Insert obligatory "The Times They Are A-Changin'" joke at your own leisure.
August 24, 2006 7:34 AM Subscribe

Modern times... suck? Bob Dylan has heavily criticised the sound of modern music recordings, claiming that, There’s no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like — static, and that, CDs are small.

Not to exclude himself, he's included his own new album in this criticism, saying that, Even these songs probably sounded ten times better in the studio when we recorded ‘em. Maybe he's just being a curmudgeon, or maybe he actually has a point about modern music production. It's not like he's opposed to all things modern: after all, he seems OK with file-sharing and iTunes. And, umm, Alicia Keys...
posted by chorltonmeateater (68 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite

Recorded music is nowhere near as good as live. It seems many producers have forgotten that.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:37 AM on August 24, 2006

It's not the recording or the mixing. Those things are probably as good as ever, for someone with Dylan's resources. It's the mastering that he's ignoring. He's letting his record label ruin his music so that it can be "louder" on the radio.

Today, louder = tiring/fatiguing/suffocating/white noise-esque music. Common reactions to records lately: turning it down until you find you can't turn it down low enough, turning speakers around in an attempt to cut "presence", leaving room where music is playing, turning it off, rarely making it through an old record.

I've never had that problem with Sticky Fingers. I've been unable to listen to a Bloc Party record the whole way through. Dylan has got to stop letting his discs get sent off to Ludwig for the steamroller special. He has to be there inspecting the wave forms, listening loudly and listening quietly.
posted by jon_kill at 7:40 AM on August 24, 2006 [2 favorites]

Or maybe he's going deaf. Let's add it up... He's in his 60's. he's been playing rather loud music for 40 -plus years, he frequents loud clubs.
Granted most engineers have agreed that since the advent of CDs the compression used leaves a lot to be desired, but jeesh he's in his 60's!
posted by Gungho at 7:47 AM on August 24, 2006 [1 favorite]

I can't find the source, but I think it was Neil Young who lamented overproduction, saying he found god "in the noise" of the music.

Anyway, Dylan's right overall: (digital) pop music is overcompressed and overengineered, and consumers suffer for it.

Hipsters who go to live music shows today will get crappy performances, nine times out of ten, because most of today's "musicians" are so inured to the luxury of studio production that they are either lazy or incompetent live performers.

Overproduced music often includes the artifact of overcompression, where aural details are washed out for popular distribution. Imagine taking the contrast out of an Ansel Adams photograph and selling it on iTunes, multiplied by million unit sales.

This doesn't get into the lossy compression schemes used to disseminate music in the first place.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:48 AM on August 24, 2006

No, it's the compression. You can hear it on older albums that have been remastered if you compare the two. And it's not just that they are mixed for the radio they are mixed for car stereos. The need to overpower the road drone and also keep you from having to fiddle with the knob. Listen to classical or jazz in the car, and your constantly fighting the volume to hear everything. But even in a lot of rock music that has whisper quiet sections, the whispering is as loud as cymbal crashes and guitars.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:51 AM on August 24, 2006

I agree
posted by caddis at 7:53 AM on August 24, 2006

The Death of Dynamic Range:
A Chronology of the Compact Disc Loudness Wars
posted by caddis at 7:54 AM on August 24, 2006 [1 favorite]

Blazecock Pileon writes "Hipsters who go to live music shows today will get crappy performances, nine times out of ten, because most of today's 'musicians' are so inured to the luxury of studio production that they are either lazy or incompetent live performers."

What? I've almost never found this to be the case, but, then, I go see bands that aren't signed or are signed to minor labels and have to pay for their studio time themselves.

I'm sure there's a group of muscians about whom you're right, but the criticism seems simply gratuitous and curmudgeonly (not to mention filled with nostalgia for a false paradise of yesteryear) because it's too broad.
posted by OmieWise at 7:54 AM on August 24, 2006

OmieWise, just to give one example, I was given tickets to review a live Stereolab show earlier this year. Not to pick on them unfairly, but I found myself more saddened by the audience rabidly cheering the lead singer Lætitia Sadier, who had grabbed a trombone and began to blast a few random, untuned notes into the microphone before the song ended. This sort of gimmick happened throughout the set.

Believe me: I'm not old enough to be curmudgeonly! I love Stereolab — in the studio — but the bar is continually set much, much lower for entertainment value in live pop music, now that musicians not only have the ability to easily drop good studio takes into the final mix-down, but literally either lip-sync material into a live show or drop turds to an audience that doesn't care or know enough to expect better.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:06 AM on August 24, 2006

Yes, it's the mastering that pees my fuck.

Oddly enough, though, some of the finest digital mastering I've heard has been on experimental electronic albums like Loop Finding Jazz Records by Jan Jelinek. My god that's a good album, and the mastering brings out the fine warm staticky details without crunching everything to an eye watering constant 0db. (Jan was also amazing live at Mutek this year but that's another story)

So anyways my point is it's not the medium that sucks, necessarily. Maybe people that work the most with digital audio understand best how to use its low noise floor and high headroom, instead of using the old analog strategy of recording slightly into the red for optimal results.
posted by fleetmouse at 8:08 AM on August 24, 2006

What? I've almost never found this to be the case, but, then, I go see bands that aren't signed or are signed to minor labels and have to pay for their studio time themselves.

On the other hand, the sound quality at every single indie show I've been to has been almost unlistenable. Bright Eyes was too drunk and his oompa loompa orchestra was too unfamiliar with performing live. The net result was I walked out of the show. M. Ward was significantly better, but he did a solo set with a mic and a guitar. There's just not much room for error there, but leave it to his sound engineer to leave the audience with unlistenable vocals.

Mates of State and Death Cab for Cutie actually seemed more sober, even used to performing live, and yet, the sound was like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. Once again, a potentially good show ruined by a sound engineer. The net result? I walked out of the show. Actually, I sat outside through most of the opening acts so I didn't have to hear the immense noise the amps were producing.

Don't get me started on the Wolf Parade concert. Though there were some actual highlights. The first thing they did on stage was to order drinks; very classy group of fellows. They then proceeded to show, in excruciating detail, why one should avoid their shows. Their sound engineer is in the band. He was so entirely wasted that he single handedly took what could have been the most amazing concert I had ever attended to excruciating. The show was laughable. If it were not for the marching band they invited on stage, I'd have left thoroughly dissatisfied.

Most recently, the Phoenix and French Kiss show was as bad as the Wolf Parade show in terms of sound quality. The only thing I could hear was: LOUD. There wasn't an enjoyable sound that wasn't ruined by poorly set up loudspeakers that blared music until I collected my wits and headed straight for the door.

I've been to good concerts, but rarely have they been good because the sound quality was something to brag about. And those that had good quality were more along the lines of Dizzy Gillespie, Digable Planets, and Radiohead. Yet, I can't say clearly that my memory isn't blurred by the mindbending performance of Gillespie, the unexpected playing of instruments by DP, or the theater of seeing Thom Yorke in a happy mood.
posted by sequential at 8:15 AM on August 24, 2006

There's another link out there similar to the stylus mag and caddis's one, but I can't find it right now. It convinced me too that compression it's what's at fault.

It's shitty that although this is common knowledge now, almost none of the press reporting of Dylan's rant has even mentioned that, y'know, he's got a point.
posted by bonaldi at 8:19 AM on August 24, 2006

First, mad props to Mr. Dylan, the single most important popular musician of my generation. He is a certified American treasure whose impact on modern music cannot be overstated.

As for new recordings, they generally suck. Dynamic compression is the primary culprit, but I also think that "muddy" production is also used to hide musical ineptitude - basically hiding crap in noise.

The ability to faithfully record and produce music has existed for a long time. Listen to recordings from the 40's and 50's, for example. Most of them have crystal clear vocals. You can hear high hats and brushes on snares. Not to be able to accomplish the same thing on CD's is just ridiculous. Granted, analog recording seems to have more "punch" than digital, but still.

There are still artists and producers out there turning out quality recordings, but they seem to be harder and harder to find. Maybe I'm just an old guy, and this is just a "these kids and their damn noise" rant, though.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 8:22 AM on August 24, 2006

I think you also have to take into account the percentage of people that really give a shit or understand anything about this. Companies are into selling shitpotloads of music, not distributing art, and they'll take the easiest path to accomplish their goal of making money. It would be my guess that most consumers prefer this sound, just like they prefer pop music to anything else.

A man of Dylan's stature in the industry has the least excuse for coming out with something he thinks sounds crappy.
posted by Eekacat at 8:23 AM on August 24, 2006

Don't forget that awful, robotic automatic pitch correction.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:26 AM on August 24, 2006

Holy Crap! Take a look at the "Livin' La Vida Loca" waveform: [Image]
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 8:38 AM on August 24, 2006

...from Caddis' link.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 8:39 AM on August 24, 2006

Obligatory quote from the Jimmy Miller, the Rolling Stones' producer on Sticky Fingers:

"A bit of advice from Jimmy M: Maximum cycle characteristics and frequency response of high decibel level have been set according to standards suggested in the GUY STEVENS Producer Manual, chart #357, in index, page 304. These recommended standards were compiled by the same authority having recently measured audible damage created by supersonic aircraft - if for any reason you do not agree with these standards - turn it up."

Finding this gem in the liner notes has guided my enjoyment of Rock n' Roll for many years now... what? Speak up! I can't hear you!
posted by 1f2frfbf at 8:48 AM on August 24, 2006

Well, fair enough. My only caveat is that I grew up listening to punk rock shows, which I'm sure many people would have said sounded awful, although I always thought they sounded pretty damn good.
posted by OmieWise at 8:49 AM on August 24, 2006

From the liner notes to Don't Stand Me Down by Dexy's Midnight Runners:

I'm really pleased this is coming out again. It's called Don't Stand Me Down (Director's Cut) because this is the third time it's been released (85, 97 and now). Of the two previous releases, 85 was the original release and 97 was the Creation CD release. Unfortunately, at the time of mastering the 97 effort, an awful sonic mistake was made.

During the mastering sessions, we had made sure the tapes sounded good and tweaked it so that the natural dynamics that were intended to be there when the music was written, shone through.

Then the engineer said to me right at the end of the whole process: "Kevin, my final suggestion is to put a bit of this stereo enhancer on to finish it off".

"What's a stereo enhancer ?" I asked.

"Oh, its just something that makes it louder, nothing else."

Well, let me hear it, " I said.

On listening to it, I suspected that the music had been subtly altered, and said so to the engineer. "No," he said. "Trust me on this one Kevin. All it will do is make your record louder. Every modern record has this on it now. In fact, if you don't have it, your record will sound quieter than everyone else's."

I trusted Him.

But even when I got the test copy home and suspected strongly that the stereo enhancer had affected the music unfavourably, I put it down to my own sometimes obsessive over-pickiness.

I lived to regret not speaking up.

It gently gnawed away at me and I continued to doubt my own judgement until a few weeks after it had been released. Pete Schwier (the sound genius behing My Beauty and the man who mixed DSMD) phoned me up and said: "I've just heard it - is that a stereo enhancer on there?"

I was so disappointed, after going to a lot of trouble to get the record from Mercury and then getting Creation to put it out, etc, etc, etc. That effect had ruined the dynamics. It sounded OK, but not nearly as effective as it should have done, no where near as good as the record we made, and I felt bad about that.

Stereo enhancers create a wash of sound but destroy subtlety. If your aim is to hit the listener over the head then a stereo enhancer is the thing. Groups such as Oasis use them to better effect, but such treatment is very wrong for my Famous Dixons.

So here is the Director's cut.

It now sounds to me as it was intended to sound.</blockquote

posted by idontlikewords at 8:52 AM on August 24, 2006

Oh, dammit. I cocked up the blockquote tag. Hope that doesn't break the thread.
posted by idontlikewords at 8:54 AM on August 24, 2006

CDs are capable of remarkable quality. They have huge dynamic range. Some purists argue that they're inferior to analog recordings, and in some ways they're probably right, but their single biggest raison d'etre is the total elimination of noise. This increases their dynamic range enormously; there's no 'noise floor' in a CD. It's silent all the way down to, well, silence.

So what do they do with modern pop? Jam in into the top 2% of the range, so it's louder on the radio. They're so bad about this that they'll drive their equipment PAST CLIPPING to get just a bit more sound pressure out of it.

To see for yourself, download the freeware Audacity sound editor, and open some tracks off recent CDs. Look how incredibly loud everything is mixed, and how little range there is.

Probably some of the best-mastered mainstream music ever done was in the mid to late 80s... it took them awhile to switch to all-digital, so the early stuff was still pretty noisy. Once they went digital, there were a few years where pop albums were really superb. And then they started going loud, to the point of insanity over the last few years. Mainstream music quality has been heading downhill since the 70s, with occasional bright spots, but the recording techniques probably peaked in the 1985-1988 range.

That's why many 'older' songs are so much quieter when you play them...because they were recorded back when the concept of dynamic range still existed.
posted by Malor at 8:54 AM on August 24, 2006

I just finished recording an EP. When we took it to have it mastered, the only thing we were looking for was normalization, and a bit of compression. We went to some reputable guys here in town, and told them what we wanted.

The result: it's quiet, relative to other records. But, when you turn it up, it's loud in a different, much more musical way. A good compromise.
posted by jon_kill at 9:12 AM on August 24, 2006

I'd count Oh Mercy to be one of the best-sounding CDs I've ever heard. Blue Rodeo's Diamond Mine is pretty good too. I agree that CDs can sound great.

As a side, I bought a song off iTunes once and was ultra-pissed that it was compressed to 128. They're really bottom-lining the quality. Haven't bought anything other than Ricky Gervais podcasts since. Are they all like that on iTunes? I like the concept but I just don't see it until they start selling uncompressed files.
posted by jimmythefish at 9:15 AM on August 24, 2006

Hipsters who go to live music shows today will get crappy performances, nine times out of ten, because most of today's 'musicians' are so inured to the luxury of studio production that they are either lazy or incompetent live performers."

I've found that working in the studio actually magnifies ones awareness of performance flaws. If you go a bit flat hitting that high phrase in a performance and then adjust, if you miss the rhythm in a few places but then get your groove back, you forget about it, the audience might forget about it, and you all move on. Put that performance to tape or disk, and oh boy do you notice.

Of course you can fix it with pitch correction and editing in the best case. And perhaps some artists are working in setups where the engineer just fixes stuff quickly and they never hear the results. But if you're involved in listening to and shaping the results, and if you're not fortunate to have achieved virtuousity, the scrutiny of the production process can really be humbling.

That said, I agree there's less value in general placed on musical development beyond a certain point. I'm not sure that technology is entirely to blame here, though, as much as that the aesthetics of certain genres allows for this. Thus you get Beat Happening fans sneering at John Mayer, because he creates pop songs, however technically accomplished, while BH produces good ol' lo-fi punk.
posted by weston at 9:22 AM on August 24, 2006

When mastering (or since I did it myself rather than pay someone, apprenticing?) my last album I looked at various tracks of different genres for comparison.

I was happy to see that the more abstract electronic stuff is not at all heavily compressed (though industrial/dance type of stuff is nearly as overdone as top 40). My recordings were mostly very quiet, and I worried they were too quiet -- but I found that Dead Voices On Air and a couple of Boards of Canada tracks had even lower peaks and average RMS than most of mine.
posted by Foosnark at 9:36 AM on August 24, 2006

Blazecock, I've seen Stereolab live a bunch of times (and recently, too) and thought they're chops were pretty tops. (..But then again I admit I went to lollapalooza a few weeks ago and personally found the shallow flimsiness of some of the newer acts hard to take for more than 20 minutes. I was definitely feeling my age....But I tried not to make any insufferable proclamations about how in my day we had The Jam and The Clash.

Omiewise: but the criticism seems simply gratuitous and curmudgeonly (not to mention filled with nostalgia for a false paradise of yesteryear)

Very well put, Omie. And might apply to much of the cultural criticism being voiced today by some overly-self-congratulatory members of the Woodstock generation. Plus, I think you hit on something else, too--the phenomenon that people in general might experience a blurring between the enjoyable memories of their youth (i.e. fun of going away to college, getting laid, falling in love, etc.) and the objective quality (oxymoron, I know) of the music that for them so happens to evoke these memories. In other words, is "Incense and Peppermints"/"Black Dog"/"Danny's Song"/"Rebel Yell"/"Rock You Like A Hurricane" etc. etc. etc. truly an immortal, important song for the ages (the likes of which none of these young shits today can even come close to appreciating)--Or was that just a really fun summer?
posted by applemeat at 9:37 AM on August 24, 2006

Never trust anyone under 60.
posted by crunchland at 9:44 AM on August 24, 2006

In other words, is "Incense and Peppermints"/"Black Dog"/"Danny's Song"/"Rebel Yell"/"Rock You Like A Hurricane" etc. etc. etc. truly an immortal, important song for the ages (the likes of which none of these young shits today can even come close to appreciating)--Or was that just a really fun summer?

Yes.
posted by blucevalo at 9:45 AM on August 24, 2006

There is definitely a problem with a lot of recent albums where digital clipping absolutely rampant.

The new Muse CD has a lot of songs that I love, but when I first put it on my home studio's monitors, I heard exactly what the article above is complaining about: so heavily compressed that it's squished all of the sparkly treble that should be in the cymbal crashes and put them down in the midrange.

But the CD sounds quite good on my little computer speakers, so I guess I can't complain much.

The same goes for the Tool album 10,000 days. Lateralus sounded so much better, and there were relatively few clipping moments.

I don't mind albums that are "loud" but when you start venturing into the territory beyond simply loud but downright noisy (and not good noisy), I can't listen to them very loud and enjoy them.

I probably drive my own albums into "hot" territory, but I would defy anyone to find a single 0dB clip on them. I like the peaks to hover in the -0.7dB to -0.1dB range, with the RMS a bit lower, closer to -4 or -5. None of this -0.5 dB RMS. Everything starts sounding like a TV commercial when you drive it that close to 0.

I've found myself going back and re-mastering albums myself (yeah, I know it's not the best idea to take something already compressed and re-drive and compress it) that are older, like Peter Gabriel's Security, so it would have a bit more presence in my playlists, but dozens of contiguous 0dB samples makes for not just an ugly square wave, but really genuinely doesn't sound as good.

I'd disagree that the high point in CD mastering was in the early 90s. I'd put it in the late 90s when bands like Radiohead could make a very "hot" record with a lot of dynamic, punch, and still sound good on BOTH my nice monitors and my crappy little computer speakers.

If you're not keeping your peak VU meter up near -0.3 during the really loud parts of a song, and the peak VU not far below -1 during quiet parts of the song (not the super-quiet, but a nice mellow verse or the like), you really aren't driving the record enough, and you are ending up having to turn the volume up enough on your stereo that you end up engaging its own internal limiter on the peaks, and that sounds even worse than an overcompressed track.

There's a happy medium in mastering, and I think the pendulum has just swung a bit too far in the "hot" direction.
posted by chimaera at 9:48 AM on August 24, 2006

Honest inquiry from a non technical music fan: Woud Steve Albini's signature production style (e.g. super quiet THEN BLOW YOUR EARDRUMS OUT loud) be an example of this kind of "loud" mastering? (...Because I found that really annoying...makes certain otherwise decent albums...imo, P.J. Harvey's "Rid of Me", Breeders "Pod", etc.. virtually unlistenable for me. Shame.)
posted by applemeat at 10:02 AM on August 24, 2006

Applemeat, I think that is sort of what the article is complaining should happen more.

They're saying that, rather than super-duperduperquiet then LOUD being a bad thing, that there's no super-duper quiet to begin with. In a lot of recent albums, there's no super quiet parts, and some people are wanting that, and lamenting the loss of "dynamics" which, you've shown the other side of the coin where needlessly excessive dynamic peaks versus very quiet parts can also be a problem.
posted by chimaera at 10:12 AM on August 24, 2006

Cd's have never sounded as good as vinyl. And I agree it is the compression. A clean sound does not equate to being a better sound. I think the reason is not only the deadening compression which kills one of the most exciting elements of music (i.e., dynamics), but this ridiculous idea that "unheard" frequencies do not have to be included in a song. What total crap. I feel very deeply that what makes a sound “good” is not only what you consciously hear, but what you consciously don't hear. Those frequencies that are compressed out and cut out are the what give the heard sounds, their texture and depth. CD's were a rip off from the moment they were introduced in 1983. A shit technology foisted on music listeners and artists alike by the greedy music biz, who licked their chops at the thought of people replacing their vinyl and the fact that they didn't have to pay artists as much in royalties.

It's been a downward spiral ever since, because as people become more acclimated to cd's and Mp-3's (i.e. Digital), they expect less from live music and expect it to sound like what they hear on their ipod or cd player. The companies that control these things are taking notice. There's a mid-size venue here in NYC called Irving Plaza. I’ve seen hundreds of shows at this place over the last 20 years. Some good and some bad, but ever since Clear Channel took over the place, they've put in this new sound system that compresses the fu*k out of the music. It's almost like it applies this asphyxiated sheen of gloss that leaves the sound sterile and flat. Without any interesting texture to the instruments (let’s face it, we like a lot of bands because of the unique guitar, bass or drum textures produced). I generally avoid Irving now unless it's a band that I absolutely have to see like the Gang of Four. Who too their credit were able to somehow rise above the saccharine compression and live mix through the sheer brilliance of their songs but Jeezus, what the CC sound system did to such an unbelievably great rhythm section IMHO should be punishable by severe flogging. They were great, but I still felt cheated. It was like having sex with a goddamned condom. Heaven forbid music should plant a seed, make unapproved sounds and be subversive. Heaven forbid it rock*the fucking shit out of you and be a life changing experience. Which it should be.

I couple of years ago, after much pining, I was finally able to afford an Ipod. I thought it would be the ultimate godhead experience. Load in my 7000 songs (took 2 months), (minus all the crucial essential seminal stuff I have only on vinyl). Voila! Instant Skygazer radio (tm.). I thought I would be in heaven and I was for a few months, but now I’m afraid it’s like the proverbial poor rich man syndrome. You know like when you open your fridge and it’s stuffed with food, but you feel like there’s nothing to eat. I’ve gone back to listening to vinyl whenever I can. Yeah, I have to listen through most the record and flip sides and whatnot, but it’s more satisfying than my ipod most of the time, which now is only good for putting on shuffle and utilizing as a document. Lately when something great comes on my Ipod that I haven’t listened to for a while and forgotten how great it is I usually try and dig out the CD.

As for this whole thing surrounding bad live shows, if you’re going to see a band play and expect exactly what you heard on the CD you’re sadly mistaken as to what a live show should be. Actually, do everyone a favor and stay home and listen to the CD or Mp-3 instead. Live shows (except for classical and even those are about the interpretations) are not meant to be carefully orchestrated recitals. They’re unpredictable things with many variables attached to them. The sound system, stage, sound man, amps, audience noise so on and so forth with the biggest variable being musician’s who as humans (usually) are wildly inconsistent and unpredictable. Every Stereolab show I ever saw (and I must’ve seen them play a dozen times in many different venues although not recently ) was pretty great. One of the best things being the alternative versions of songs. Usually some sort of loud/quiet jam epic reinterpretation with quite a bit of feedback, noise thrown into the mix, in the form of different guitar parts or keyboard parts or fun stuff like sprinkling a few trombone parts in (Shock! Horror!). A cd is used to recreate the excitement of a song as it is played live by a band. It’s a different medium and therefore needs to be presented differently, sort of like the difference between a book and a movie based on that book. The theme is kept, but it needs to be augmented by instrumentation and mixing so you hear certain things happening in a song, stuff that is more obvious than what is done live because usually the visual tells you what to focus in on. This is the art of engineering, production, mixing and mastering. I’ve seen live shows, where one person on a guitar has blown away a whole orchestra used to play the same song on a CD. A good song is usually going to withstand all sorts of different arrangements and instrumentations. But it’s going to have a hard time with an overly compressed overly glossed or saccharine recording that uses overly standardized instrument frequencies and textures. That’s where it all turns into one great big monolithic Clear Channelesque wash out of crap. No individuality, no spirit, no unique sounds or dynamics. No dangerous thoughts (hell no thought at all). Just one homogenized ocean of safe and over proccessed shit. But I think it's changing for the better. You know that next generation digital format and hardware is right around the corner, that's going to finally be able to do what a record could do and even better. Let's hope in the meanwhile people's expectations of what music can and should be doesn't deteriorate (or get compressed) further. Also, I suggest supporting your favorite bands when the play out, and hear music the way god intended, just not at a venue owned by Clear Channel or Infinity.

*Many bands can rock out, only the great ones can actually rock and it has nothing to do with volume.
posted by Skygazer at 10:23 AM on August 24, 2006

Who is this Dylan guy anyway?

Lots of indy bands sound great, and don't use heavy compression. Bob needs to troll through the current Tiger Sushi, Matador, Merge, maybe Hefty catalogs and see if something medicates his ailment.

Albini still uses Quantagy tapes. Maybe they should get together.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:31 AM on August 24, 2006

Malor: So what do they do with modern pop? Jam in into the top 2% of the range, so it's louder on the radio.

The thing that really gets me is that this just isn't necessary; radio and television have used dynamic range compression on everything they broadcast for decades. A dynamic recording will be compressed to heck on the radio, even if the CD it came from is not. So they're ruining the sound for absolutely everyone, for no good reason.
posted by Western Infidels at 10:31 AM on August 24, 2006

Which show did you see, Blazecock Pileon? I saw Stereolab in Hollywood earlier this year and they were wonderful!

I didn't used to pay much attention to the whole "CD's suck" crowd until I heard the playback of a 24-bit/96Khz master recording. Everything sounded better. The voice was warmer, the drums were very clean and crisp, and the synthesizers were very full and lush. The same recording at 16 bit/44.1Khz was very disappointing.
posted by redteam at 10:44 AM on August 24, 2006

Which show did you see, Blazecock Pileon? I saw Stereolab in Hollywood earlier this year and they were wonderful!

I saw them at the TLA in Philly. I thought they were okay, but not great. They definitely are not the same band without Mary Hansen. Audience didn't seem to care; this is my opinion only.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:51 AM on August 24, 2006

Yeah, what Western Infidels said, radio stations automatically use compression, both to be louder and because they are obligated to insure they don't broadcast over the allowed amplitude. on the other hand, as people move towards creating playlists of songs on their computers or ipods, the difference in compression is problematic because one song may be much louder than the previous/next.
posted by snofoam at 11:03 AM on August 24, 2006

theyre not the same band with crappy jazz bits instead of chugga chugga guitars.......
posted by sgt.serenity at 11:07 AM on August 24, 2006

Also, for what Blazecock Pileon said, I don't think that's fair. Listen to "Born to Be Wild." There's a 45 second instrumental break with no solo, I guess because no one in the band could play well enough to solo. Lots of stuff from the good old days was not technically proficient, and a lot of the stuff that was was performed by studio musicians who could actually play, not the band.
posted by snofoam at 11:08 AM on August 24, 2006

oh and the habit of stopping a great song in the middle , shoving in some experimental , tuneless crap and then resuming said great tune.

/ stereolab
posted by sgt.serenity at 11:10 AM on August 24, 2006

New album by Dylan is super great btw (that is if you liked his last two)....
posted by dig_duggler at 11:26 AM on August 24, 2006

Has anyone looked the wavforms for the Dylan remasters? I'm afraid to, because they sound SO much better, but I'm worried they're over compressed too... :(
posted by keswick at 12:05 PM on August 24, 2006

I'd say, keswick, what does it matter what the waveform look like if you like how it sounds?

Usually, I only capture and look at the waveform if I already hear problems, clicks, clipping, other potentially digital noises. If I don't hear a problem, as far as I'm concerned with the music, the problem doesn't exist to me.
posted by chimaera at 12:06 PM on August 24, 2006

Woud Steve Albini's signature production style (e.g. super quiet THEN BLOW YOUR EARDRUMS OUT loud) be an example of this kind of "loud" mastering?

Actually, it's the opposite. The compression they're talking about makes songs loud all the time, even in the "quiet" parts. Albini, on the other hand, would probably rather have his balls chewed off by raccoons than do the kind of clipping they're talking about. Distortion? Oh definitely. But not clipping.

But then again, when's the last time you heard one of his productions on the radio? There you go.
posted by fungible at 12:10 PM on August 24, 2006

Oh...

A record is not a big truck. A record is a series of grooves.
posted by Foosnark at 12:36 PM on August 24, 2006 [1 favorite]

But then again, when's the last time you heard one of his productions on the radio?

Um, yesterday. But I'm lucky enough to live in the broadcast range of KEXP.
posted by lumpenprole at 12:41 PM on August 24, 2006

When Bob Dyan talks...I’m glad there’s a transcript.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:27 PM on August 24, 2006

This is probably indicitive of everything you guys are saying you hate, but personally, I think that American Idiot has amazing production. It's punchy, but there seems to be some definite actual quiet parts in there. There's also a clarity that's amazing and I've done everything I can to tear that album apart to find out what makes it what it is. Sigh. Rob Cavallo makes it what it is.
posted by Brainy at 1:51 PM on August 24, 2006

I remember hearing about this new digital music thing twenty or thirty years ago and then walking down a street in Nagoya, Japan and hearing a CD playing on the sidewalk speakers and thinking...Ahhh, THAT CRAP is what I've been hearing about.

CD's have gotten better, but still....well, what everybody else said.
posted by kozad at 1:58 PM on August 24, 2006

Everything today beats the fuck outta the mixed cassettes I used to make from the radio. So fancy!
posted by DenOfSizer at 4:00 PM on August 24, 2006

I saw Dylan live at Cornell in 2000... it was the worst show of my life, bar none. I actually left about 1/2 way through. I'm not a huge fan in the first place (obviously), but if I was I would have been even more pissed. Not one word of what he sang came across as anything other than lyrical noise. The man's brain, or at least his ability to form words, is gone. I agree 100% that live music sounds more rich than most recorded music, but I'd much rather listen to a Dylan CD/LP than hear him live... post processing seems to help bring out the actual words from his mumblings.

As far as live music, it depends a lot on both the acustics of the venue and the abilities of the people at the soundboard. The last show I saw the Greek Theater in Berkeley blew me away - you could actually hear the vocals and the music, rather than mostly just the music. At other venues I'm pretty sure that a CD would help you hear more of the detail in the music, even if its not as loud.
posted by pkingdesign at 4:56 PM on August 24, 2006

I just want to note real quick that compression isn't all bad. Listen to Raw Power by the Stooges. The distortion and compression is the point - the sound on that album will sandblast your ears. It's awesomely destructive.
posted by suckerpunch at 1:02 PM EST on August 24 [+] [!]

Great record. Give a listen to the remastered version Iggy put out a few years ago.
posted by Skygazer at 6:41 PM on August 24, 2006

A CD that is mastered truly well will sound better than vinyl, IMO. The problem is simply that hardly any of them are. Telarc is one company that does it right. Their classical CDs are some of the best made. If all CDs were made with the same attention to quality, I don't think anyone would still be on vinyl.

redteam: you might just have been hearing different mixes. Most people can't hear any effective difference between 24-bit and 16-bit, if the mix is the same. It often isn't... many of the SACDs and DVD-Audio disks use a different mastering for the high-resolution component. They do that so that uneducated people can say 'wow! that's what it REALLY sounded like!' and then tell their friends to buy SACD and DVD-A.

Unless you have just amazingly good ears and were listening on extremely good equipment, the difference between 24- and 16-bit should be quite subtle; you'd need to be very quiet and listen very closely to hear the difference, if you could hear it at all. Note also that SACD, if that was your source, does it completely differently... it essentially 'draws' the waveform, very much like a record needle does. Most equipment just converts that to standard digital audio in the processing phase, which wrecks the entire reason to have SACD in the first place. So if you were on a pure SACD, you can't really even say it was '24-bit'... SACD is so different that it doesn't directly compare with anything else.

Aesthetically, I like its design a lot better than DVD-A, but as is typical for Sony, they focused primarily on locking it up and making it inconvenient, so of course it flopped.

chimaera: That's funny, I was specifically thinking of Security when I was talking about dynamic range, San Jacinto in particular. That CD really nailed it.

As an aside, if you listen to it on fairly good equipment, you may be able to hear that the source is quite analog and not all that great. This is part of the reason I was saying that albums got better a few years later. In Security, they had the dynamic range down cold, but either they deliberately munged it a bit, or their analog sources were a little suboptimal. Still a phenomenal album.

Replaygain is supposed to be one of the better ways of handling music that's not at the same volume. It's basically just a comment field at the start of a track that indicates how much to raise or lower the volume for that specific song. Not too many music players support it yet, but Foobar on Windows supposedly does. That's probably a better solution than modifying your original files, though of course if it's not widely respected, it's not very useful.
posted by Malor at 6:45 PM on August 24, 2006

Oh and to applemeat: Yes, of course we all look back on the music in high school and college as the Halcyon Days of Yore. But it's not absolute, by any means.

I came of age in the early and middle 80s, right when MTV and CDs were getting big. And even though I love the music from that time, I can easily see that the best of the 70s music was WAY better. The advent of music videos gave rise to some really kickass, creative stuff for a few years, but actual musical talent took a sharp dive. It's been headed downhill ever since, at least in the mainstream stuff.

If you look around, though, there are still incredible artists to be found. And it's never been easier to look.
posted by Malor at 6:55 PM on August 24, 2006

I saw Dylan live at Cornell in 2000...

pkingdesign: where? Bailey Hall has good acoustics. Barton Hall (more likely, 'cause it's bigger) is a gymnasium and the acoustics suck (always have, always will). Or was it at Lynah (also sucks 'cause it's a skating rink)?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:01 PM on August 24, 2006

I've been enjoying the many comments on the subject of compression, mastering, etc. To divert back to Dylan for a moment, I think it's pretty interesting that he finally decided to just go ahead and produce his own record. I'm really excited about hearing this one, if for that reason alone. Gotta wonder how Daniel Lanois (who I think did a fantastic job on Time Out of Mind) and other producers of Dylan albums past feel about this statement from ol' Bob: "I felt like I've always produced my own records anyway, except I just had someone there in the way."
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:34 PM on August 24, 2006

Listen to "Born to Be Wild." There's a 45 second instrumental break with no solo, I guess because no one in the band could play well enough to solo.

actually, the guys in steppenwolf were perfectly capable of soloing ... what they're doing there is building a groove, something a lot of today's bands couldn't do if you locked them in a room with booker t and mg records for a month

the worst part about compression and limiting these days ... (hint, the worst artifacts are caused by the limiting) ... is that producers, arrangers and musicians are starting to create and mix music with the purpose of having it that messed up

chimaera - None of this -0.5 dB RMS.

woah! ... and i thought i was pushing it at -7 or -6 rms peak

i may be an amateur, but i'm 49 and i KNOW music isn't supposed to sound like that
posted by pyramid termite at 9:56 PM on August 24, 2006

"actually, the guys in steppenwolf were perfectly capable of soloing ... what they're doing there is building a groove, something a lot of today's bands couldn't do if you locked them in a room with booker t and mg records for a month"

Oh, SNAP.
posted by keswick at 10:13 PM on August 24, 2006

"what they're doing there is building a groove, something a lot of today's bands couldn't do if you locked them in a room with booker t and mg records for a month."

*shakes fist*

But I hear you, pyramid termite. I'm shaking my 49-year-old fist right along with you.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 10:28 PM on August 24, 2006

I like the peaks to hover in the -0.7dB to -0.1dB range, with the RMS a bit lower, closer to -4 or -5. None of this -0.5 dB RMS.

I'm pretty sure you didn't mean that. Raw Power hits -4 dB RMS and is said to be the loudest rock record ever.

The new Final Fantasy record, He Poos Clouds, uses virtually no compression, and is excellent music.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:38 AM on August 25, 2006

Take a listen to the cd 'a roof for the rain' by greenfire*. Their record company do their own recordings so as to preserve the dynamic range the performers can deliver. It means that if you're listening to it in a quiet room, you think you're there with them - it's indescribably good. But it's unlistenable to in a car, because of the lack of compression and enhancement. Goes to show where we listen to music nowadays.

*not actually a folkie - heard them on radio 3, which i was only listening to cos radio 4 was fuzzy.
posted by dowcrag at 5:53 AM on August 25, 2006

Not sure if anyone is reading the thread anymore, but it turns out that Iron Maiden's new CD will not be mastered at all :

It means that you will get to hear the new album exactly as it sounded in the studio, no added EQ, compression, analog widening, etc.

Discussion on hydrogenaudio forums here

It's an interesting experiment, but I'm not sure if a heavy metal album is right genre to try it.
posted by Pastabagel at 6:57 PM on August 25, 2006

I checked back, Pastabagel, and if I liked Iron Maiden at all, I'd buy that one for sure. :) But, since I can't stand them, I'll have to look for that CD by greenfire instead.

Thanks for both pointers!
posted by Malor at 6:17 PM on August 26, 2006

for those who are interested, here's iron maiden's video... (takes a couple of minutes to get to the loud part) ... for one thing, it's obvious to me that some parts were compressed before or during the mix ... obviously, it's not as loud ... or distorted in a bad way ... but on the other hand, it's a little thin and the bass sounds like it's not quite melding sonically with the guitars, something that mastering would surely take care of ... and some more high end would be good

hard to tell by an online video, of course ... but my opinion is that they should have done some moderate mastering
posted by pyramid termite at 6:27 PM on August 27, 2006

ZenMasterThis: You most likely will never check back on this thread, but: I saw Dylan at Barton Hall on the Cornell campus. I agree that the acoustics there are hopelessly bad, but I can't be convinced that Dylan would have sounded at all good that night at a better venue. Better, but not good. My (more moderate) point is that there's probably more than one thing at work here - mastered recordings have a place, as do live performance... both can sound great, and both can make music sound good or like poo.
posted by pkingdesign at 11:43 PM on August 30, 2006

« Older We recently saw people playing at being zombies, w... | Taking a cue from the most fam... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Insert obligatory "The Times They Are A-Changin'" joke at your own leisure. August 24, 2006 7:34 AM Subscribe

Insert obligatory "The Times They Are A-Changin'" joke at your own leisure.
August 24, 2006 7:34 AM Subscribe