digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Why New Music Doesn't Sound As Good As It Did

tech.yahoo.com — Never mind that today's factory-produced starlets and mini-clones just don't have the practiced chops of the supergroups of yesteryear, pop in a new CD and you might notice that the quality of the music itself —maybe something as simple as a snare drum hit—just doesn't sound as crisp and as clear as you're used to. Why is that?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • fucter, on 10/11/2007, -4/+62Yeah, compression also makes the music sound more aggressive - and I think maybe the radio trained our ears to think that more compression = better sounding music.
    • Rfriaz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+40That's the head of the nail being hit; compression is the culprit. Compression takes away dynamics. Dynamics are what let music breath: the loudness or softness of any given sound. Compression turns everything into one, equally loud sound. Ever listen to old blues solos, where some notes are quieter, some are louder? That element is mostly gone Top 40 music.
      • BlackOp, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7The real culprit is record label suits who order mastering engineers to make the RMS as loud as possible.
        PS. Compressors are not a bad thing in themselves.. They can reduce or expand dynamics.
        • BottledSunshine, on 10/11/2007, -11/+1Analog music contains the full spectrum of sound, while digital sound is clipped. When music is digitized it chops the very high and very low part of the sound wave. Hook an oscilloscope up to the output leads of your stereo and watch the signal when you play an old LP and the same music digitized. There is a big difference in the frequency range and what you hear. I’ll never give up my old Sansui 9090db and TEAC decks.
        • BlackOp, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4It looks different because stuff that you can't hear has been removed (it's bandlimited). If done correctly it sounds exactly the same, unless you have the ears of a dog.
        • Elephant789, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Wow, you guys are smart. I will leave now.
      • Anthracene, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Using compression is a task which takes eons to master. To me it has been the most difficult part of my recording experience again and again. On every recording it seems as though the settings are so different. I think this is due to the number of adjustable parameters.
        • shadx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It's possible you might not know what you're doing.
    • JerodSlay, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20I agree about the radio part. When in a car (which is where most radio is consumed) there is a lot of noise. For a song to be heard over the noise, it must be at a higher volume than if it were being listened to in a sound room. Once the song is at that high volume, you don't want the "loud" parts of the song to be too much louder. Also the road noise degrades the ear's ability to hear things with high dynamic range.
      • WallyAnti, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Nostalgia probably also plays a part. I know that one of the main reasons I listen to music is that it takes me back to the first time I listened to it. Naturally similar sounding music has a similar effect. Modern popular music is just too homogenized for me. Sure the American Idol types have talent but who cares if it's just the same ol same ol.
      • mossrockss, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Agreed. This is why I listen to bands who aren't usually the most popular, like Pink Martini, Paris Combo, etc. They have better, more original music (or in the case of Pink Martini, they also cover music from decades ago) that isn't all homogenized, plus they don't succumb to the compression suckiness of more mainstream "musicians."
    • ianmurrays, on 10/11/2007, -19/+2Duplicate story, the video was posted weeks ago. Why do you people keep digging duplicate stories :S:S:S I don't get it.
      • replikhant, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I never read it the first time around. And thank God someone had the sense of posting it again.
      • coasterswim, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Just to piss you off.
    • moofer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+37Music doesn't sound as good as it used to, because I'm 30 years older and my hearing is *****.
    • skyshock1, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8If you want to hear the difference in the amount of dynamic range that is being cut out, pick up a copy of Jethro Tull's Thick As A Brick album, and then compare it with say the latest Breaking Benjamin album. On newer albums, snare hits aren't as cutting, and the overall volume of all the instruments is pretty steady. Dynamic range is completely lost.

      Not to mention there seems to be a bit of a "volume wars" lately where all albums these days are mixed LOUD AS *****. Thick as a Brick for instance would seem as if the main volume were turned down by comparison.
    • OGTL, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Yeah, it's the production standards that have gone down the *****. Back in the 70's, just about ANY stereo system was of excellent quality, proved by the number of amplifiers I have from that era. The problem is, most people don't care, they're content with the screechy sound coming from their iBuds and tinny computer speakers. As far as I can tell only electronic music has retained its value, particularly psytrance like Shpongle.
      • ferrofluid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Its a sad state of affairs, that the big music industry mostly doesnt care about audio quality.
        They wonder why people stop buying CDs, sell crap quality CDs to teens, and they will stop buying when in their 20s 30s, when more pressing demands on the wallet come along.
        Music has big competition from the gaming industry, they need quality to be a selling point, peoples music tastes change as they grow older,
        if the average buyer is put off by mediocre reproductions, they will not trust the RIAA companies in the future.
        I had a couple of 'Madness' albums on pre-recorded chrome compact cassette which I bought in the early 80s, both tapes still sounded good 20 years on.
        The group and their record company must have cared about how their music sounded (on release and future) , this was in the pre CD days,
        to have released on chrome.
        I played those two albums many times (ferric tape would have died lol), and they survived with no noticeable wear or damage.
    • skyshock1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7What you miss is that radio stations WANT agressively produce music these days. They want that because that's what grabs people's attention long enough so that they can bombard you with a barrage of fast food commercials while they have your attention. Radio is just meant to assemble you into a demographic group as a listening audience, and then assail you with as many advertisements as they can before you change the channel.

      It's not meant to provide you with any sort of pleasurable listening experience.
      • Markpdotcom, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4That is the case in America (with adverts) I was amazed how often adverts appeared on radio over there! Its not even part of the program, they just seem to be set to start every 5 - 10 - 15 minutes, totally killing a talk show I was listening too. Even the dj seemed annoyed at the ads cutting in all the time!

        Thankfully our commercial stations broadcast adverts as part of the program, not cutting people off mid sentence.
    • ferrofluid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Its also about the EQ, I bought a budget Rolling Stones CD from Wally World for $7, popped it into my PC and its sounded sh1te just weak at the top end.
      So ripped a track into the PC for real time fourier and the EQ is squashed, very steep roll off of the mid high end.
      The quality is worse than chrome compact cassette, prob comparable to cheap ferric tape.
      They either did this deliberately in the budget remastering or just dont care what they sell on budget labels.
    • bdbr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2If its just radio - people don't sit and listen to music much anymore. Its either in a noisy car or through noisy earbuds. They need it overcompressed to hear it, and they're not going to hear the full dynamic range anyway.
    • Rikka, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I can never understand why people always, ALWAYS blare their music. It's ridiculous, you can't hear anything, you can't tell different sounds apart; what's the point of listening to music in the first place? People can't seem to appreciate quality music anymore.
  • stifrontman, on 10/11/2007, -8/+37I don't know if you can attribute the decline of the recorded music industry to volume production like the article does, as I don't think the common person is really paying much attention to the quality of the production on a snare drum hit when they're listening to the ipod with their windows open as they drive on the highway.

    But to the rest of us, the music aficionados, it does make a difference.
    • Godlike, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I can definately tell the difference. I hate how they mix crap now.
      • zeromancer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I read a story a long time ago about this. CDs allow something like 16 bits for volume on the actual disk. The producers turn the music up too loud on the track, and degrades to quality. Instead of using the 16 bits per frame for better sound, they just turn the music up. Isn't that why we have volume knobs? I made an old school mix CD for my car and I can actually prove this. Creedence Clearwater Revival needs to be turned almost all the way up so I can hear it at the same volume as everything else. The newest Marilyn Manson CD doesn't need turned up hardly at all. I think it's the producers, IMO.
  • coltrane68, on 10/11/2007, -6/+47This is an oversimplification, but production is definitely worse, especially for Top 40 crap. Much too much digital compression - it is annoying and counterproductive. On the other hand, natural analog tape compression of the 60s to early 80s produced nice warmth, especially for rock and soul.
    • beatphats, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Please explain, I'm sure there's minute details that audio engineers can grasps, but I think most of us comprehended enough that no further explanation is needed. Many people know E=MC2, but not many know how that formula is derived.
      • Gtitian, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8I actually am an audio engineer, so explain warmth to me? How can sound have temperature? It can't. What you call warmth I call signal loss above 14khz. Music doesn't sound good anymore because your male, and as males get older they lose the high frequencies in their ears.
        • sparcnut, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3How about 2nd and 3rd order harmonic distortion cause by soft clipping/peak compression? This is also the source of the "tube sound".
    • SomaSynth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Oversimplification? What were you expecting, technical analysis on faders, knees, ratios and release? This explains dynamic range compression perfectly as far as anyone needs to know. I sense an irrational hatred for all things digital, it's not the 'digital' part that's the problem here, digital compression can and is used to the benefit of sound, it also can and does compress very much like an analog compressor would, they both perform the same function afterall. This 'warmth' you're referring to are 2nd order harmonics of the analog components and possibly midbass gain, perhaps as a result of multiband compression, nothing here that cannot be reproduced digitally, the difference being that digitally you have a choice.

      When it comes to 'natural' analog tape compression, it's not the analog part that made it good, it's the part about people not abusing the ***** out of compressors back then that made them good.
    • m00n1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I don't think you know what they are talking about. They are talking about the mastering process. This has nothing to do with "natural analog tape compression". Sure, tape has a certain amount of compression, but it's relatively minor. They are talking about what happens to the final mix, regardless of the medium it was recorded on (tape, digital, whatever) and how that is compressed. Totally separate and nothing to do with tape compression. And digital recording doesn't compress. I'm certainly not saying it's perfect, but compression is not one of its flaws.
    • goofballjm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Much too much digital compression - it is annoying and counterproductive."

      This isn't digital compression, but dynamic compression. An example of digital compression is converting an uncompressed wave file to an mp3.

      This article is referring to DYNAMIC compression. Two different things.
  • Skanadian, on 10/11/2007, -3/+54Didn't this get to the front page of the videos just the other week?
  • PRlME, on 10/11/2007, -15/+8180 where the best
    Takeeeeeee onnnn meeeeee Take me onnnnnn
  • SpectralSounds, on 10/11/2007, -13/+8Thats why I prefer analog recordings over digital. The sound is much warmer. I love me some vinyl.
    • techfish, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5i love me some spectralsounds
    • ScottoGato, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5That's how babies are made.
    • JerodSlay, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15I guarantee you the 192kHz 24bit stereo uncompressed will sound better than analog. This article has nothing to do with digital or analog, it's about mixing.
      • Wolfie351, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2You're missing the point entirely. Nothing is mastered to 192kHz 24bit because no one will ever listen to it in that quality. It's mastered to 44.1kHz 16bit and, unfortunately, most new vinyl comes from that lower quality master. Analog doesn't have the same limitations, so if you took a high quality digital master like you suggest, it would sound better on vinyl than any digital format that is available for purchase today. In an analog vs digital debate, it's only fair to consider what is readily available to the public.
      • BlackOp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I suggest you read this (2nd link is html):
        http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf
        http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:sKUa8RadMQ0J:www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf

        Here is the conclusion:

        There is an inescapable tradeoff between faster sampling on one hand and a loss of accuracy,
        increased data size and much additional processing requirement on the other hand.
        AD converter designers can not generate 20 bits at MHz speeds, yet they often utilize a circuit
        yielding a few bits at MHz speeds as a step towards making many bits at lower speeds.
        The compromise between speed and accuracy is a permanent engineering and scientific
        reality.
        Sampling audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times faster than the optimal rate.
        It compromises the accuracy which ends up as audio distortions.
        While there is no up side to operation at excessive speeds, there are further disadvantages:
        1. The increased speed causes larger amount of data (impacting data storage and data
        transmission speed requirements).
        2. Operating at 192KHz causes a very significant increase in the required processing
        power, resulting in very costly gear and/or further compromise in audio quality.
        The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the required signal bandwidth. Audio
        industry salesman have been promoting faster than optimal rates. The promotion of such ideas
        is based on the fallacy that faster rates yield more accuracy and/or more detail. Weather
        motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading the industry in the wrong direction, are
        stating the opposite of what is true.
      • consonance, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2I don't mean to unintelligent, but no one necessarily needs to listen to music at 192kHz, because humans can't hear past the range of 20K (which, for audio purposes, would be a range of 40 kHz). Sure, 24-bit recording would sound better, but if I played for you a song at 192 KHz and 44.1 kHZ, you physically wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
      • Anthracene, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I believe the dynamics depend more so on the bit depth. We don't utilize 24 bit audio. 32 bit seems to be out of the question right now. So we are left with essentially late 1970's technology.
    • Urusai, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17That's funny, I remember records being poppy, scratchy and thin-sounding. Of course, I didn't have a $3000 wooden knob or a jar of special pebbles to make my system sound elite.
      • consonance, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I remember both of those Digg articles. Thank you for reminding me about that.
    • skyshock1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with the particular medium you are using for playback. It has EVERYTHING to do with the manner in which it was recorded in the first place.
    • lablatz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I'll second skyshock1. Its all about how the recording was mastered. If it was mastered with a ton of compression it will sound just as ***** on vinyl. Most vinyl around today was either made prior to this whole compression craze or it was made with audiophiles in mind.....meaning not overly compressed.
  • 80hd, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Because labels are desperate and are trying to push the "sure thing" as opposed to grabbing new music
    • Puppetfunk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2RTFA. This talking about how music is recorded and stored not the actual people.
  • Shneebly, on 10/11/2007, -14/+16to me, at least, there is nothing like the sound, quality, and warmth of a vinyl record. i'd rather listen to vinyl over a cd any day.
    • regeya, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Maybe it's because I grew up with crappy vinyl, with crappy needles, and crappy turntables where you could hear the drive motor, but to hell with vinyl. The more I've read about it the more I think "good riddance." Vinyl is the ultimate ugly hack, at least U.S. vinyl.
      • Anthracene, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Vinyl is bulky and cumbersome. It is difficult for the amateur to use and seeking to songs is not viable unless you know what you are doing.

        And yet it is very awesome. The sound is technically different every single time. Vinyl also seems to produce more harmonics in the vocal range. Tapes and cd's have been shown to be broken, scratched or degraded long before records. I love it.
    • ToonPang, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Ugh.. 'Warmth' is also knows as 'lack of high end clarity' to many who actually work in audio. Take a cd, run it through a good multiband eq, taper off the top end and TA DAAA your only a few pops and clicks away from that good ol' vinyl sound.

      Its all about frequency reproduction, and if you want to call a lack of it 'warmth' be my guest.

  • futurebird, on 10/11/2007, -8/+37It's because you're getting old and going deaf.
    • gunslinger37, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15and your going deaf because the record companies are cranking up the volume
    • Y0tsuya, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3There's a volume control on your CD player. Use it.
  • wildsnake, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6Chuck Berry Rocks!
    • Endeavorer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3HAHA!
      your getting dugged down, =P
      Digg no love Chuck. Berry I guess =)
  • bluegender, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4How is this NEWs?
  • farrellj, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1I ran across this problem with compression recently...I got the latest Tori Amos album, and after a few tracks, I was ready to return it because the sound quality was crap! But only the first 5 cuts were cruddy, the rest were great sounding. It seems that basically, they ran up the compression on the cuts they hope will be radio hits, and didn't bother for the rest.

    So I fired up some software, and fiddled with the cuts, and then reburned it to a CD that I listen to.

    It's sad.

    ttyl
    Farrell
    • SpectralSounds, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Well, I think I found your problem. Tori Amos sucks.
    • methodicalj, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6My guess is that you're talking out of your ass, unless you have some magical program that can reverse dynamic compression. (an expander doesn't count, it will mess up the attack curve)
    • molsen311, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9so....you magically UNcompressed the tracks with your computer? i don't think so. unless you had access to the master, you cannot do this.
    • chrismccorkle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0You probably took some time, listened to the songs, and adjusted the levels of different parts of songs.
      The new Tori Amos is no good anyway-- Sleeps with Butterflies was, I think, her final album.
  • thelatemail, on 10/11/2007, -3/+41Is it just me or is there a definite correlation between crap production and crap music?
    • mercurysquad, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6not really. most of RHCP's records sound like crap but the music is great.
      • vaxguru, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Oh hell yeah. 'By the Way' sounded horrible. Very poor mixing.
    • darkamster07, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2there are a lot of famous and groundbreaking albums that have TERRIBLE production, but the music is still great.
      (I mean what are you gonna do when you are a small band with talent but no money?)
      • shadx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0You're missing the point. This about about mass-produced mainstream cookie cutter crap being rushed and given to a master engineer who is half assing because he probly has a high number of crap to push out so he can get paid AMAP.
        I remember seeing an article about one of the last rush albums and how it sounded so ***** and overcompressed; he looked at the waveform and it was clipped all to hell at -6db, not that you'd have to look at the waveform to realize they made a bad decision, almost like they wanted a lazy answer to try and sound heavier than when they recorded it.
        I can respect the DIY'ers who don't have enough money for harcore studio gear but enough skills to mix and know what they're doing and if the music is good then that's a fine compromise.
  • elv1s77, on 10/11/2007, -6/+19It's because you've been downloading lossy compressed music from iTunes.
    • s1mph0ny, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6that, and because the dynamic range wasn't good enough to begin with.
    • skyshock1, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6That has nothing to do with it. You're talking about a different kind of compression altogether. They're talking about the MASTER recordings being compressed dynamically across all tracks to achieve the effect of limiting peaks and enhancing valleys in the waveform. You're talking about simply clipping the high-highs, and the low-lows to decrease file size of a digital format to decrease transfer time.
  • ataylor32, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Direct link to video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

    Clicking the screen shot of the video brings up a larger version of the screen shot and clicking the link at the bottom takes you to a blog.
    • teknobryan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I happen to like the "overcompressed" version better.
  • regeya, on 10/11/2007, -0/+28Meh. The comments on the actual story are going on about the actual peak and actual volume levels. Sure, newer stuff goes right up to 11--that's what you should do with digital if you want to capture the full range. The thing that sucks is that so many people throw out the advantage of getting the full range by compressing the living hell out of the audio. In my own playlist, compare anything from King Crimson's Lark's Tounges in Aspic to Opeth's Blackwater Park. The latter has music that *should* be louder and *should* be softer, but really isn't, not noticeably. The former, though, well, the first track should be a valuable lesson to Opeth's producer Stephen Wilson. Then again, listen to Porcupine Tree and while the music is usually more listenable than the Top 10 FM stuff, you won't find much in the way of dynamic range.

    Why oh why did people in the days of vinyl try to use a wide dynamic range, and now that we have media that can handle it we don't use it??? WHY???!? meh.
    • AnimZero, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I dugg your comment for your taste in bands.
    • Sketchcast, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Dugg for Spinal Tap reference
    • grayprog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Wow, a reference to Laak's Tounges in Aspic. It really has wide dynamic range.
    • Anthracene, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Guess we will have to wait for 64-bit audio recording depth. I thirst for that level of precision.
    • DarkTranquility, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Porcupine Tree > Opeth.

      Both amazing bands though.
    • Capta1nA, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Have you listened to Fear of a Blank Planet? There are more dynamics in the production (especially the surround sound version). It sounds incredible.
      • DarkTranquility, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Hell yeah man...Fear of Blank Planet = Album of the Year
  • methodicalj, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Data compression (mp3,wma,etc) reduces the file size of audio, at a sacrifice for accuracy (it's called psychoacoustics, wikipedia it). Audio compression, the actual effect that levels out dynamics (loudness), has been used on pretty much every recording since forever. Audio compression is an absolute necessity to record things like drums, and still pretty much required at some level for everything else. The issue is that it's overused for radio tracks more recently.

    I usually listen to music while driving or running or playing drums over it, so having it a bit over compressed is fine with me.

    A less compressed, more open track is only going to sound better in a well set up, quiet environment, through really good speakers or headphones, and last time I checked the average music listener is not an audiophile with tens of thousands of dollars to spend on equipment.

    But again, digital compression is not the same thing as audio compression.
    • Buckiller, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4you can easily notice the differences between compressed and uncompressed for about $100. (high quality headphones, used stereo amp with speakers, good car speakers etc)
    • joklem, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Buckiller is right. A Creative sound card, kX drivers tuned for frequency accuracy and a pair of $40 to $100 Sennheiser headphones, and you can easily hear the difference.
    • Baddox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2But "digital compression" can also refer to a digital effect that emulates analog dynamic compression, as in "digital reverb."
  • 3F05Q, on 10/11/2007, -0/+31I felt compelled to register and comment for this article... I like vinyl as much as the next guy, but saying 'vinyl ftw' doesn't apply here. Have you thought that maybe the reason you like your vinyl better is due to WHEN the music that is on it was produced than the medium, therefore at a time when music wasn't digitally and overly compressed? Anyway, back to the story... One other thing to take into consideration, in this 'loudness war' of the music industry, is the EQing and cutting of frequencies to create more headroom. Sure, that's always a common practice in production, but it seems to be taken to extremes along with the compression. A snare hit will sound like someone tapping on glass if you take enough out of it. It is sad to see this happen, as many people who are new to music production have a bit more of a hurdle to overcome in order to be taken seriously. It's hard to send in a demo that's 2/3 the level, in comparison to others, to someone that's been listening to them all day and has to turn the volume up.

    And yes, there is a definite correlation between crap prod. and crap music... crap in, crap out. Even the world's most talented mastering technician can't save a project with crummy EQing and mixdown.
    • MarkOfTheDead, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1yeah but what other medium that still has selling equipment can you compare? casettes? theyre lossy in a different way, as when you want to capture the whole range, you end up with hiss most of the time. what else? reel-to-reel? 8-track? good luck finding decent functioning players for those. for $99 i saw target selling a cd/amfm/casette/turntable 2 weeks ago.

      i'm not trying to be argumentative and i agree that it was more of an era type thing, but once again, what else other than vinyl are we going to compare with?

      i still say vinyl FTW.
  • djpants428, on 10/11/2007, -1/+60How did they manage to write an article about dynamic range without actually using the term "dynamic range"?
  • molsen311, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2jesus ***** christ...how many of these types of articles have to be submitted???? yes, we know modern music is compressed to hell. *****, there's an article about it on the front page nearly every week....how could we NOT know?
    • DatuPuti, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@molsen311
      dugg down. wash your mouth homeboy.
    • Slyer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I've read every mainpage article for the last half a year, I've not seen it..
  • m2paper, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Nice
  • vmwhelan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1i spend most of my money on vinyl. lots of smaller independent labels put out their music primarily on vinyl.
    • chrismccorkle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I agree. And most often it's for half the price.
  • 7shadesofcrazy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Umm...can we "turn down the volume" for getting pissed about multiple submissions? It's the web, not everyone reads digg daily. You're going to have multiple submissions. It's the nature of the beast. If it makes you so angry, please code your own solution. Or you could abandon the net altogether and stick to newspapers; they won't have duplicate stories.
    • Puppetfunk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Hell I check Digg every 5 minutes for new posts. It's not like I have any real work to do...
  • GoodOldJacob, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3I blame it on itunes.
    • skyshock1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3iTunes doesn't produce music, they merely re-sell it. This isn't the same sort of compression you're thinking of. They're talking about the type of compression that is done to a recording before it is pressed to CD, NOT the type of compression iTunes does to decrease file size.
  • djaoki, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Compression and reverb = two of the industry's most mis-used studio tools.
    • Baddox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I would say delay is more mis-used than reverb. So many vocal tracks in pop music put not only a reverb, but a delay, that with headphones and a bit of concentration sounds disgusting. I assume they use it to help soften out the vocalist's bad performance.
  • Radionesiac, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10if you don't think music is as strong, creatively, as it's ever been, then you simply aren't looking in the right place. your "practiced chops of the supergroups of yesteryear" quip is a little naive.
    • Buckiller, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1totally agree... I am a Ledhead (or Zephead) who also listens to artists of that era... and no doubt they were the best.

      But these days we have guys like The Decemberists, Mars Volta, and the flaming lips.... those are some very awesome musicians.
    • skyshock1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Absolutely! Fantastic musicianship has NEVER been mainstream. There's still PLENTY of brilliant musicians with 'practiced chops' of the supergroups of yesteryear.... Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Ozric Tentacles, Dream Theater, Devin Townsend, Dredg, Muse, Vintersorg..... come on dude, you just have to know where to look.
      • chrismccorkle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Dugg for references to Opeth, Dream Theater, and Devin Townsend
      • converge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Nice taste in music.
    • Anthracene, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Tool
  • Frozo, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Why doesn't music sound as good as it used to? Because you're getting OLDER! ;)
  • fiver22, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17This isn't a Digital Vs. Analog argument -it's a "to Compress" or "not to Compress" argument. The compression war was started by the radio industry "Hey look at me -I'm louder, so I'm better" -the producers reacted by submitting to the whim of the radio industry.
    But modern music CAN be highly dynamic: listen to Tool's Lateralus for one (there are many other examples -but Lateralus is probably the best known recent Pop recording with a lot of Dynamic Range) -it's dynamic range actually annoyed me at first with it's quieter moments dipping below my ability to hear -until I realized that what I was hearing was quality that DEMANDED to be listened to at a slightly higher volume.
    This is why so many audiophiles give up contemporary popular music and 're-discover' Classical -the recordings in Classical Music are far less compressed than modern Pop Music and your 5k to 20k sound system can really take advantage of such recordings.
    Everytime I compress a track I feel hair growing on my palms.
    • DrSpud, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1+1 for praising Lateralus - second best album ever, close behind Aenima. But a wag of my finger for calling it pop. It is many things. But not pop.
    • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Ahh, yeah...that one part in Ticks and Leeches gets quiet....and then...BAM!
    • RedBear, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It actually is a Digital vs. Analog argument. A good portion of today's music is recorded digitally, and even high-end 32 bit audio hardware is still limited to 32 bits worth of data. It just doesn't have the dynamic range that Analog recording can capture. Many DAWs (digital audio workstations) have software to try and enhance that 32 bit range to give it a warmer analog feel, but they still fall short...

      Sure, compression is also an issue, but it's one part of a larger problem...
      • sparcnut, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3A properly designed 32-bit ADC should have more dynamic range than you can ever have between the noise floor of the analog section and the loudest sound. Even a 24-bit ADC should be plenty. CD audio was designed to be 16-bit because 16-bit samples are the minimum size that still have enough dynamic range.

        16-bit samples should have 96dB dynamic range; for 24 and 32 the values are 144dB and 192dB. Any of these really should be enough for accurately representing music that doesn't cause permanent ear damage :-)
  • robbiedo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Antares Auto Tune has ruined vocals, especially female vocals; especially allowing flavor of the minute girls with no chops the opportunity to be commercially recorded., and they all freaking sound exactly the same, even when lip synching.
    • consonance, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Do you realize that most artists DON'T use it? Only a few talentless artists pushed by the major record labels actually have their vocals adjusted to a high degree. Antares Auto-Tune (and Roland V-Vocal, for that matter) is like file-sharing. It can be used for good or for bad, but a lot of the time it's used for bad. However, you can actually use that software to give vocals a robotic quality a la a talk box and other obviously surreal uses. It can also be used to correct minor flaws in an otherwise polished recording, which isn't a crime until the singer's voice is heavily altered.
    • sleeper414, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0ya, you pretty much nailed it. and readers be warned. once you have to use auto for a talentless singer. its unmistakable to miss from that day forward!

      they all sound the same.
      its all about looks.
  • Gloogle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2When you say music what type of music are you talking about. Saying music is to broad a term. BTW I believe that in some cases having choppy snares and kicks, and such for some types of music is an art form in itself.
    • Gramage, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1For sure. It's not all about sounding realistic. Half the music I listen to is heavily electronic. Distortion and choppiness used *intentionally*. I guess in this case limitation breeds innovation.
  • newagenda, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3This is a great point made - all this 'remastering' - actually makes old recording sound flat and *****.
    • farcast, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Not all re-mastering... check out mofi dot com
  • SquigglyP, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13I really don't think most people give a rat's ass. This isn't entirely an issue with the 'recording industry' and has a lot more to do with the fact that the people making the music don't know ***** about music. I'm talking about both the 'artists' and the engineers in charge of making the final edits and adjustments to the tracks. There are a number of artists who still know what music is, and how to make the most of it. it's just that none of those artists (with VERY few exceptions) get any radio play, typically because they haven't sold well in the past... because they never got air play... because they never sold well...

    the REAL reason album sales are declining is, in fact, the internet. People are downloading a broader selection of music than has ever been available to them. The recording industry, however, is still trying to sell people the same old *****. People do not want the same old ***** anymore. Bands who would normally never sell as well are starting to sell much more. You're seeing more foreign bands become more and more popular here. The industry needs to evolve to recognize that their audience is moving past the canned music ***** they've been serving up for decades.

    Face the facts... you could play just about anything on the air and it would become at least moderately popular. They just need to start playing music. Real music made by musicians who are serious about making music. Not these retarded fly-by-night kids who want to make a quick million bucks and get laid a lot. One out of a thousand of them actually make it anywhere, and 1 out of a thousand of those give a ***** or know anything about music.
    • Gramage, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Dugg for "People are downloading a broader selection of music than has ever been available to them. The recording industry, however, is still trying to sell people the same old *****." I never bought the old ***** in the first place, but your point stands.
    • chrismccorkle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Buried as it will never happen.
  • Gloogle, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2I actually find the music we hear now better than the old *****. Stop whining like little bitches and embrace the new.
    • zombiedepot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Good for you. Too bad not everyone has the same taste in music, and the article wasn't about new styles, it's about compression. Start reading articles and embrace the new.
    • sleeper414, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0ya, you totally missed the point.
  • gtsoundcrew, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Its called "Brick Wall Limiting" it's been the standard pretty much for over a decade in masterhouses when dealing with heavy music. Its been creeping its way into many other type's of music the last few years and its almost comical!! Don't blame the record industry entirely!! Artist's often request this type of mastering.. How do I know? I'm a mastering engineer. Personally... it drives me nut's! Literally.
    • stakepie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I can't stand it myself... realizing how much better the recordings of the 80s were in comparison to recent stuff... I just don't get it, and I know it's not a digital/analog thing, but a matter of taste and discipline on the parts of the engineers and musicians. And the push to put everything (music, movies, etc) into 5.1 is HORRIBLE. You don't want surround sound for everything, do you?? I mean, maybe for that dinosaur chase in King Kong, but...

      Plus the loudness of CDs/mp3s, the clipping in the recording... it surely damages the speakers and is a reason I've had to replace PC speakers much faster than I ought to, even my Klipsch speakers which I thought were tough.
  • caffeineboy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I have an uncle that works in LA in recording studios and has for almost 30 years now. He's worked with a lot of major names in a variety of genres, ranging from pop to rock to rap. He's gotten into arguments with rappers asking for more bass in the mid-90s and told them off because he couldn't give them anymore with it not becoming distorted and unlistenable. I've talked to him recently, and the article confirms what he's been saying since the turn of the century: artists and bands don't want a good-sounding record; they just want LOUD. It's not a joke and I wish I could say otherwise, but it's the truth.
    • sleeper414, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0your absolutely right, i have engineered for a while too, and have had the same problems.(in this decade)
      ...the best way to win the argument is make them go out to their car and blast it..then they think you are a wizard.
  • Sealab2021, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Does any one know where I can get a program that will show the dynamic range of my music?
  • stakepie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Now i hope someone does an article about how remastered music, as well as movies, often sound (or look) worse than their previous "ultimate" editions...
  • yoadrian, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6am i the only one who thinks that it isnt the quality that makes the songs bad, but the crappy songs themseleves which make them sound bad. Honestly, the music of the past was genuine, and took skill to create. It wasn't made by some ghetto kid who got hold of a computer with ready-to-go beats. people learned about instruments, mastered them, and trained vocally. they took time to write lyrics and create a structure. music isn't what it used to be, your right. and it is because musicians aren't what they used to be. and its not because they are too loud.
    • flashback99, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2That sounds exactly like the comments bob moog recieved when he demonstrated his moog synthesizer for the first time.
      If you've never sat and worked with an MPC beat machine or spent months with Logic, I'm afraid you have no idea what you are talking about. These systems are instruments that force you to think about the sound you hear. I'm not saying every kid with a beat machine or DAW is making good music, but don't dismiss the approach to music just because it doesnt fit within your narrow constraint of what a musical instrument should be. It takes a different kind of skill to make music using these tools on par with that of traditional analog instruments.
    • techmaster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You're partially correct, that crappy songs are what sound bad... I've seen several bands where their best albums were their debut albums, where they had less money and technology. Look at Nine Inch Nails. Most fans will agree that his absolute best CD was his very first one, Pretty Hate Machine. As far as I understand, the whole CD was written in a mod tracker environment. He used something like Impulse Tracker, I believe, to write that album. The fidelity of his first CD was awful. When you compare the sound quality of Pretty Hate Machine to his newer releases, there's definitely a huge difference in the sound quality. But, the music on Pretty Hate Machine was fantastic, and that's what really carries it as his greatest album ever. But, people who use canned beats and are simply throwing crap together in Acid on their computer; they are not musicians, and will never go anywhere "creating" music in that way. The problem I have with the industry are these people like Britney Spears that don't actually get involved in their music, they are simply a face to go along with the music. They have somebody to write the music for them, write the lyrics, etc... All the "musician" has to do is show up at a studio and spend a few hours in front of a mic to sing what's been given to them. They then go home, and let other people put the album together for them. The CD is mostly a lot of very good track editing, and is mostly carried by the backup singers. Look at Melinda Doolittle from American Idol; she has been working as a backup singer, but I'm pretty sure she can sing better than anybody she's ever backed up. Then, when they go on tour, they simply dance around on stage and lip sync to the studio recorded music. People like that are an insult to music.

      @flashback99: You're totally right, using something like a moog synthesizer is nothing about just pushing a button and getting a sound out. The whole point of a moog, is you get to DESIGN your actual sound wave. Those synths give you far more control over your sound than anything else out there, and to insult it as some sort of simple turn-key pushbutton music maker, is pure idiocy.
  • CompIsMyRx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Music doesn't sound as good as it used to because most of the current bands are corporate entities whose sole purpose in existing is selling t-shirts and CDs. It's no longer about the music.
    • radiometric, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well, I can understand bands selling T-Shirts, as they make no money from CDs and perhaps they make some off shirts. I am of course referring to major label artists.
      Indie bands get more from a CD sale. Bands make money off tours.
      Sadly, live performance is the greatest example of poor audio quality! Every concert I've gone to, save one has been too loud for its own good. I've been to concerts and not even been able to hear any of the words. If I know every lyric and I can't follow the song, WTF?!
      There's nothing on the radio, gonna make my own band...
  • Scopitone, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Few people know that the music put out these days is optimized for ***** notebook speakers.
  • Habemus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Dude, you're getting old and losing your hearing. The high notes go first.
    • dwhitbeck, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Actually, it is just not high notes but high frequencies including the overtones. This is one of the problems of compressed music, the high overtones are just not there to hear.
  • inkswamp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4This effect feeds on itself too. I think a lot of young artists who have grown up with this kind of approach to music production unconsciously try to recreate it in their own playing and songwriting style and end up losing a lot of dynamics that were commonplace 20+ years ago. Production and loudness aside, just listen to the breadth of the dynamics by bands like Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin and early Rush. These bands could go from screaming, snarling guitar riffs to quiet, soft passages and back again, and often in the same 5-minute song. But that sensitivity to dynamics in songwriting is such a rare thing nowadays and that's only making the problem worse.
    • Asekigal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15 minute songs too.. not 2.5-3 minute
    • sleeper414, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0and hey, lets certainly not forget the unbelievable songs by george clinton and parliment/funkedilec, the whole reason dr.dre even exists.

      it wasnt as noticeable as a zeppelin track, there use of eq's and dynamics are astounding for that time.
  • srdrums, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The world changed when Phil Collins gated his snare in the 80s. Drums were never the same after that.

    R.I.P. Buddy Rich
  • Blooooo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Part of the solution is Replaygain, the balancing of all the music to the same volume levels, to fight the volume wars.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/replaygain
    • converge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2That only changes the overall volume so that each song matches one other. That does nothing for the compression within each individual song.
  • weebit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well, not quite all the reason I believe the biggest reason is that if you rip these new cds to your computer, you will notice that they are not that great. This is no accident, I guess they thought we were "that" stupid. Duh
  • roguescout, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18I work in the industry, so I guess I'll throw in with a couple of pennies.

    Everyone who is arguing about the madness of individual track compression upon submix group compression upon master bus compression upon mastering compression upon radio station broadcast compression is correct. It is a long-running loudness war and it is the fault of some artists, some engineers, a lot of producers, most labels, most consumers and every radio station. Nothing new here, move along.

    I think a better article would be about how all of us in the recording industry are slowly transforming from being slaves to the record companies to being slaves to the technology companies. Either way, we are slaves to a big ugly monster. But at least the record companies care a little bit about the music and those who make it. You think Jobs or Gates gives a ***** about music, artists, engineers, or producers? HA! They just want content for their snazzy gizmos so they can sell more plastic. They don't care what that content is, they just want to own it. The RIAA may be a huge pain in everyone's ass and are fighting their PR war all wrong, but they already see this transformation happening and no one is listening. Think about that the next time you use the, "RIAA is bad for music and artists" argument. More bad than the alternative?

    Remember, it is a battle between the record and technology mega-corporations and both of them are using all of us as pawns to fight their PR war over who owns the future of music. Most of you are siding with tech. So don't be surprised when the quality and choice in music gets worse and worse down the road.

    You've been enlightened. Your welcome. Spread the word.
    • lost.sync, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1sorry, until apple starts sending me letters for not buying songs on iTunes, i call *****.
    • RNEMESiS42, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3GRAMMAR POLICE.
    • addikt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I disagree, i dont see the future of music as bleeq as you do.

      Music is older than technology and older than the RIAA, it will continue regardless. the quality of music.... what the production or the music itself?

      they are two very different things. The production of commerical music ie top40 tracks i have no opinion of as i dont listen to it or care about it. the production of more underground music is aided by technology in some ways, if its used correctly (the tech). Its about opinion and what style of music. If you are listening to some jazz or classical the raw sound im sure would be prefered by most, but you always get the new digital age or people that would prefer a more digital sound of any genre.

      The electronic music of today didnt have the option to be compared to music recorded with 1 mic from the 60s as it started digital (well some will argue this) but you know what i mean, and it still is digital today. The quality of the production of the electronic genres to which i listen to has increased over the last 5 years for sure. which ofcourse is relevant to the artist and personal opinion. Music is music, everyone has an opinion about it. thats what makes it so great. the problem i have with RIAA is that they have exploited music, as soon as they had a medium to sell it to the masses they jumped on it and dictated what everyone wants to listen to, it wasnt always like this, music, it used to be about soul and feeling and other deep *****. now its about royalties and if metallica want to buy a new HUMVEE or new HOUSE then they will complain and get p2p closed.

      Greed. Greed. Greed.

      its not about the music anymore.

      so i say

      ***** THE RIAA and END THE EXPLOITATION OF MUSIC.

      its the peoples music, if you going to make it, prepare for it to be listened to....
      bye
  • smacksaw, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yup. ELO records can easily tell you if you have a good stereo or not because you need to really crank them up to hear everything and it's often too much for a crappy stereo to put out properly.
    • seanoneil14, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1ELO = greatest band alive
    • Millsee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I love ELO :-)

      dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum
  • Yage2006, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1While that is maybe true for some genres. Ambient , Psychedelic And some electronic sound better then ever.
  • flashback99, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I'm going to play devils advocate and say this is not true. Producers are using higher and higher quality devices and components to produce music these days. Most professional mixed at 192khz 24bit and then mixed down to 16bit 44.1k for CD.

    Although you can argue that compression is ruining music by compressing dynamic range, this is just one factor for sound quality. The frequency ranges, higher quality capture equipment and quality reverbs and effects we have now, enable us to define a new cleaner, more accurate sound that has the greatest impact in a multitude of environments.

    It all comes down to the style of music you like at the nend of the day - if you like soft dynamic strings, then stick to vinyl or complain to individual record labels, however if you want slamming 'club' beats, that work in-car, club or headphones, the new production techniques let you enjoy it.
  • yacks, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2We need more cowbell....

    but i have noticed a difference between the bass in older rap songs and some newer stuff.. the older stuff on my stock car speakers sound much cleaner(not referring to lyrics) than the newer stuff.. i should pull out some older rock and compare it with newer stuff.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 101 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.