I rip all my CDs for my mp3 player and also scan their replaygain (the inverse of the estimated loudness). I seem to notice a trend: more and more albums have lower loudness (and, hence, are less brickwalled) nowadays. Replaygains in the range -5 to -7 dB are much more common now than a few years ago, where -8 to -10 dB (or even louder) seemed to be the norm. Unfortunately this does not mean that there are still no "offenders". The reason is, probably, that most streaming services (Spotify, YouTube, iTunes) normalize by loudness. In other words, brickwalling your masters does not make them louder on these services, only less dynamic. More and more mastering engineers (and their customers) seem to realize that. What we can do ourselves? Talk to artists about it, if you know any. Awareness is important. A lot of musicians still think that louder is always better. Also, support initiatives like Dynamic Range Day. Dynamic Range Day
I use volume levelling in Roon and before that, ReplayGain when using LMS. Although the correlation isn't exactly 100%, I've found that in general, the bigger the volume reduction, the lower the dynamic range. If I stick on an album via Tidal and I see it's applying -12dB of gain reduction, it's a fair bet that the album will be a lot less dynamic than one with -1.4dB of gain reduction....
I always check the DR database website before buying anything. usually what I am looking for is there. Album list - Dynamic Range Database
You have a few choices - Accept it - Stop buying poor sounding product. Use this forum, reviews, and other resources to guide your purchases
Brick Wall thread! Brings back fond memories of SHF. Is the "DR Database" still alive? Welcome to the new normal! (check latest posts on music forum about Tyler Swoft re recording her albums to make more money or how rock fans can put out with grotesque vocals etc) Been here since 2010 so really appreciate if someone tries although it might be for deaf ringing ears... If Pauls vocals sound a bit more "warm" on "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" on a certain pressing is a long forgotten term here nowadays.
Well it seems the entire population of SHTV didn't feel that way, the Blackstar thread got pretty messy here. But we can't say it was the same mastering without asking LaPorta directly. Miles Showell confirmed the vinyl of Peppers50 was the only version that used the unlimited files, so people can objectively say "the vinyl sounds better" even if the difference is small. The medium itself doesn't add dynamic range.
The Stones releases weren't unlistenable, but the message should be sent to the powers that be that we don't want compressed music.
Yes it's a great resource. Now and then though I find they don't have what I'm looking for. Typically this happens with brand-new box sets.
"Now listen here Rick! You make my new record any quieter than Memory Almost Full and your ass is fired!"
Sadly the majority of the great unwashed public listen to music on their phone and ear buds- they have no appreciation of audiophile quality sound- most don't even know such awesome sounding recordings are possible. One of the many reasons superior formats such as SACD failed. The public love being mediocre and average. They love Ed Sheeran and Adele and listen to Mariah & Wham every Christmas. The watch Eastenders Corrie Ant & Dec and live in little houses that all look the same- mock Georgian or faux Victorian double glazed windows.... I hate average. I wish some folks would strive to be just above average, break out of their comfort zone, live a little...
There’s so much wrong with your statement I don’t know where to start. So rather than get into some controversial ridiculous long post with some guy I’ve never seen before using a keyboard, I’ll just say I completely disagree and I think you made a foolish statement.
Relentlessly complain about it on message boards. Not just once in one thread, but 100 times in every thread.
lol! Then you will never buy anything ever again, because no one on this forum has liked any release ever put out.
It’s really sad that the advancement in music production is actually regressive, to some degree the execs have alway done this sort of thing to save money. Sucks.
I agree with this, mostly. Mastering certainly is in a better place than its absolutely lowest point, and now engineers have found ways of creating "loudness" in better ways, or at least have toned it down a bit. Maybe that's due to feedback over time, or perhaps it's due to improvements in audio technology, or the fact that mastering for playback on phone speakers isn't so important anymore. But either way, things are better off than they were. My anecdotal evidence of this is that I did a run through top 10 hits in the United Kingdom from 1980 until the present day last year, and in the early-to-mid 2010s there's genuinely distortion and clipping on a lot of vocals and some horrible mastering, things pushed beyond peaks and so on. Even some famous pop like Lady Gaga is heavily afflicted by it. This started to go away around 2015, it was so commonplace until then that I felt the song Hideaway by Kiesza was well-mastered and well-produced just because it didn't sound as overblown as everything else around it. Now it's pretty rare to find mastering that bad, stuff is still loud, but the distortion seems to be gone. I'd even say that things like The Weeknd's recent hits are well-mastered. I'm still hoping that one day we'll get some sort of audiophile remaster trend for music released in the 2000s and beyond, though.
It would be nice but I kind of doubt it will happen. Maybe for some digital downloads but I don't see it happening for CDs. Maybe vinyl would see this happen. I'm not one that wants to see tapes prepared for vinyl masters as was used for some many early CDs but I would like to see nicely done, dynamic mastering. I have a volume control. Heck, if I want to listen on my phone I can EQ them myself. I disagree with Maggie's assessment that compressed mastering is being done "in thoughtful and situation specific way" for limiting and compression. I see it used regardless of the title or artistic intent for the most part. If it were for a specific artistic intent, it's an artistic intent that eludes me for most mastering out there because, while clipping may not be as prevalent, it makes it difficult to listen to at times and I can tolerate compression/limiting on most releases. It isn't ideal. It's to me like dumbing down something. Fine if mass market artists want to do it but for reissues of other artists who appeal to a different audience that dislike it? It just doesn't make sense. Like I said, I have a volume control.
I think there continues to be a huge disconnect (and some very large assumptions) with folks like us here in the forums and how this "ruined" material actually gets into the pipeline. Let's track thru a few of them: 1. Assumption #1 - Artist has a "say" in the Sound quality/DR level of their actual retail (mastered) product. I think this is a huge one and one that we consistently get very wrong. Now - I will first say that I am no A/R guy but I believe (and please correct me if I am way outa line) that final mixes completed in the studio (for typical artist with typical contract) could be drastically different to when they finally get mastered and out to the sales pipeline. OR - the mixes completed in the studio are delivered so hot that a mastering engineer really cannot save the audio from "loudness war hell". I also believe that outside of a very select list of superstars who might actually care about sound quality - there is not a single "typical" artist anywhere that has any say over what the final product will sound like. That final master is record company property and if it sounds good to them (DR 4 or not) - it is what it is. NO amount of complaining is going to change this fact especially if they (record company) are bankrolling the mastering session (s). AND - then let's not forget the hidden "political" factors that are most likely in play if an artist (or a label) tries to tell a seasoned mastering engineer how to do his or her job. There are also many a story from respected mastering engineers that stand their ground (risk not be hired again) to those who toe the line (despite their build-in moral audio compass) that tells them that this master sounds like crap but they have to submit it anyway. With no standards, no real input from anyone (except maybe the ME) and really - no overall care for sound quality from anyone - it is no wonder things sound the way the are. 2. Assumption #2 - Anyone in the retail sector has a say on sound quality. Goes without saying - if the artist has no say - a ProStudioMasters will have even less (more like zero). Need to forget this angle permanently. 3. Assumption #3 - Audiophiles matter. As much as we would love this to be true - it isn't. That is not to say we don't occasionally get some tasty DR12 gems passed down to us - which I gracefully accept AND appreciate coming from any label, ME (like Steve!) or artist that actually takes the time to override the record company and deliver a quality product (ala Tom Petty for example). But that is rare and is most definitely NOT the norm. Bottom line - releases are retail product. Record companies sell retail product to make money - they do not (sadly) sell quality or QA or decent DR or anything else. And remember (to use the Stones as an example) - if you really believe that Mick is in a mastering studio somewhere - glass of wine in hand - listening the DR levels of a Goat's Head Soap re-release to see if it is acceptable or not - you need to step back into reality and remember this is a business. I would bet money that Mick and Keith are not concerned about loudness, leave the business of prepping product to those that do it daily and would most likely throw you some serious shade (as in - "Sounds great to me mate!") if you asked them about it. In the land of brickwalls - buy it if you like it and don't if you don't. Cheers VP
If the Goats Head Soup Remix sounds as bad as it did with a DR rating of 6, I hate to think what a release with a DR rating of 3 would sound like.
Never ending story. I am so glad my music collection is most from pre 1960. Compression started with stereo to avoid ping pong effects. It became more and more a stylistic feature, it will never go away.
wow what a moronic statement buddy! the "science" shows "the heat applied" to these releases so the mastering engineers should stop doing this. period. If the label wants it that way then the mastering engineer should maybe speak up and try and reason with the label that they are potentially ruining a release. Don't the mastering engineers have ANY say? I for one will continue to champion "audiophile reality" so the next crop of tone deaf kids will hopefully be curious and hear a difference between "good and bad" recordings.
This is exactly right. For the earbuds on the subway crowd, there isn't any problem. Vinyl, while not always, is more dynamic, so that's one solution. If the record companies wake up and make hi-res files more dynamic, they may see more download dollars.
I actually think it’s as simple as the artists ears being shot due to live performances and their honest belief that what is being reissued sounds fine/ good.
