Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[John Sayers]

<Gheez! Get a grip. I've been in the biz since the early 60's.>

me too

In the above example I was the ME and the artist was the engineer - I've also recently mixed and mastered and album for another artist and gave the same two choices as before - once again the squashed version was chosen.

Seems they think it sounds better.

cheers
john

[jwhynot]

100% agree Mr "Why"

(Where'd you get that name anyway)

Squash or no squash, digi or not, music is partly about content, partly about intent, mostly about accident.

Recorded music works on a bunch of levels (pun intended) but here are a few in no particular order:

Cultural resonance - when the content (notes, words, harmonies etc) relates to other music.  "Style" if you will.

Purely tactile/proprioceptive - thumping drums, screaming voices, stuff that speaks to the snake brain and gets you moving.

gestalt (I like to refer to this as "get salt" for the tequila drinkers -- oh, BTW, you know why Hitler didn't drink tequila?  It made him mean...) - that is to say the ineffable but unique first impression a musical sound makes, whatever it is.  Think of the guitar chord at the start of "Hard Day's Night" (younger folks refer to your local lending library --- or rather, look up "lending library" --- or... oh never mind)

Words.   Yup, the words.

A sense of the other - that is, when hearing this recorded racket, one gets a sense that actual humans are involved in making the sound.  This is frequently confused in the minds of Tonmeisters as meaning "naturalism" in recording.  Sorry fellas, music going down a wire will never be natural.  No, it's more an illusion.  Clever people can create the illusion at will, but often it's more like discovery - a certain setup in the room, the equipment - a certain mood - people who are "clever enough" can at least recognize when that happens and stop fucking around.

The sense of the other - that illusion - is not "realism".  It doesn't matter one  bit what the reality was in the recording sessions, once the punter puts the CD on (or selects the mp3 on the ol' iPod).  

Heavily limited recorded music (I don't mean in the sense of budgets or other deficits) is quite capable of conveying that illusion, carrying the words, creating a distinct first impression, pounding and screaming, and sounding like something you might have heard before.

I agree that using gear poorly - reducing what's really important in a recording for some other (possibly nefarious) purpose is something I don't want to do.  Still, as Mr WK mentions, some of my absolute favorite recorded music sounds like absolute shit according to people in the know.  While we're talking about allegiance to "rules" and how everything is so smashed up and lousy these days I can't help thinking of how people were up in arms about 24-track - fucking narrow tracks - no way you can get music on there - and a 48-input console?  What's your problem, can't make a decision?  I tell ya, music is totally dead man.

Any one here around when guitars were "Finished"???  I mean the second time, the early 80s.  (some will recall that the Beatles [[youngsters are encouraged to google them]] were turned down for a record deal on the premise that "guitar groups are on the way out, Mr. Epstein")

Readers of Plato will realize that the world has been coming to an end since the ancient Greeks.

Focussing on square waveforms as if having valleys in the waveform display is somehow more musical... well I accept there is some correlation but would strongly dispute the exclusivity of some of the arguments presented here.

out
JW

PS I'm a relative newcomer to this world, having started with the whole studio bit in '79...  

[Lee Flier]

I think some of you are missing the point.  Most of us realize that trends come and go, and most of us realize that if a client prefers one thing over another then it's the engineer's job to give it to them.  I think most of us also realize that rules are made to be broken, that in art there are no rules, etc. etc.

However, first of all there's nothing wrong with establishing guidelines which can be used as a baseline.  The AES has a lot of such guidelines in place and certainly not everybody follows them. Engineers since the dawn of recording have basically used as a baseline the ideal of capturing a performance just as the musician played it.  That is the standard for fidelity.  We all know that most recordings deviate from that standard quite a bit - often very artfully.  But the baseline still exists, as it should, and there are obvious qualitative reasons why it does, otherwise we'd all be content to record on Soundblasters with Radio Shack microphones and be done with it.

This doesn't mean someone might not come along who uses the distortion from a Soundblaster to make a very artful recording. However if everyone else were then expected to pass all their masters through a Soundblaster, regardless whether it was appropriate for the music or not, in order to "compete in the marketplace" or "sound more NOW," then we have a problem.  And that's pretty much where we're at with hypercompression right now.

Is this a passing trend?  Probably.  Will people remaster stuff in the future so it'll sound better?  Probably.  What does that have to do with anything?  I don't think any engineer can reasonably use as a defense for doing a poor job, "It's OK, someone else will clean this up in 30 years."  Huh?

[chrisj]

John Sayers wrote on Tue, 08 March 2005 06:01

<NO DYNAMICS MEANS EVERYTHING LOUD, AND THIS IS LIKE EVERYONE YELLING EVERYTHING THEY SAY.> I disagree - if I whisper no matter how loud you make it I'm still whispering. If I play a soft guitar intro no matter how loud it is it's still a soft guitar intro.

Yes, but if you mumble your RMS loudness is way hotter than your peak output, and if you sing with phenomenal articulation and projection, your peak output is WAY HOTTER than the RMS output. This is another kind of dynamics.

When you slam with peak limiting (not necessarily compression- Boston's first album is insanely compression-squashed, yet has unusually hot peaks relative to RMS- it's close to 'Rumours' w.r.t peak hotness) you specifically wipe out the peaks that provide the auditory cues to such a spectacular performance, rendering the result closer to what it would be if you mumbled and played unenthusiastically.

Hell, you could peak limit and then expand the more largescale dynamics back to beyond what they were and it would still suck. Which may be why DC isn't charmed by expansion, and I think that's a fair criticism. It's not just about the RMS levels varying wildly. What's the peak level doing?

Mind you, when I expand I get hotter peaks relative to RMS, but what I do isn't compression. It's a transfer function like the opposite of HEDD, and if pushed it sounds distinctly gnarly, which I have to watch out for. There is no time factor involved at all, it's strictly sample-by-sample.

[John Sayers]

Quote:

rendering the result closer to what it would be if you mumbled and played unenthusiastically.

neither of my clients suggested that I'd made them sound like they'd mumbled or played unenthusiatically.

cheers
john

[WhyKooper]

......I don't think any engineer can reasonably use as a defense for doing a poor job, "It's OK, someone else will clean this up in 30 years." Huh? ......
----------------------------------------
Squashing the dynamic range does not represent a "poor job" on behalf of the ME, not does it result in a "poor" product.  Nor the end of the world or the end of good music or the end of anything else.  

It is simply a procedure that creates a sound and level that the client wants when the client directs the ME to go that direction ..and then signs off on the resulting product.  

There is nothing to "fix" or clean up in the future.  

Whatever gets done to the product in the future will simply be a procedure.  It may mangle the product more (by some of your definitions of what's good) or it may result in a remix/remaster that you can not conceive of back here in the distant past.

If an ME EVER told me that I was ruining MY product by having obscene levels incorporated into the mastering process, that would be the LAST time I gave that person work.

[Lee Flier]

WhyKooper wrote on Tue, 08 March 2005 17:25

It is simply a procedure that creates a sound and level that the client wants when the client directs the ME to go that direction ..and then signs off on the resulting product.

I think I already acknowledged that if a client asks for something specifically then they should get it.  But your case pre-supposes that the client HAS directed the ME to go in that direction.  It also pre-supposes that if the client signs off on it it means he proactively "approves" it rather than that he simply trusts in the ME.

The question is what does the ME do when the client has NOT asked for this procedure, or any particular procedure, but is simply trusting the ME to prepare the work for release and will abide by the ME's choices?  That's where reasonable standards come in handy.

[Paul Frindle]

WhyKooper wrote on Tue, 08 March 2005 19:10

.....As recording professionals we are humble custodians of this terribly important process. Our job is to work within the constraints offered by inevitably technically limited reproduction environments and use our artistic appreciation and knowledge of the kit at our disposal to produce our best effort at preserving the ESSENCE of the performance, such that others can appreciate it.... --------------------------------------- Gheez!  Get a grip.  I've been in the biz since the early 60's.  This is a fantastic time.  Everything is temporary.  Everything is transitory.  A lot of this "squashed" music perfectly fits the style and complements the "songs". I read this thread and I swear some of you probably took to heavy drinking back when fuzz boxes and distortion circuits were developed for electric guitars.

LOL You are making some very good points and certainly much heavy drinking was indeed done to great effect - but not because of feckless reactions to a bit of distortion I too have spent a lifetime deliberately making distortion and my early musical years were practically completely taken with producing the darndest most powerfully sweet/aggressive distorted guitar sound I could muster from my own designs. And to this day I design processing that actually limits, compresses, distorts, EQs, changes envelopes - you name it - all great artistic stuff (hopefully) and I support and applaud it. And even at my advanced age (remembering the 60's very well) - I still get excited by it, WHEN it adds to the spirit of the performance, when the art demands it. Obviously - 'I' - am not the one pontificating from 'on high' that art has to be confined to feeble, whimpy, self-important and affected 'blither-blather', droaning on constantly and ever-so-nicely about darned gnomes, fairies, hobbits and 'bottom of your garden magic'! Jeez - pleeeze!

I think you may be missing the point that I am trying to make - do people have to do this to absolutely everything - to the point where nothing is spared? Is there really no other idea in town? Surely there must be something that might be better or more moving without it? I mean yes, I love distorted loud guitars more than you could ever imagine, but I could weep at how they are made to sound these days - even the essence of power guitar art has been deleted and regurgitated as an annoying racket. Has everyone forgotten what was so deeply moving and artistic about power guitar? Take for instance that Green Day album, track 4 for example - a brilliant track, but ruined by totally atrocious sounding distortion and complete lack of dynamics and 'presence'. To the trained ear you can still hear that many of the original sounds (particularly drums) were great - but all ruined in the end. In our house this album didn't last after the 4th track before no one could stand it anymore - not even our 10 and 13 year old children who bought it with their own pocket money. Apparently it got taken back cos they couldn't listen to it.

And you know what's sadder? In my day buying albums and owning music was an honour and every record was cherished and preserved, selected and brought out at the right moments to suit whatever mood you were in and placed protectively back on the shelf again afterwards. Up to around 10 years ago my albums were my single most valuable possession - they were the very first things to be moved into any new flat/house and took prime place in my life in every sense. Now our house is awash with albums bought at the rate of about 1 each week and it pains me that they are virtually never listened to from end to end. They lay around the floor and under the chairs, behind beds and furniture, being trodden on, lost and worthless. And lately they have even got bored with taking new albums back and have given up buying them all together "cos the Video Hits channel on TV sounds better" (interesting that one). Guess how this terrible waste makes me feel - having spent a lifetime in music, recording and system design?

So what happened to our Green Day album - bought only 3 weeks ago? And this is absolute honest truth - it happened last week. Well, at the moment I am trying to design yet another plug-in process that 'fits' today's idiom, atmosphere and sonic palette. In order to do this I listen very closely and at great length often at high levels to what is the epitome of 'what's around and cool', in order to understand/feel what indeed the emotion actually was that the people making these tracks were really trying to achieve. Why? Because I want to give it to you done 'better' and significantly enhanced - that's my job. So remembering the Green Day album, I went around the house asking where it was so I could take it to work - and the sad answer? "Oh Lxxx (13years) took it back to the shop cos it sounded trash". "I think Sxxx (10years) made a copy using Mum's computer". Where is it then, can I borrow it? An hour later after much scampering around cos I am becoming visibly agitated - "Sorry Dad, I think we threw that away too, cos it also sounded totally gross!!"

Ok - now I'm an old fart perhaps, but do you think this is the value our society should assign to 'art'? Like it or not - this IS a reflection on our society.

And as a final devastating kick up the arse for my whole profession and a lifetime's work (which I had always considered mattered in some small way to art and society), tonight I went in to bid one of them good night and I actually found the Green Day CD (copy). It was lying in a pile on the floor of around 10 or so of their recently bought CDs, all with a extra holes drilled in them!! Why? Because they had decided to make them into a "pretty hanging mobile display"! "It's ok Dad because we never listen to them anymore". Stumbling out of the door in disbelief, I looked up and saw half a dozen or so more CDs pinned to a cork board and hung on the wall - as a 'display'.

Am I the only one - is my family unique? Sadly I doubt it. If you want to explain why the industry is in decline - look no further  
Oh and BTW - do we lock up the 10 year old for making an illegal copy of a CD - if she ends up throwing that away too?

Fantastic time indeed? Fantastic possibilities and totally unprecedented capability - but IMVHO sadly lacking 'output value'.

[krabapple]

Quote:

title=Paul Frindle wrote on Sun, 06 March 2005 The sole purpose and value of recording and reproduction is to provide a means by which the FUNDAMENTAL emotional effect of a musical performance can be transmitted to others not present at the time of the performance. Seems obvious I know - but we MUST always remind ourselves of this without fail!

but, isn't your reasoning a bit backwards?  You feel an emotional effect while listening to a recording (sometimes right away...sometimes only after years of listening!) and conclude that the recording therefore 'transmitted' the emotional effect.  Well, maybe, but maybe another person might never feel it...or might feel something else.  Isn't it possible the the emotional effect is really *entirely subjective* while the recording only 'transmits'....the sound?  The emotional effect is *your* reaction to it, at that moment, in that circumstance.  

Who is to say what the FUNDAMENTAL emotional effect of a performance objectively *is*, anyway?  And if we can't define that, how do we know how to transmit it reliably?


Regarding squashed music, I don't mind it when it's new...I do mind it when its a remaster of something that wasn't squashed in the first place.

[Paul Frindle]

 

krabapple wrote on Tue, 08 March 2005 23:37

Quote:  title=Paul Frindle wrote on Sun, 06 March 2005 The sole purpose and value of recording and reproduction is to provide a means by which the FUNDAMENTAL emotional effect of a musical performance can be transmitted to others not present at the time of the performance. Seems obvious I know - but we MUST always remind ourselves of this without fail! but, isn't your reasoning a bit backwards?  You feel an emotional effect while listening to a recording (sometimes right away...sometimes only after years of listening!) and conclude that the recording therefore 'trasnmitted' the emotional effect.  Well, maybe, but maybe another person might never feel it...or might feel something else.  Isn't it possible the the emotional effect is really *entirely subjective* while the recording only 'transmits'....the sound?  The emotional effect is *your* reaction to it, at that moment, in that circumstance.   Who is to say what the FUNDAMENTAL emotional effect of a performance objectively *is*, anyway?  And if we can't define that, how do we know how to transmit it reliably? Regarding squashed music, I don't mind it when it's new...I do mind it when its a remaster of something that wasn't squashed in the first place.

Yes I agree - these are very good fascinating points and this is a deep subject. As to how music affects people - normally we can see this by being in their company, watching them and experiencing the atmosphere. There is no doubt in my mind that en masse we tend to extract similar emotions from musical pieces. Attending a concert of any genre shows this most strongly. And of course buyer's preferences illustrates at the very least 'a preference' for something. We can force feed market music by hype, lifestyle suggestion, fashion and glitz, but the acid test is probably how enduring it is after a period. All my kid's Spice Girls CDs have been thrown away.

And yes I agree, the ruined re-mastered discs are particularly sad to experience - especially if you still own the originals.

BTW - does anyone know why the tracks sound so much better when played out as part of the Video - are they mastered diferently? Listening to the kids Video channel - they are definitely better?

[bobkatz]

Paul Frindle wrote on Tue, 08 March 2005 18:53

BTW - does anyone know why the tracks sound so much better when played out as part of the Video - are they mastered diferently? Listening to the kids Video channel - they are definitely better?

Probably because DVDs don't have the long 20+ year sliding history of the loudness race that CDs have been going through. Don't turn your back, though, it'll happen. It's already happened, unfortunately. Lack of an enforceable standard for sound levels on digital media is the one thing I regret about this transition to digital audio.

[Paul Frindle]

bobkatz wrote on Wed, 09 March 2005 00:07

Paul Frindle wrote on Tue, 08 March 2005 18:53   BTW - does anyone know why the tracks sound so much better when played out as part of the Video - are they mastered diferently? Listening to the kids Video channel - they are definitely better? Probably because DVDs don't have the long 20+ year sliding history of the loudness race that CDs have been going through. Don't turn your back, though, it'll happen. It's already happened, unfortunately. Lack of an enforceable standard for sound levels on digital media is the one thing I regret about this transition to digital audio.

Thats interesting. So is music destined for a Pop video mastered differently from the commercial CD?

[John Sayers]

Paul - it could be the broadcasting system: These are three systems

MTS - Used in conjunction with NTSC/525. Consists of two independant carriers each carrying a discrete channel. One channel provides stereo sound by providing left/right channel difference signals relative to transmitted mono audio track. The second carrier carries the Secondary Audio Program (SAP) which is used for a second language or a descriptive commentary for the blind. Uses a technique based on the dbx noise reduction to improve the frequency response of the audio channel.
FM-FM - dual carrier FM coded discrete stereo transmissions, analogue. Can be used for bi-lingual operation under user selection, but no auto-selection is available. Audio characteristics better than standard mono soundtrack.
NICAM - (full name: NICAM 728) Digital two-channel audio transmissions with sub-code selection of bi-lingual operation. Stereo digital signals with specifications approaching those of Compact Disc are possible. NICAM stands for Near Instantaneously Companded Audio Multiplex and uses a 14bit sample at a 32KHz sampling rate which produces a data stream of 728KBits/sec.


the USA uses the MTS system.

cheers
John

[Paul Frindle]

John Sayers wrote on Wed, 09 March 2005 00:12

Paul - it could be the broadcasting system: These are three systems MTS - Used in conjunction with NTSC/525. Consists of two independant carriers each carrying a discrete channel. One channel provides stereo sound by providing left/right channel difference signals relative to transmitted mono audio track. The second carrier carries the Secondary Audio Program (SAP) which is used for a second language or a descriptive commentary for the blind. Uses a technique based on the dbx noise reduction to improve the frequency response of the audio channel. FM-FM - dual carrier FM coded discrete stereo transmissions, analogue. Can be used for bi-lingual operation under user selection, but no auto-selection is available. Audio characteristics better than standard mono soundtrack. NICAM - (full name: NICAM 728) Digital two-channel audio transmissions with sub-code selection of bi-lingual operation. Stereo digital signals with specifications approaching those of Compact Disc are possible. NICAM stands for Near Instantaneously Companded Audio Multiplex and uses a 14bit sample at a 32KHz sampling rate which produces a data stream of 728KBits/sec. the USA uses the MTS system. cheers John

Yes I realise this. And our delivery is via digital TV in which one can hear the data comp artefacts. But I am talking about the actual production. There is definitely less distortion and less squashing on many tracks on the video sound track. I have compared them on the same system by putting on the CD directly after the video has played on the TV (turning the level down of course!!).

[John Sayers]

well the audio in clips is normally copied straight from the CD release.
It's usually played back for broadcast via a bank of betacam players which could be any of these:

DVCam - 16 bit 48k  top of the line mastereing machines probably not used for daily program playback
Digital betacam which is 20/18bit.
SP Betacam analogue Dolby C-type NR (Noise Reduction) system

maybe it's the low end SP betacam you are hearing ??

cheers
john