• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Why the new "LOUDNESS CRAZE" in digital mastering really robs music of life

gusten said:
Place oneself in a concert-hall and listen to where the sound are coming from,then one understand that two channels are a big compromize.
Click to expand...

It depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If you want "you are there" so that you feel you're sitting in the Boston Symphony Hall then yes, you'll need more than 2 channels. However, if the idea is to put the Beatles in your living room, aka "they are here" then 2 channels should suffice. In that case you are simply recreating the 2D "stage" where they would be performing in your room.

Simply 2 different objectives in the recording and reproduction.

Ray
 
I think there are several issues here. 1. With rare exceptions, music is mixed with the expectation that it will be played back on lousy equipment,and even then rarely auditioned critically. 2. Digital manipulation that destroys dynamic range.(compare an early Carlos Santana recording to his more recent releases. Can it be that he no longer plays with the expressiveness and subtlety that made him one of the Giants?). 3. Bad D/A- A/D conversion; letting mathematics decide what of the music is neccesary. 4. I believe we are now experiencing the first generation of adults with damaged hearing from a constant exposure to damaging volume via the ubiquitous headphone and the ridiculous thumping car woofer.(music or not, too loud is damaging.) And some of these people are recording engineers and producers. Here endith the rant. Thanks, Thomas
 
I firmly believe that in today's music and recording industry the use of compression is way out of hand. I have expressed this on AK in the past. I work in a Performing Arts Center and I see a lot of live performances: orchestra, Broadway, Jazz, Rock etc. I have seen a trend in the audio reinforcement world that echoes the "too loud" opinion. I am constantly feeling that the shows are being forced down my throat rather than letting me enjoy the dynamics and nuance that is naturally part of the shows. Young engineers that come out of schools such as Full Sail, and other schools like it, are being taught the use of compression devices as an end all savior. The compressor is being seen as the answer to every sound engineer's problems. A sound man with a lousy ear for music tends to compress to make his life easier when mixing.

I don't know if anyone has noticed how the overall volume of drums in music today is way louder than music from the 60s - 80s. The bass drum is being taught as the cornerstone of the music and very often you will find it is in the#1 fader position on the audio console. During sound checks at the theater, the bass drum is always the first checked. So many show have come through here that were ruined by a bass drum level that was so overbearing that it was louder than even the singers. Add to this the heavy handed use of compressors and you have a formula for a lousy show, in my opinion.

I don't mind a little work in hearing and enjoying my music. I do not want it rubbed in my face. A lot of recent recordings are doing this and I hate it. An example of a nice recording that was done recently is called "Sounds of Wood and Steel" It is all guitar instrumentals and is wonderfully engineered. I would also agree that the "Hell Freezes Over" recording of The Eagles is also a winner in the engineering department.
 
RayW said:
It depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If you want "you are there" so that you feel you're sitting in the Boston Symphony Hall then yes, you'll need more than 2 channels. However, if the idea is to put the Beatles in your living room, aka "they are here" then 2 channels should suffice. In that case you are simply recreating the 2D "stage" where they would be performing in your room.

Simply 2 different objectives in the recording and reproduction.

Ray
Click to expand...

I meant,just as You write here in the first part,if the recording has room-information it not really adequate with two channels.
If the recording do not have any room-information,like in most of today´s recordings,that are not recorded live,it is not so important.In many cases You can say that each instrument and each voice has a room of it´s own in the mix.It can still sound 3d but not with any real room-information.
/gusten
 
For me, personally, Nine Inch Nails "The Downward Spiral" is a great 5.1 release, though its certainly not a "musical" album for most people.

Anyway, regarding that specific release, I think it is about how it effects the listener via sonic presentation. It is not about "a band" being in the room, or you being at a performance. It's goal is more to alter ones perception while listening, with a bombardment of sounds coming from all directions with an intent to distort.

While certainly not an "accessible" form of music - it is a great example of use of surround sound as a "different approach" to listening.
 
ShaneC said:
For me, personally, Nine Inch Nails "The Downward Spiral" is a great 5.1 release, though its certainly not a "musical" album for most people.

Anyway, regarding that specific release, I think it is about how it effects the listener via sonic presentation. It is not about "a band" being in the room, or you being at a performance. It's goal is more to alter ones perception while listening, with a bombardment of sounds coming from all directions with an intent to distort.

While certainly not an "accessible" form of music - it is a great example of use of surround sound as a "different approach" to listening.
Click to expand...
Giving a musician another means to express themselves is another great thing about surround sound.

Originally Posted by uofmtiger
That being said, the surround mix for "Love" is very cool on the DVD-A.

Philistine!!
Click to expand...
Hey, its "living Beatle approved"....and was actually born from a George Harrison suggestion. George Martin also sat in on the proceedings... While some Beatles fans may consider it sacrilegious, no one is taking away the two channel versions. This is just another form of artistic expression that the living Beatles got to take part in.
 
DougMac said:
Bad recording engineering does. It reminds me of the early days of stereo with everything pushed left or right.

Please share with us what you've heard to lead you to that conclusion.

Doug
Click to expand...

It happens when you play a regular 2 channel cd through a surround system. :yes:
 
I have Yamaha's TOTL surround receiver, it has everything and has excellent DAC as well, I have listened to DTS albums as well as Dolby Surround like Henry Mancini etc. somehow, I am not really convinced about music, don't mind watching the concerts though on DTS and my projection system.
 
uofmtiger said:
Giving a musician another means to express themselves is another great thing about surround sound.
Click to expand...

exactly. Provided its the musicians choice and they feel its the best way to express said album.

I remember the first time I heard TDS (1996, original stereo recording) - cranked up off a boom box, I was in another room. Somewhere during the last 1/3rd of "Mr Self Destruct", I thought the house was falling apart. Never again did I get that same feeling until I had the "remastered 5.1 release".

When the goal is to achieve those feelings, its a beautiful thing.

When trying to recreate an atmosphere inaccurately, it's highly ineffective.

All IMHO.
 
RayW said:
I don't know, Rob. I think it's a matter of implementation and really depends on how they record and master. If they record it and set up the surround channels to mimic the hall properties then I think it could sound really good. If the surround channels could be used to swamp the room acoustics but without being overblown then it would be a "you are there" experience as opposed to "they are here". I think that most times they're just trying to get the effect in your face so you can see how clever they are with the wow factor.

Ray
Click to expand...

zactly! Multi-channel music has endless possibilities from both the ability to use the surround channels for artistic purposes as well as during the production stages, adding realism to the music. Unfortunately, most can't seem to grasp how to do stereo well, so expecting them to pull of multichannel music maybe asking a bit too much of them. If everything aligned and someone who knew how to produce stereo AND understood the inherent advantages of mutlichannel, I think a lot of people here would have their eyes opened with a good demo. *fingers crossed* that someone gets it right. :)
 
What we need is the ability to have 4-5 speakers in the front of you. Tied to the performers position so that when Mick Jagger uses his walker to move across the stage, the speaker follows him. Talk about soundstage!
 
dnewma04 said:
zactly! Multi-channel music has endless possibilities from both the ability to use the surround channels for artistic purposes as well as during the production stages, adding realism to the music. Unfortunately, most can't seem to grasp how to do stereo well, so expecting them to pull of multichannel music maybe asking a bit too much of them. If everything aligned and someone who knew how to produce stereo AND understood the inherent advantages of mutlichannel, I think a lot of people here would have their eyes opened with a good demo. *fingers crossed* that someone gets it right. :)
Click to expand...

Perhaps that day will come. In the early days of stereo, engineers were not sure of what to do with this new stereo technology. That is why we got all of those bad recordings in the 60's with bass and drums in one channel and guitar and vocals in the other. Maybe one day the engineers will figure out the proper use of 5.1, but with SACD's and DVD-A's starting to fall by the wayside, maybe not!
 
dnewma04 said:
If everything aligned and someone who knew how to produce stereo AND understood the inherent advantages of mutlichannel, I think a lot of people here would have their eyes opened with a good demo. *fingers crossed* that someone gets it right. :)
Click to expand...

Hey Dave, you may have seen this before but I'll bet a bunch of others haven't. Try going to Digital Domain and checking out the "honor roll" put together by Bob Katz and his "artists page". Bob definitely knows what he's doing with recording, but more importantly he's a mastering master. There's a good place to start when looking for someone to "get it right".

Ray
 
I hate these new LOUD and DISTORTED recordings. They use too many maximizers and compressors. They do it for several reasons, some have been covered, like "better" sound with small or cheap speakers, more attention getting, louder is better, easier to hear the song in a loud environment, ect. I do not mind some compresssion if done properly, but things are WAY out of hand, instead of the promise of hi dynamics, clean, undistorted, "analog sounding" SACD, DVD audio ect, we are getting distorted, tinny, swirly mp3s. I love listening to Paul McCartney's "Flowers in the Dirt" lp, "Figure of Eight" used in the demo and is one of my favorites from that album.
 
The other issue of the loudness wars is digital clipping.

"The CD's digital audio format is inherently limited to a peak audio amplitude that is referenced as "0 dB" or "100%". Unlike the variability of analog recording techniques, this limit cannot be exceeded. If you try to, you end up with a waveform that is horribly distorted, due to the top and/or bottom of the wave being harshly limited to the maximum level -- or "clipped." Early CDs were mastered with full respect to this loudness limit and did not use any clipping. " http://www.mindspring.com/~mrichter/dynamics/dynamics.htm

Unfortunately, clipping is rampant on CDs, so in addition to dynamic compression, you also get clipped waveforms that result in bad sound quality.
 
uofmtiger said:
The other issue of the loudness wars is digital clipping.

"The CD's digital audio format is inherently limited to a peak audio amplitude that is referenced as "0 dB" or "100%". Unlike the variability of analog recording techniques, this limit cannot be exceeded. If you try to, you end up with a waveform that is horribly distorted, due to the top and/or bottom of the wave being harshly limited to the maximum level -- or "clipped." Early CDs were mastered with full respect to this loudness limit and did not use any clipping. " http://www.mindspring.com/~mrichter/dynamics/dynamics.htm

Unfortunately, clipping is rampant on CDs, so in addition to dynamic compression, you also get clipped waveforms that result in bad sound quality.
Click to expand...


Very good point, one of the reasons I have not been able to do an extended listening session with even the best of my CD collection as compared to my vinyl.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom