What Happened To Dynamic Range

b0b · From: Cloverdale, CA, USA

Here's a good rant against today's CD mastering techniques: www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm

Bill Ferguson · From: Milton, FL USA

Bob, I surely agree with that article. I never buy CD's and complain when my wife does.

If you listen to the steel (the clearest sounding string instrument ever made) on most digital CD's, it has a slight amount of distorion in the clear notes.

This drives me crazy and I am sure it comes from compression.

Oh well, our generation will be gone soon, and the new generation will think what they are hearing on CD's is the way it is supposed to be.

Bill

Richard Sevigny · From: Salmon Arm, BC, Canada

Can't disagree with the guy.

The stuff my 10 year old listens to is best described as "wall of sound" It's not that the songwriting sucks, but the mixes sound like a competition. There's no empty space.

Steinar Gregertsen · From: Arendal, Norway, R.I.P.

This has been a "pet" of mine for several years now, it makes me (almost physically) sick to hear how otherwise good music is destroyed by having all the air and dynamics squeezed out of it at the mastering stage.

It's highly ironic that the digital medium, with its superior abilities for preserving the dynamics without adding unwanted noise at low levels, has been used for the exact opposite.

There are a bunch of CDs out there that I just can't listen to for more than 3-5 songs, after that the loudness fatigue become too much and I just can't listen anymore.

Fortunately there are signs that indicates that the trend is turning, but it will probably take another 5+ years before things has been 'normalized' again. Several leading mastering icons, like Bob Katz, has been crusading against this for years, and it seems like their efforts are beginning to pay off.
But the decade from 1995 to 2005 (plus some) will forever go down in the history of music production as the time when everything sounded squeezed and lifeless, just like the 80s are known for their larger than life snaredrums and looooooong reverb tails.

One more tragic thing about this is that so much older music has been remastered in the true loudness spirit, and since much of original sources for these recordings will be lost not too long from now (original master tapes are deteriorating), all we have left is the new "loudness über alles" remasters. What a tragic shame.....

Steinar

------------------
"Play to express, not to impress"
www.gregertsen.com
Southern Moon Northern Lights

[This message was edited by Steinar Gregertsen on 17 May 2006 at 05:10 PM.]

Dave White · From: Fullerton, California USA

I've been listening to a CD my sister gave me by a guy named Kenny White (no relation). It is one of the most sensitively produced and mastered CD's I've heard in a long time, with great dynamics. I guess that's why his album is not a commercial success.

Michael Barone · From: Downingtown, Pennsylvania

Bill, I agree that Pedal Steel is not produced well in some cases, due to compression. But I also think that the red book sampling rate is just not high enough to reproduce high frequencies accurately. While the Nyquist Theory proves me wrong, the closed high-hat, trumpet harmonics, and other nuances on a few major CD recordings are (IMHO) not produced well, when you combine excessive compression with the standard (poor) sampling rate.

------------------
Mike Barone
2006 Carter S10 5&5, Sho-Bud Pro-1 5&5, BJS 15/16" Bar, Nashville 112
Assorted Guitars & Keyboards

Dave Mudgett · From: Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee

Humphrey Bogart (Soldier) exchange with Edgar G. Robinson (Rocco) in Key Largo

Robinson: Well, listen, soldier - thousands of guys got guns, but there's only one Johnny Rocco!

Lionel Barrymore: How do you account for it?

Bogart: He knows what he wants. Don't you, Rocco?

Robinson: Sure!

Barrymore: What's that?

Bogart: Tell him, Rocco.

Robinson: Well, I want . . . . (pauses)

Bogart: He wants more. Don't you, Rocco?

Robinson: That's it! More. That's right, I want more!

Bogart: Will you ever get enough? Will you, Rocco?

Robinson: Well, I never have. No, I guess I won't.

Robinson (to Bogart): Do you know what you want?

Bogart: Yes, and I had hopes once, but I gave them up.

Robinson: Hopes for what?

Bogart: A world in which there's no place for Johnny Rocco.

******************************************

Yes, less truly IS more, but that's a hard sell out in radioland these days.

Jerry Erickson · From: Atlanta,IL 61723

0 dbVU does not equal 0dbfs. 0dbVU would be on an analog machine and 0dbfs would be on a digital machine. Hey, if we don't have to worry about distortion at 0db, let's turn it up!

Donny Hinson · From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.

Most of the studio guys (producers and engineers) that had good ears are retired or dead. In their place, we have a bunch of (mostly younger) people masquerading as "experts". These guys (yes, it's 99.9% guys) are really just rock-heads. They grew up with, and were inspired by, the later rock-n-roll, a music typified by a total ignorance of what the term "dynamics" really means. Most of them were brought up believing, simply, "the louder, the better", and their work shows it. Few rock groups after the mid '60s had any comprehension of dynamics, and most had no sense of taste, either. The ones that did had the last vestiges of it erased by the aforementioned producers and engineers. (If you disagree, please cite some examples to the contrary.) Rock singers lost their sense of taste, and basically turned to screamers, and the music volume just followed suit. Rock groups that weren't oppresssively loud soon couldn't sell anything...the audience had been "trained". Successful, low-key rockers? There weren't any.

Most tout the fact that they sold zillions of records, but the fact that they sold zillions of records or CD's is no indication that the music on them was any good. Quantity does not equal quality. "Gut-Busters" and "Thigh-Masters" sold zillions, too, but few (if any) athletes would say that they were the best pieces of exercise equipment!

When buyers are uninformed or unschooled (and with just a little creative marketing), crap sells very well indeed.

So it is with most of today's music.

Jesse Pearson · From: San Diego , CA

Great article Bob, -14 db.

Kevin Hatton · From: Buffalo, N.Y.

Well said Donny.

Jim Cohen · From: Philadelphia, PA

David L. Donald · From: Koh Samui Island, Thailand

Dynamic range is directly in inverse relation to
maximum radio station out-reach with it's signal.

Less fringe listeners = less revenue.

So they pick as many songs as possible with
little or no audible effect when they hit the brickwall limiter
that the stations uses to get maximum reach and still stay legal.

There is merit to the other arguments, but
ultimatly it's getting airplay that sells the product,
and the playlists are doiminated by
minimal dynamic range product.
I say product not music...

I love this one from that article.

Dave Boothroyd · From: Staffordshire Moorlands

Technical limitations have become fashionable sounds.
As David said, radio broadcasts are compressed to death, but I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that a CD cannot produce the dynamic range of some kinds of music played live. A 16 bit number can only represent a dynamic range of 90dB. Orchestral music in a concert hall can have a dynamic range of well over 100dB. That is more than twice what a CD can record.
The result of all this compression is that fewer and fewer people have heard any music in its natural state, so when they do, it feels weak by comparison.
This battle is lost, but there are further losses. Most young people listen to MP3s. Not only are they range compressed, but also data compressed. Actual musical information is removed. I was talking to a young man yesterday, a good piano player. He was playing me a track from his MP3 player, and I mentioned what a low quality sound it was. He said "Yes, but the battery lasts longer if you turn the quality down"
People are becoming so used to poor audio, that they just don't care about it.
That's why we are including a unit on recognising audio quality issues in our course next year.
Cheers
dave

Tony Prior · From: Charlotte NC

considering that just a few short decades ago, the minions were NOT listening to music in the digital domain, they were not listening to 90% of there music on there home PC's with 2" speakers, they were not carrying around a memory stick which held 1000 songs or more that they could listen to on the headphones ....

When Audio and Dynamic range ruled, it was Analog studios and mastering..and we all ran out and got the best Amp and speakers we could get for our home systems..

We all compared and argued who had the best home system..

The Industry techniques have changed, sure maybe not for the better, but it is not geared anymore to the Audio critic who sat in a comfy chair at home and layed back listening to his favorite tracks thru his McIntosh system, which by the way took up 1/4 of the room.

Perhaps it's a bad thing, I dunno..but I am thinking the technology is geared to a totally different listening public...

IS there a true HI Quality reproduction mastering console out there ? Sure there is..
but it is not for used POP music.

The market trends are to sell an 89 cent song from some website..in the form of an MP3..not a pressed vinyl with top quailty .

I remember not all that long ago a good friend who was always updating his very HI END audio gear, and always purchased those hi priced special pressings of LP's..he told me that when the CD's were gaining ground on the LP's..he termed it the death of audio...

Perhaps he was right..

My 400 watt Luxman AMPS and Cerwin Vega Speakers have been put away for years now...replaced with a memory stick and an Edirol R-1..the size of an i-Pod.

Count me in the "Caved" catagory....

------------------
------------------
TPrior
TPrior Steel Guitar Homesite

[This message was edited by Tony Prior on 18 May 2006 at 01:20 AM.]

David Mason · From: Cambridge, MD, USA

By mathematical definition, 50% of the people in the world have an IQ under 100. When you've only got a few brain cells to bang together in the first place, you need a really big hammer.

Dan Beller-McKenna · From: Durham, New Hampshire, USA

Tony,
I too do most of my canned listening digitally, at the computer in my case. Having spend $1200 for this machine, where I pay an additional $100 for a streaming service that lets me listen to most anything I can think of, there is hardly money left over for a high tech stereo system for which I'd have to spend several hundreds a year on CDs covering that much listening.

As for the younger generation's listening habits: there's hope. My 11 year old daughter who only a year ago was hooked on that wall-of-sound, fill-every-nook-with-noise music like Hillary Duff, Click Five, Jesse McCartney, etc., is now a Beatles freak. You may love or hate the Beatles (and recall a thread last year that proved both extremes are well represented here), but there is plenty of space in their sound. Lately she has been immersed in the White Album (perhaps I should call a kid-shrink?), which might have more dynamic range than many of the classical recordings I listen to.

Haven't got her to warm up to country yet; it's just a matter of time!

Dan

------------------
Dan Beller-McKenna
Big Red
Durham, NH

James Stewart Jr · From: Vero Beach Florida

I agree with a lot of the statements.
To me CD's sound to harsh.I collect vinyl and play it more than I do my CD's.
I have 2 very fine turntables (Dual 1229Q and a Garrard Lab 80 Mk2) both fitted with a Shure M95HE Cartridge --tracking at 3-quarters of a gram. And running through a vintage 1966 tube system.
THAT IS FINE SOUND !!!!
James Jr

------------------
1975 Sho~Bud Pro III Custom (8-7)
1981 Peavey Session 500

David L. Donald · From: Koh Samui Island, Thailand

I am listening to a Jimmie Crawford CD in my computer.
Just Jimmie, which I just got.

But it is playing through Genelec 1032's and a 1094 subwoofer. around a 1000 watts available for head room.

Not your typical computer sound system to be sure.

The 1st song is so compressed I could be listening
on most any JBL home computer system,
and not know the difference. Just a hint the subwoofer is even kicking in.

Jimmie's playing is gorgeous,
and so I don't care about the compression that much.

Donny Hinson · From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.

DM, I got quite a chuckle out of your post!

Might it really be as simple as that?

Ray Minich · From: Bradford, Pa. Frozen Tundra

Dan, the White Album? Watch for incense sticks...

High Fidelity? What's that really mean?

Ipod? I don't think so.

Pity the poor dog listenening to "his master's voice" from the Gramaphone. (Your age shows if you know this connection

"

What's really interesting is that in this age of compression algorithms, fidelity (both audio and video bandwidth) is sacrificed for increasing the number of channels. If you slowly take away from the customer's experience the fidelity they have been used to, you can make the change without too much screaming (see Mpeg2 and Mpeg4 video compression).

It was proven to me when XM Radio reduced their bitrate to increase the number of channels.

Lots of vinyl, few stylii...

[This message was edited by Ray Minich on 18 May 2006 at 05:23 AM.]

Greg Cutshaw · From: Corry, PA, USA

I second the notion that vinyl still has the best sound. A lot of bluegrass groups still have good dynamics, especially the ones that all gather around one microphone. Most of the modern steel guitar thats recorded sounds compressed and sterile with a total lack of harmonic content. Owen Bradley got much better dynamic range and warmth out of his old recording equipment than any thing produced today. The XM bitrate is so low that even their adaptive EQ can't make it sound good. I listen to it a lot because of the variety but the sound quality is no where near where it was when I got into XM radio in its first year.

Dynamics is also a matter of taste, having carefully worked out arrangements involving teamwork, kind of like painting a picture for impact. Buck Owen's live shows were LOUD! but the sound levels during a song ranged from barely audible to explosive outbursts of sound.

One of theh references in the article even shows graphically how the music has been compressed even to point of clipping. Look at "1999
Ricky Martin (C2/Columbia CK 69891)
" in the link below for a very graphic example of what the author is talking about.
click here

I just purchased a Yamaha AW-1600 portable studio and it includes mastering tools and EQ/Compression/Dynamics on all input channels as well as the final stereo mix. One of the mastering tools is option "00" entitled "Initial Data, Initialize to a state in which EQ and DYN are not applied" and option 02, that "enhances the overall oudness without greatly changing the original nuances(dynamics)". It also features 24 bit track recording in 8 track mode with final mixdown to 16 bit so hopefully there will be lots of chances to capture the dynamics of the steel guitar.

Greg

[This message was edited by Greg Cutshaw on 18 May 2006 at 06:27 AM.]

Brad Sarno · From: St. Louis, MO USA

Thanks for the link Bob. It's so true. I'm a mastering engineer by trade, and this loudness race is something I have to deal with every day. The client gets to make the decision ultimately. I try to explain the idea of dynamic range to them, but it really comes down to them really wanting to be louder or at least as loud as the song that played right before theirs on someone's iPod or CD shuffler.

Fortunately, I recently found a rap client who took my advice and let me master his radio-only single much quieter than "normal". He called me the other day and said "you were right!". The quieter master actually played louder and had more impact on the radio. Since radio already has its own severe compression, you don't want to feed it something too loud and compressed and over-threshold.

But the key issue really has to do with the longevity and listenability of an album. This age of what I like to call "stupid loud" is really doing a huge disservice to good artists. Even a great album like Ricky Skaggs "Ancient Tones" is way, way, way, way too loud and compressed. Great music, hard to sit thru the whole thing. A loud album never breathes and then what should be a dynamic peak or crescendo is really no louder than the "softer" passages. It's all in your face and in the end is fatiguing to the listener. For pop music I like to keep about 12-14dB of dynamic range. For more "musical" music, I like it to be more like 14-18dB of dynamic range. Most loud CD's today are hovering at around 4-6dB of range. That's worthy of being called "stupid loud". I admire the rare and brave artist or label who says forget about the trend, just make it musical.

Brad

Blue Jade Audio Mastering,
St. Louis, MO
314-962-7220

Bob Hoffnar · From: Austin, Tx

In most of the bigger recording projects I have been working on in NYC the trend has been to record live and avoid over compression and pitch correction. My band Hem is a good example. Plenty of dynamc range.

You guys might look into the work of producers Lenny Waronker (from the 70's mostly). Currently:T Bone Burnett, Lloyd Maines, David Scott,Steve Fishell and Jon Bryon if you want to hear some great and well recorded music. The people that have survived the shrinking of major recording studios are some of the best that have ever lived. The stuff that is getting made for corporate radio is another story. I find it unlistenable. I can't stand the pitch correction sound when they hit it so hard.

------------------
Bob
upcoming gigs
My Website

Bill Hatcher · From: Atlanta Ga. USA

There used to be an old saying in the recording industry by the classic engineers "If you can hear the compressor--it's too much!".

Some music benefits by compression. I am listening to Tower of Power "Oakland Zone". The low end kick and bass which are the heart of the band is just so nice and tight with just the right amount of "smash" on it.

Forum Index > Music	Goto page 1, 2 Next	Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic