudness trend really began in pop music.

This by no means is a slap to Nirvana (my personal fav band)...but it is a slap to the interpretation of what made it successful.
Now...there are a lot of bands right now...that make LOUD music...and the 'aggressive' sound is still hanging around...and I would only guess that they try to capture and put more stress on the power as opposed to anything else....KoRN is a very loud band...yet they definately capture dynamics in many of their songs.

I love the hardcore band Snapcase...and their Progression through unlearing album is incredibly loud...but my god...to me...that album is amazing.
I still don't know how they got every instrument...and the vocals to be as loud as they are...and still be so clean...its crazy.

 

[greggybud]

May I offer a different perspective? Most of the contributors I have read here come from people who love to write, mix, and produce music. People are passionate about their art.

Radio broadcasting is about making money. (Excluding non-commercial radio) The only passion is being #1 in Arbitron, which will lead to increased sales. Broadcast companies spend millions in research deciding not only who is listening but also what they like. Music research for radio is a big business as well. Some companies pay sample audiences to listen to "hooks" (the catchy part of a song) and rate them.

The demographics of a CHR (top-40) radio station are geared toward 18-34 females. So what kind of listening devices do these people use? Radio Shack car stereo with the top down? Boom box? Clock radio? My point is that these listening environments are far from that of a hi-fi stereo guy who listens to Jazz or Classical on a thousand-dollar system.

So if you have two competing CHR stations one of the things you can do to win the ratings game is MAKE YOUR STATION LOUDER THAN THE COMPETITION. At first that might not seem to make a lot of sense until you realize that just .1% of an Arbiton share in a large market represents many thousands of listeners. Some of these listeners may tune into a weak signal perhaps with a bit of static. So if the listener is given the choice of 2 CHR stations both with equal amounts of static, but one of them is LOUDER, then that is an advantage over the quieter station.

So complain all you want about overly compressed music. Just remember who your audience is and the environment they are listening in. Market forces have created loud CDs. They are easy to listen to just like the marketing of fast food and how convenient McDonalds or Burger King is to a large percentage of consumers.

So if you want more dynamics and less compression on the airwaves, listen to a non-commercial or PBS station where radio ratings do not translate into big money. Fact is most people don't care or even think about dynamics, compression etc. They want what tastes good.......a Big Mac.

 

[Light]

So if you have two competing CHR stations one of the things you can do to win the ratings game is MAKE YOUR STATION LOUDER THAN THE COMPETITION. At first that might not seem to make a lot of sense until you realize that just .1% of an Arbiton share in a large market represents many thousands of listeners. Some of these listeners may tune into a weak signal perhaps with a bit of static. So if the listener is given the choice of 2 CHR stations both with equal amounts of static, but one of them is LOUDER, then that is an advantage over the quieter station.

This explains why radio stations compress things, and that is fine. But how does this justify making CD's sound like the radio?

Also, given that Rush probably hasn't gotten any radio airplay in 20 years, how does it explain making a Rush album Loud. Please don't be upset be this, as I do like Rush, but they are NOT a commercial band.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[Sennheiser]

If you read through the all caps paragraph (took me two widely spaced attempts), he unwittingly (I think) makes a point which explains why record execs like loud records. When things are that loud, your mind treats it like white noise, and starts to filter it out...

I only got halfway through that all-caps paragraph before I gave up on it and went right to the bottom. And then found out that's what most people would do unconciously. It worked.

 

[JamesBond]

Interesting article for sure...and point well taken. I heard one of the new Rush songs on the radio and was amazed (as usual) by the goups technical skill but also did take notice the sound quality. I remembe thinking " Geez this is pretty powerful" meaning LOUD powerful. Bigger is better? Not in my opinion.