Music Over-compression

[Davethreshold]

Another example would be the "Coverage" C.D. by Mandy Moore. I couldn't wait for that to come out. I think she has turned out to be a truly superb Pop singer......I could go on, but I'll spare you all. On that C.D. all of it was so compressed and reworked. It seemed like the engineer, used every single adjustment available to him. It sounded like there was nothing left. Then in an interview she said it was done in his garage/studio. I saw a picture of the vocal booth, it was tiny. I thought she was really short-changed in that production, with most of it being compression. When I compared her live ver. of, "Senses Working Overtime" to the Coverage c.d. the live T.V. ver sounded ten times better. It should be the opposite.

[Akira]

I think that most people identify compression and limiting as something that goes on the output stage, when in fact traditionally it was applied with best results on the input stage.
Compression on the "way up" (tape input) sounds totally different and was often used as a way of dealing with the limited headroom of tape. Using compression properly on the way up allows for a beautifully seated, well balanced mix that is effortless on the ears--musicality. This was achived through a combination of many things...starting with a great vocalist performing in a fabulous sounding room, through a U47 into a Neve mic pre, and yes the infamous 1176 compressor. All of these factors were carefully layered by an expert ear to take full advantage of tape, which itself was always 'perfectly' saturated providing rich third and fifth harmonic overtones. This is where the musicality comes from that we miss today.

Whose to blame...that vanishing species known as the recording engineer.

Having said that, everything that was possible then can be done today with (IMHO) even better results. BUT THAT'S THE PROBLEM! Too much power in the wrong hands producing product for an uneducated public playing back on an ipod = "what you get today"

[bigtree]

AVS Video Tools + AVS Audio Tools is a good choice , just find it at http://www.oursdownload.com/avs-video-audio-dvd.html
I use it , it works pretty good .

[Robh3606]

This is an old story. They had the similar issues with mass produced vinyl. They would roll off the bass response and limit the dymanics. They would use compression to get as much play time as they could get and also keep the grove echo to a minimum. Use as little actual vinyl as possible so that some records were very thin. Half Speed masters again showed everyone what the media was capable of. Most mass produced releases were severly compromissed by comparison.

CD's were supposed to allow you to essentially get the master tape on a commercial release. No compression, no bass roll-off, and no surface noise.

Too bad it's history repeating itself. Doesn't matter what the media is the emphasis is not on sound quality, at least for normal releases.

Rob

[Allanvh5150]

Hi guys. Here is my spin on the subject.....

Being a live sound engineer for twenty years or so, I have uused compression on pretty much everything. Early days, we used no compression at all. The main problem with a "live" mix, is the huge dynamic range. A kick drum, for example, is "all or nothing". My first use of compression was on the FOH mix. We originally used "hard knee" settings but quickly realised that it sucked the life from the mix. It was great for protecting the horn drivers though. Diaphragm failures became rare. We then started to add compression to bass guitar and on the main vocal group. We never used compression on monitors though as it opened up a raft of problems that I wont go into at this time. With the added compression on individual instruments, I didnt need to use so much FOH compression so it was run soft knee with an icreased threshold level. Basically the FOH compressor was set up as a peak limiter. If I needed more compression early on in the night I would keep the threshold low and as the venue filled up I would turn the threshold back so as to use less compression. This would allow the room to efectively "self compress".
Now why do the recordings we hear on local radio sound overcompressed and lack dynamics? In the old days of "AM" over modulation didnt really cause any problems, but with the advent of "FM" with increased dynamics, it soon became clear that any for of over modulation would destroy the FM waveform and it would sound very very bad. So all of our new recordings, i.e. from about 30 years ago, use a heap of compression to keep the stations happy. They also add a heap moe compression locally, before the transmitter. But that doesnt really help us with our listen pleasure at home. Over compression becomes very fatigueing to listen to for to long but it is a tool that has to be used for broadcast. Maybe we could get the recording studios to record our favourite recordings with less.

[mike.e]

Very interesting.
But I still dont get why its abused - sure, it sells,but why wouldnt uncompressed music sell? It seems like the music consumer is in a drugged state of compression.

Or do the music labels know more than we do about how to sell cheap pop?Psychometric tests?

Is it a conspiracy by those tiny 2" ipod speaker sellers to get decent levels with 8watt chipamps?

[boputnam]

But I still dont get why its abused - sure, it sells, but why wouldnt uncompressed music sell?

Simply, uncompressed music presents problems for the largest segment of the market - their systems (and attention spans) cannot reproduce (nor tolerate) the dynamic range of raw waveforms. They end-up turning it up / turning it down / turning it up, etc. They are not about sitting and listening - their music is a backdrop to their life. For those applications much of uncompressed music would be lost / inaudible if uncompressed.

As with anything, though, the compression is too often excessive, and has had the unintended consequence of "training" their ears. Now they think this hard compression is normal. Unlearning this will be very hard, indeed...

[Baron030]

Originally Posted by Boputnam:
Simply, uncompressed music presents problems for the largest segment of the market - their systems (and attention spans) cannot reproduce (nor tolerate) the dynamic range of raw waveforms.

I think you have really nailed it on the head.
Most systems just can not reproduce uncompressed music.

I once lent my copy of the "Eargle On Everest" CD to one of my co-workers.
And it came as no surprise, when he said to me, "That it sounded like crap on his BOSE system".

It takes a really big system to handle uncompressed music without any stress or strain.
I know if I had attempted to play the "Eargle On Everest" CD loudly on my old 030 system.
My crown K1 would have done some serious damage to my newly re-coned D/E-130s.
We are talking vaporized voices coils here.

But, with my new system, an uncompressed CD like "Eargle On Everest" is a real sonic experience.
It does not sound like a CD. Instead it sounds like a live performance.

And I don’t think a lot of people are experiencing live music anymore.
So, they don’t know what they are missing.
It’s definitely a “training” issue.

Baron030

[Andyoz]

Not sure if this has been covered here before but this seems to be getting some interest in the industry.

http://www.turnmeup.org/

Basically, they are sick of the over compressed crap coming out of the mainstream music industry the last decade.

[Allanvh5150]

Not sure if this has been covered here before but this seems to be getting some interest in the industry.

http://www.turnmeup.org/

Basically, they are sick of the over compressed crap coming out of the mainstream music industry the last decade.

And the reality is that if you want your stuff played on the radio, FM, you need to compress the hell out of it. Joe public doesnt give a rats about how average it sounds anyway.

[clmrt]

Yeah, but don't radio stations have compression built into their process?

Plenty of dynamic recordings on the airwaves.