Excellent video describing the terrible modern calamity that plagues our music. I Recommend this be moved into technical documents:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ
Nice video. I totally agree that the modern "making it as loud as possible" aspect just ruins the song.
And although I think that it could go into the tech docs section, I'd like to see more opinions about this idea's, and possible tips and tricks first.
This is true, but I also think that compressing the output is also essential for different styles, like in electronica. It really depends on the tune IMO :)
Certain electronic music is defined by its compressed and mechanical levels, so I would agree. But when you have real life players expression turned into the same mechanical approach... thats just destruction of art.
Indeed. Compression shouldn't be applied to any rock or jazz genres...
Well Compression does have a place in Rock, Jazz and even the Classical Genre. I mean the human voice singing near a microphone invariably causes unnecessary peaks, and sometimes a drummer can hit the snare ridiculously hard at an inopportune moment, but in this case the point of compression is to actually make it sound more natural and fluent. The issue at hand is that the modern approach is no longer the use compression, but the abuse of it.
Abuse it is. I once loaded an Eminem-song from an audio-cd my granddaughter had, and it looked like this :
(http://i12.tinypic.com/8ampqwo.png)
This is ridiculous. It's a maximum compressed MP3 re-converted to WAV to be written on an audio-cd.
I don't agree, that electronic music should be compressed as default, because it's mechanical.
I understand the emphasis on compression, because it has been common use for a quick transport of audio-files on the Net.
But in reality, it's just one of those tools. Sometimes you use it, sometimes not. Like a flanger.
In the case of the vocal or drummer peaks, a limiter is the first tool to choose, not a compressor.
A limiter just decreases the peaks, so the track can be normalized to a higher percentage, but it doesn't loose it's dynamic spectrum.
If compression is used, not only the peaks are cut off, but the softest passages wil be amplified as well.
To make it, yes, as loud as possible. So the dynamic spectrum gets a smaller range of differences.
Quote from: "KrazyKatz"Well Compression does have a place in Rock, Jazz and even the Classical Genre. I mean the human voice singing near a microphone invariably causes unnecessary peaks, and sometimes a drummer can hit the snare ridiculously hard at an inopportune moment, but in this case the point of compression is to actually make it sound more natural and fluent. The issue at hand is that the modern approach is no longer the use compression, but the abuse of it.
I agree that Vocals have to be compressed / limited, but I was talking about compressing a whole song :)
I just saw the movie for the first time. Excellent story with clear arguments.
I will place this link in a Dutch Synth-forum.
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"This is ridiculous. It's a maximum compressed MP3 re-converted to WAV to be written on an audio-cd.
I don't agree, that electronic music should be compressed as default, because it's mechanical.
I understand the emphasis on compression, because it has been common use for a quick transport of audio-files on the Net.
huh? i think you are confusing dynamic compression with file compression (mp3s). a highly compressed mp3 would sound terrible for entirely different reasons.
anyway, nice video, ill have to send it to some friends of mine whom i have tried to explain this to.
also, this trend is especially noticable (and disturbing) on radio stations, i cant even listen to the radio anymore, it just sounds like over-compressed crap.
@ Snu
You're right about a possible confusion.
I know the dynamic compression tool of a wav-editor is something else, as converting a file to a compressed format.
You mention radio, but over here there was a public discussion about being the sound of commercials between tv-programs being too loud suddenly, according to the remote-setting of the tv. There was a political debate about this, but of course about the wrong criteria. They talked about a max volume percentage, while it should be of course about max compression percentage.
"when there's no quiet, there can be no loud"
priceless quote, i use this technique a lot and it realy gives that "dramatic feel" or punch when you need it. I agree, that many artist dont care about "soft" voices, but trying to make every single instrument they have sound loud as possible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rye_D9qnwFM
just listen to this (the tune is like that, it's not youtube destroying it)
one can say that we're all used to sidechain compressors now, especially in dance music, but the vocal compressor is just utter shit... it sounds totally out of control.
is that really what people need to make their remix outstanding?
Indeed, this is so ugly compressed. At first I thought it was supposed to be like that, but appearantly some parts aren't compressed like this because there's no interfearing signal and then it sounds good.
Yuck!
Blinded by the might
heh, witty and fitting description. :)
From what I see, both dynamic range compressors and limiters reduce peaks in audio. Don't they both affect the audio quality?
Also, I used a limiter on my music, and it looks like the whole thing was amplified, except for the peaks, which became quieter compared to the rest of the audio. Does that mean that the limiter was actually a compressor?
I'm confused. :(
Quote from: "Trancefreak"From what I see, both dynamic range compressors and limiters reduce peaks in audio. Don't they both affect the audio quality?
Also, I used a limiter on my music, and it looks like the whole thing was amplified, except for the peaks, which became quieter compared to the rest of the audio. Does that mean that the limiter was actually a compressor?
I'm confused. :(
Yes. In fact, a limiter is a compressor set to extreme settings. Its used to remove peaks so you can make the song louder.
Though, normally a compressor used differently can produce a different effect.
QuoteYes. In fact, a limiter is a compressor set to extreme settings.
Not quite.
A limiter, as the name implies, limits the audio level. If the level goes above a certain threshold, it is limited - of course this eliminates peaks, how else should it work?
A compressor adjusts the gain on the fly (the sensitivity of the effect depends on the chosen parameters), to make quiet parts louder and loud parts quieter.
The essential difference is that a limiter just does the latter, but not the former. An audio signal can easily "pump" when applying a compressor wrong, and that's most often the cast if you actually wanted to use a limiter but used a compressor instead.
Quote from: "Trancefreak"Does that mean that the limiter was actually a compressor?
Yes, but a limiter is an application of a compressor. Read this article. (http://www.doctorproaudio.com/doctor/temas/dynamics-processors-compressors_en.shtml)
I'm totally against the whole song compression. It's against the physical acoustic laws that say more you have sounds overlapped more the volume is high. Dance or classical I don't care. You can make a good electro-hardcore tune without any global compression, BUT using compression on individual samples.
I think most commercial music uses lots of compression because it's "shitty music to be listened on car/bus/subway". Compression give a easier-to-listen sound when the background noise is loud, I think it's the reason why so many CDs are abusively compressed... (many people only listen to music only in noisy environment).
Sad, because this will sound bad (and tiring) when listened at home on good audio equipment...
Well, you make a point phanoo, and the level does need to be moderated for the medium. But this wasn't the original reason that loudness wars started. It started on the simple premise that people thought louder sounded better on a first impression. After the fact that it was compressed/limited to death people saw they can block out the background noise with it, and as a result Ipod is the main medium when it should not be.
But I'm sure that in a few years you will see:
Band X from the 1990s/2000s/2010s
Re-mastered to include full dynamic ratio!
Only $99.95
So there is a cash cow waiting to happen. There is so much music out there that loses it's appeal in the long run because it's compressed to hell. And they can sell it all over again.
Its not the compressors fault that people are abusing it. It's a pretty useful effect and it can be a huge help in the right hand.
Sadly the "abused" state became standard nowdays. If you're not doing it, you're not competitive. (not that the potential labels/radiostations will not squeeze every single bit of the dynamic headroom, out from your sent audio material before spreading the product.) :)
Well, I'm pretty sure all those bedroom musicians abusing compressors are not even aiming for airtime, so "being competitive" is a bad excuse here. We definitely need more "headroom musicians" again.
Quote from: Jojo on December 02, 2010, 06:25:18
We definitely need more "headroom musicians" again.
Agreed. The only thing I fear is, that if you make a dance song with headroom, it just doesn't sound right. Of course, most styles would work best if there's headroom, but the more electronic styles (especially those with hard in their name) will most likely suffer from adding headroom to the mix.
Quotebut the more electronic styles (especially those with hard in their name) will most likely suffer from adding headroom to the mix.
I don't agree at all here. Hardcore music from the 90s was just "hard", but not compressed to death. It was just before the whole compression craze. But on the opposite, some styles like French House simply don't work without heavy sidechain compression of course. But sidechaining is still different from hard global limiting.
Yeah, I agree there. I did mixed up sidechaining with global limiting when writing that earlier post :$ X)
it comes to mind that in that time, more and more people have been getting computers.
the standard audio that comes with a computer has a petite amplifier.
audio that isnt compressed to shit like most modern music, sounds Low on those computers without an external amplifier (Which most dont have.)
also, the portable mp3 players have lousy amplifiers as well.
and what people want often are the loud basses.
cant think of another reason for it.
Quote from: sso on September 25, 2012, 01:58:34
cant think of another reason for it.
imho the main reason is consistence. Listening to a well engineered/mastered song and right after listening to a poorly made one feels like a significant drop on the volume level. People dont really like to turn kilometers on their volume bars/knobs while shuffling through a playlists (i dont, for sure). Same goes with radios and any other streaming sources. That's one of the reason why proper mastering became a requirement nowadays, if anyone plans to open to larger masses with his song.
Quote from: psishock on September 27, 2012, 02:49:17
Quote from: sso on September 25, 2012, 01:58:34
cant think of another reason for it.
imho the main reason is consistence. Listening to a well engineered/mastered song and right after listening to a poorly made one feels like a significant drop on the volume level. People dont really like to turn kilometers on their volume bars/knobs while shuffling through a playlists (i dont, for sure). Same goes with radios and any other streaming sources. That's one of the reason why proper mastering became a requirement nowadays, if anyone plans to open to larger masses with his song.
could you elaborate on that?
Quoteimho the main reason is consistence. Listening to a well engineered/mastered song and right after listening to a poorly made one feels like a significant drop on the volume level
Now you're implying there that "louder" does indeed mean "better". That is how many people perceive loudness, but of course only making it loud doesn't make the music or the mix itself good. The situation you describe can be solved best by applying the same
gain to all tracks (e.g. by normalizing all your audio with ReplayGain), and certainly
not by maximizing the shit out of every song and compressing it to aural death. Your argument is invalid and just a blind reiteration of what the industry wants to make you believe is the best solution.
But the "louder means better" thing is a good point. Some reasons for loudness are probably:
- Loud music on the radio or a CD or whatever may be perceived as better. Maybe because it is more noticeable. Ever wondered why advertisements in TV or radio are so much louder than movies or music? This is the reason. Ads are so much louder so that you can't miss them, even if you go to your kitchen next door to get some new popcorn for that movie.
- From an engineering aspect, music should sound equally good on every kitchen radio and hifi equipment. You should still be able to hear the awesome bass of your tune on the kitchen radio, just like you hear it on your hifi. Applying hard compression is one way to achieve that.
its going bit far,im finding tracks on Soundcloud f.e , where the audio is just one continuous block of sound and the resulting mix is just "flat."
i prefer bit more dynamics in my music.
though, the biggest difference i see between now and f.e the 80´s where songs had much more dynamics, is the bass, music today usually has lots more bass.
bass needs more volume to be heard properly than the higher frequencies,but if you up the bass, it drowns out the higher freq unless you amp those too, lol
might be a result of the current fascination with the bass (started in the early nineties if i remember correctly)