The Common Audiophile's Terror of Compression & Limiting

Heavy limiting doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother most "audiophiles", maybe cuz I'm younger and more used to it. I understand that dynamic range is a good thing, especially when it comes to listening fatigue, but AFAIK compression/limiting was invented with the good intention of improving signal-to-noise ratio.

I am also aware of the loudness wars and how harmful they have been to modern recordings (Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication stands out in my mind as a leading offender), but what does everyone think about extreme compression and limiting as it's used creatively in equipment and on recordings? I would think that one who despises it on the mastering end would to some extent be turned off by its general usage. In light of this, I assume that many audiophiles have little patience for edgier, louder, more in-your-face genres like punk, hardcore, amd metal. But by the same token, maybe they're also not a fan of, for example, The Beatles' Revolver, since it was the album in which they began to exercise more control over the engineering processes of their recordings and in the process discovered the magic of a maxed-out 1176 compressor and went nuts using it, on that album especially...AFAIK.

 

In fact, compression and limiting have the opposite effect, in that they raise the volume of quieter passages (and thus also any noise present in the signal). Limiting in its simplest sense is used to prevent peaks from extending too far (to where they distort). Compression is used to narrow (or squash in the extreme) dynamic range to achieve a desired effect (louder track, thumpier bass & kick drum, etc.). Used carefully and judiciously, limiting and compression are tools that can enhance music, whether it is during recording, mixing, or mastering. The only "terror" I can think of is when compression is used excessively (brickwalling or close to it) by a producer or engineer, such that the music is purposely allowed to include distortion or remixes/remasters are no longer true to the integrity of the original "work of art".

 

This is true but you forgot about the fact that it allows the quieter information in a signal to rise above the noise inherent in the following steps of the recording or playback system. Peaks don't distort if the volume level of everything is low enough. AFAIK compression and limiting were invented to get the volume of the quieter moments in a performance significantly higher than the noise level in the following links of the recording/reproduction chain, and also to simply make those quieter moments more audible, especially in the midst of other instruments within a mix (vocals
especially)...correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Out of interest, I have checked the DR value of the CDs I listen to, and I noticed increasing levels of compression with new jazz recordings as well. Where acoustic recordings often had DR13-15 in the 1990's, many CDs now have values below DR10. More than DR13 has become rare. ECM is one of the exceptions, they always have DR values that are beyond reproach.

This makes me wonder if the mastering tools are not responsible for this trend, by suggesting default settings, including a certain level of compression, to the engineer. I can't believe that everyone is now mastering CDs with the iPod user in mind and then deliberately adds compression to recordings which have an audiophile quality at the start.

 

Sonny Rollins's Sonny Please from 2006 had disastrously jacked-up sound. His next two albums were considerably improved in that department.

 

Again here, the original intention was to make the overall volume of an instrument more consistent; it was not originally intended to achieve any kind of very noticeable "effect" as artists like The Beatles used it for on Revolver and then forevermore.

 

Compression and limiting reduces the dynamic range. Think about it.

 

I think you're missing my point about the following steps in the recording/playback chain and how compression/limiting inherent in a signal does not increase the noise level in the following steps of the chain--that's obvious, isn't it? To illustrate my point: sure the dynamic range of the information on a record is reduced by compression and limiting, but the point of that limiting and compression is to bring the quieter moments well above the noise level of the record/turntable combo.

 

No, limiting and compression are quite the same. A compressor actually sets a threshold point where any signal above it will be compressed based upon a certain ratio (i.e. 3 dB of dynamic range above a threshold will be compressed into 1.5 dB if the ratio is set at 2:1).

A limiter works the same as a compressor, but has a ratio of infinity:1. meaning that any audio above the threshold point will be squashed down into 1 dB of dynamic range. Thusly causing distortion.

The only distortion that a limiter can help prevent is digital clipping (when an audio signal has a voltage too high for the set bit depth) and sounds nasty. These are issues that don't (by don't, i mean shouldn't) make it past the initial recording stage, as it is in-correctable once it exists.

 

recording compression is a necessity. But, even that is being overcooked today. In the end, it all has the same effect today, over-compression!

Excessive compression, like the stuff you're used to, is just not acceptable to many of us. It causes listening fatigue because it reduces the dynamic range. Go back and listen to albums from the 70s and you'll see what we mean.

 

They sound different, and have different functions. Otherwise, you are pretty much correct. A limiter is a compressor, but a different type of compressor.

 

Come on. Just because I grew up in the 80s doesn't mean I'm unfamiliar with music pre-1980. I'm completely aware that recordings were much more dynamic prior to the loudness wars.

 

They do sound different. Just like two different compressors sound different than one another.

 

I'm sure that there's nothing new to learn from this video, but anyway it's a good demonstration of why unwisely used compression/limiting is a bad thing (to many of us, at least).

 

I didn't say you weren't unfamiliar with 70s stuff, but hopefully you agree that the sound of the recorded music was much more dynamic than today.

 

it's not the compression/limiting per se, it's the over use of it that annoys me

i sorted out some cd's as hardly listenable before i even learned about dynamic range and the programs to measure it. These cds turned out to be DR6 and lower.
some genres need a bit more compression to sound as intended ( metal and punk comes to mind) but too much is still too much.

 

There's a difference between applying compression/limiting to discrete elements of a mix VS the seemingly arbitrary application of it over an entire album.

 

Sometimes overcompression can be used to achieve an artistic effect. I think of some of the newer acts that use noise as a tool: NIN, DeathGrips, Flaming Lips, Portishead, etc. The sound is supposed to make you uncomfortable. Not everyone is going for the Steely Dan effect!

Now, when a recording is traditional rock or jazz and has too much limiting applied, I am very heartbroken. But jeez, most of the original Beatles stuff only had like less than 10db range. It was only for about 20 years that DR was important (1970-1990-ish). Now we're back to transistor radio style music. The pendulum will swing back when my generation gets older,wiser, and richer! (to afford hifi)

 

But, even then, engineers are overcompressing the individual tracks these days.

 

So you are saying that you can hear an audible difference, yet you don't care?

I grew up in the 80s too... I hate modern recordings. Was just talking to a friend earlier this week, I distinctly remember purchasing Green Day Insomniac 1995 (DR value =7), Social Distortion - White Light, White Heat, White Trash 1996 (DR value = 6), and the mother of them all, Iggy and the Stooges - Raw Power remix/remaster 1997(DR value = 1). I loved the music on theses albums, but hated the way they sounded. I didn't understand what it was at the time, all I knew is that it hurt my ears to turn them up, and they sounded distorted.

 

What is the point of this thread?

 

It might be early-days science for the identification of a new phobia or personality disorder within a sub-group.

 

Isn't that something that would be done at the mixdown stage, not mastering?

 

just bought a CD by a band i was unfamiliar with until a thread on them piqued my interest. very dynamic music compromised by peak limiting. DR5...one track is DR4. cool for 3 mins on youtube, but not an enjoyable album length listen.
there's no "terror", there's just giving a 5h1t.