Is Dynamic Compression Hurting Neal's Music?

	Contacts Press Resources	BUY NEAL'S CDs DIRECT! iTunes Radiant Records Spock's Beard Transatlantic

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
thoughtspart3	Is Dynamic Compression Hurting Neal's Music?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 7 (05/28/09 19:43:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tags : None Using Audacity I reviewed Neal's albums and noticed a trend in the mastering of increased dynamic compression. This technique raise the volume of the quieter parts and boosts them as high as the loudest parts. The result is the music sounds flat. This is exactly the feeling I had when listening to Lifeline. I did not realize why I felt this way until I became aware of this mastering trend after the Death Magnetic problems. When you compare Testimony's sound, it is much more lively. Considering Neal uses subtle changes in volume frequently, is it possible his albums are suffering as a result?
robertk		#1	[-]
Posts: 1204 (05/29/09 06:07:33) Bob the Gobb Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I don't think there was that much difference in mastering between Testimony and Lifeline. Dynamic compression may cause audio problems right now because it's still relatively new - just like digital mastering did in the 1980s. All those folks complaining about how digital sounded bad may have sounded well informed in the 1980s, but once engineers discovered the right eq frequencies and sweet spots in digital audio, suddenly CDs started sounding warmer than their vinyl counterparts (contrary to what ignorant, pretentious, pseudo-audiophiles continue to stubbornly protest). The same will eventually be true of dynamic compression. You can hear the difference now - you won't be able to hear the difference 10 years from now.
thoughtspart3		#2	[-]
Posts: 8 (05/29/09 09:05:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I think this issue is a little different than the one you are referring to. This mastering technique deliberately boosts the overall volume so that the quiet signals are almost as loud as the louder sounds. This is a conscious choice by mastering engineers. I don't think technological advances can solve this problem. There just isn't a way to have the signals leveled and unleveled at the same time. In a way it is the technology that has made it possible to flatten out the sound. Older CDs, before this mastering trend became the norm actually sound much crisper and lively. If you have an free audio program like Audacity you can see what I mean. Open a song from testimony and one from Lifeline. The difference is significant. My point in raising this issue is not to rag on Neal. I love his music and want it to sound as good as it possibly can. For some reason most musicians have followed this mastering trend even though it seems to hurt the dynamics of the music.
Haydn12		#3	[-]
Posts: 182 (05/29/09 14:59:22) Composer Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I personally prefer the sound of Testimony over Lifeline. The compression was very noticable on Lifeline. The trend in mastering these days is to just compress more and more just to make CD's louder. Many CD's these days just sound like garbage to me. Jim
dragonsrightwing		#4	[-]
Posts: 768 (05/29/09 16:34:41) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	robertk wrote: ... (contrary to what ignorant, pretentious, pseudo-audiophiles continue to stubbornly protest). You don't have opinions or anything, do you?
Livingstill		#5	[-]
Posts: 1577 (05/29/09 22:51:21) Dr. Stanley I Presume Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I'm not a big fan of compression either, and was well-informed on the pros and cons of it while assisting an engineer in 1997. The compression that I was doing was with off board gear in the studio, though. I've never mastered a disc, but I know what you're talking about. I think if you've ever heard the first Candlebox CD, that would be a good example of over-compression IMO. Whether it was done while mixing or mastering is a question that I cannot answer. also hear Yes: Talk King's X: Dogman . These were done early on in the "digital compression era".
24beforemylove		#6	[-]
Posts: 539 (05/30/09 05:20:36) I'll Be There Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"CDs started sounding warmer than their vinyl counterparts (contrary to what ignorant, pretentious, pseudo-audiophiles continue to stubbornly protest)." One of my best friends is a vinyl lover and he is far from pretentious, ignorant or pseudo in any way. One reason that CDs sound better now than in the past is that CD players are better. Manufacturers have been striving over the years to achieve a more realistic sound, which some like to call warmer. The sound we prefer is very personal. Neal hated the production on The Light, but I rather like it, even if it is more "studio". The classic Yes albums had an amazingly clean, artificial sound, but that sound is one of the pleasures of albums like Close to the Edge. I reckon all of Neal's albums after The Light sound pretty natural.
thoughtspart3		#7	[-]
Posts: 9 (06/01/09 07:24:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I think that this compression issue is a much bigger problem than most people realize. It makes the whole track louder which appeals to people, but long term listening suffers from lack of diversity of dynamic range. I heard a remastered version of A Rite of Passage by Dream Theater. The initial release was heavily compressed. Potnoy's drums sounded really weak. The remastered version was drastically different. It was much more exciting. The drums had real punch and the subtle changes in volume, from verse to chorus for example, added to the overall effect. The sad thing is that Dream Theater and Neal Morse add these dynamics into the music, but the mastering process is obscuring them. The best analogy I can think of is a teacher who talks in monotone and one who raises and lowers their voice to emphasize certain points. The more dynamic speaker holds your attention and is more interesting. So, why would we want our music to be monotone even if it is a loud monotone?
PaulGH		#8	[-]
Posts: 1040 (06/01/09 08:31:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	This "louder is better" ultra-compression approach bothers me a lot as well. I remembered an article I read about how this was done on Rush's "Vapor Trails" CD a few years ago, and after a few Google searches, I was able to find it: Over the Limit by Rip Rowan Here is an excerpt from the article: So you can guess that it was with much anticipation that I awaited my first real listen to the band's newest CD, "Vapor Trails". Reviews heralded this album as one of the hardest-rocking Rush albums in some time, with a strong focus on guitars, powerful drumming, excellent bass work, and some of the best songwriting to come from the band in years. And, in listening to the CD, I found all of these things to be true. This is easily my favorite collection of Rush songs in years, maybe decades. It's incredible work and I earnestly hope it reflects a new and sustainable direction for this great band. However there was one fact that the reviewers had all left out: this CD sounds like dogs**t. Perhaps you think I'm being a little strong. I think not. This is without prefix or suffix the worst sounding Rush CD ever made. In fact it is so bad that I cannot listen to more than a few songs before I just have to turn it off. What's the cause of this sonic catastrophe? There's no secret here: loudness. Vapor Trails is just the latest CD to fall victim to the current craze of LOUDER IS BETTER production. Rush is not alone. Most of the current crop of rock CDs have been punished by the LOUDER IS BETTER process, and I know I am not alone when I say, once and for all, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. This quote pretty much sums up my feelings on the topic as well. The article goes on to give a fairly thorough explanation of this "louder is better" phenomenon from a technical standpoint. I have done some amateur CD mastering myself, with my own band's recordings and with bootleg tapes that I have converted to CD. I have also looked at the visual waveforms for audio that I have extracted from many of my commercial CDs, both old ones and new ones. And based on these experiences, it appears to me that the author of this article knows what he is talking about, and is right on the money with most of what he says. EDIT: I just want to clarify that this post is not meant to refer to Neal's CDs specifically, but to this phenomenon in general. If Neal's CDs suffer from over-compression, then they are VERY far from being the only ones that do. Last Edited By: PaulGH 06/01/09 09:39:29. Edited 3 times.
PaulGH		#9	[-]
Posts: 1041 (06/01/09 09:13:09) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Here's another good article on this subject: http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm
24beforemylove		#10	[-]
Posts: 550 (06/01/09 09:31:19) I'll Be There Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	There is not much point in Neal's albums going down the radio-friendly loud route since he's not going to get played on the radio. So I reckon he could afford to go for a more "audiophile" sound.
EddiePresley		#11	[-]
Posts: 70 (06/01/09 18:42:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Isn't that all in Rich Mouser's hands? Surely there is no good reason to over compress a prog disc like Neal's. It's fairly dependent on those mood swings.
24beforemylove		#12	[-]
Posts: 552 (06/02/09 10:11:38) I'll Be There Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I read the CD mastering article you linked to, Paul. Interesting, though I thought he went over the top a bit. The reason I say that is that I can enjoy my favourite music through almost any medium: ipod, hi fi, transistor radio. Music can be good even if it's poorly recorded, mixed or mastered.
robertk		#13	[-]
Posts: 1206 (06/02/09 11:08:54) Bob the Gobb Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I think this issue is a little different than the one you are referring to. This mastering technique deliberately boosts the overall volume so that the quiet signals are almost as loud as the louder sounds. I know what the technique is that you're referring to - I still hold that the problem isn't with dynamic compression, the problem is with the misuse of it. And much like digital mastering in the 80s, the problem is that engineers don't quite know what they're doing with it yet.
thoughtspart3		#14	[-]
Posts: 10 (06/02/09 17:50:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	From what I've read, it is the record companies who push the engineers to boost the volume. It seems that many engineers don't like doing it but they work for the record companies so they have to. For some reason the record companies and many of the musicians have come to believe that this helps sell more records. This is just my own theory, but I think that listening to music in the car is behind a lot of this. It sort of makes sense to a degree. Due to road noise it is often difficult to hear quieter parts in the car. When listening to classical CDs for example, you often have to adjust the volume. To hear the soft parts better the signal can be compressed which boosts the soft parts so they can be heard. The only problem is that the dynamics between soft and loud are lost. This could be a contributing factor to the whole trend of making CDs as loud as possible. If they don't sound good in environments with a lot of background noise the fear is people won't listen to them. Maybe someone else can confirm this, but I remember Mike Portnoy saying in one of the DT DVDs that he would listen to the mixes in the car to see if they sounded good. Last Edited By: thoughtspart3 06/02/09 17:53:09. Edited 1 times.
thoughtspart3		#15	[-]
Posts: 11 (06/02/09 17:55:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Thanks for clarifying robertk. I just wanted to make sure we were not arguing about different things.
PaulGH		#16	[-]
Posts: 1043 (06/03/09 06:31:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	This is just my own theory, but I think that listening to music in the car is behind a lot of this. It sort of makes sense to a degree. Due to road noise it is often difficult to hear quieter parts in the car. When listening to classical CDs for example, you often have to adjust the volume. To hear the soft parts better the signal can be compressed which boosts the soft parts so they can be heard. The only problem is that the dynamics between soft and loud are lost. This could be a contributing factor to the whole trend of making CDs as loud as possible. If they don't sound good in environments with a lot of background noise the fear is people won't listen to them. I think that you are on to something there.
PaulGH		#17	[-]
Posts: 1044 (06/03/09 06:39:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I read the CD mastering article you linked to, Paul. Interesting, though I thought he went over the top a bit. The reason I say that is that I can enjoy my favourite music through almost any medium: ipod, hi fi, transistor radio. Music can be good even if it's poorly recorded, mixed or mastered. That probably means that you aren't as much of an audiophile as the guys who wrote those articles. Truth be told, I'm not that much of an audiophile either. I do the majority of my music listening on cheap computer speakers while I'm working, or in the car. But I still would tend to judge the quality of the mixing/mastering by how the music sounds on my nice stereo system than on how it sounds on my computer or in the car. (Though if there is a way to preserve a reasonable amount of dynamics and make the music sound good in all those environments, that's great.)
AuthorOfConfusion		#18	[-]
Posts: 1 (06/08/09 00:59:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi everyone, I'm new here and a BIG fan of Neal Morse's music. This issue is dear to my heart, and while that sounds a little extreme, I just cannot stand having wonderful, visionary albums compromised by catering to a mass consumption iPod public. PaulGH wrote: This is just my own theory, but I think that listening to music in the car is behind a lot of this. It sort of makes sense to a degree. Due to road noise it is often difficult to hear quieter parts in the car. When listening to classical CDs for example, you often have to adjust the volume. To hear the soft parts better the signal can be compressed which boosts the soft parts so they can be heard. The only problem is that the dynamics between soft and loud are lost. This could be a contributing factor to the whole trend of making CDs as loud as possible. If they don't sound good in environments with a lot of background noise the fear is people won't listen to them. I think that you are on to something there. This I believe is indeed true, but I think the major factor of the overuse of dynamic range compression is the fact that iPods are used everywhere, and normally in situations where there is lots of background noise. An example of this is using your iPod on the train or bus, while walking down a busy street or just listening to music as an afterthought whilst you are doing something else. If music is a more constant volume it can be heard over the top of background noise, this is why it is almost impossible to listen to classical music on your iPod in a busy street - you cannot hear the quiet sections and when you then turn it up, the loud passages almost deafen you! But I must say Neal Morse's music has not suffered much at the hands of dynamic range compression when compared to many other artist. I could go on forever but this will suffice for the time being. I made a thread some time ago on the Mike Portnoy forums about this issue among others, I think it's a good read and I used plenty of pictures to help illustrate. The people there were very sceptical and gave me a hard time by throwing all sorts of accusations around - not a very hospitable place there I'm afraid. This is the link, please read it and get back to me here on these forums, they seem a lot more civil - http://www.mikeportnoy.com/forum/tm.aspx?high=&m=2167012&mpage=1#2168078 Your Signature ... Last Edited By: AuthorOfConfusion 06/08/09 01:15:35. Edited 1 times.
24beforemylove		#19	[-]
Posts: 568 (06/10/09 11:38:01) I'll Be There Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hello Mr AOC. Welcome to the board! I'll have a look at your link.
dynamh		#20	[-]
Posts: 65 (07/04/09 09:21:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Here's an article I wrote a while back about this issue. Perhaps some of you might be familiar with the album I referred to.. ;-) http://www.ultimatemetal....-x-trouble-paradise.html

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Is Dynamic Compression Hurting Neal's Music?

Is Dynamic Compression Hurting Neal's Music?

Quick Reply