What is compression?

It's a shame we got more dinamic range out of a Sony cassette tape Walkman in the 1980's than from a good DAP that's even able to play DSD and 192/24 PCM because recordings are compressed to death.
I love Van Halen,they're my favourite band, but I can't really listen to A Different Kind Of Truth. There are some great songs in there and some oustanding EVH playing, but the sound of the album kills me.
The double LP set of it sounds a little bit better, but it's unlistenable to me anyway.

 

There's no doubt about it, modern chart pop is all sizzle.

 

It's good that we have a basic compression explanation/reminder every so often.
Somewhere on this site is out hosts's explanation of what compression is and how to illustrate it.
It was an effective "sliding glass door" analogy.
Can someone find it?

 

Yet, some people like it.

 

Put the compression in the playback devices then.

 

It's a remix.
There will be some consideration given to general music listening habits (ie portable devices which have their output restricted, in an attempt to not get sued for making users prematurely deaf, and earbuds, and also, sadly, smart speakers).
It's not mixed for audio weirdos and obsessives like us.

I like the mix, and I turn the volume down a bit when I play it.

 

Here I am at 5AM shopping for original Cure albums....yeah definite weirdo here too. Arrhhhhhh how dyou stomach Peppers 17! Well I guess if you turn down the volume it can help. I think I am starting to get what makes a record loud, there seems to be more than just Dynamic Range involved.

 

To paraphrase Mr. Hendrix, "Manic compression is a frustrating mess."

;0)

 

I've just looked at the waveform for A Day In The Life from the 2017 mix, and the waveform is not a big block with little variation.
There is a touch of limiting on peaks, but the waveform doesn't look bad. The will have been compression used on the mix bus (probably a very low ratio, because they were smashed through compressors when the recordings were originally made), and the whole things adjusted upwards volume wise towards 0dB (hence the slight limiting).

Changing albums - Deep Purple - Who Do We Think We Are.
The first thing I heard from Deep Purple was Woman From Tokyo, in 1973, and for me it was a life changing moment (turned an 11 year old's head, that's for sure).
When I bought the album my luck was in, because it was a Porky Prime Cut, ie the lacquer was cut by one of the best in the business this side of the pond.
I know that record intimately.

Roll on a few decades, and it gets remastered on CD, and I have a real problem with it - someone was playing silly beggars with the equaliser, and there's too much low end going on.
It interferes with the flow of the music.
So I don't play the rip of that CD.

The Audio Fidelity CD hasn't had someone playing silly beggars with the equaliser, so this is the one I play generally.
The remaster was done by Steve Hoffman, so done by another one of the best in the business.
Deep Purple - Who Do We Think We Are

I do play my original vinyl copy once in a while, and this is my real favourite.

 

Ian Paice was playing a really big Ludwig kick drum at the time, and this, combined with eq'd in low end on the bass guitar is what causes my dislike.
The low end wallows.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that it was remastered using piddly little speakers that couldn't reproduce the low frequencies properly.
It wouldn't be the first time time someone's messed up

 

Was going to say, look at Bowie's Blackstar DNR. Great sounding album

 

There is. Frequency manipulation through EQ is another way. The most common budget method is through compression and limiting because it's easy, cheap and doesn't require a lot of finesse and know-how, so DIYers and people working out of their bedroom calling themselves "engineers" charging $100 to master an album use that and call it a day and push out ultra squashed masters with no dynamics. But EQing specific frequencies can cover some of that ground as well, allowing the mastering engineer to push the volume sliders up a bit more while preserving the dynamics.

A good Mastering engineer equipped with the right tools can put out reasonably loud masters that don't sacrifice too much.

 

This, basically.

Most of the "damage" is done via too much Limiting or Clipping, which are both subsets of dynamic range compression. Actual compression in mastering (as in with a compressor, as opposed to a limiter or a clipper) is normally done more for vibe and bounce, if needed, than gaining loudness.

 

You're not suggesting that Rick Rubin is to blame for that godawful mess of a recording, are you?
I read that Metallica fans preferred the sound of some console game that used the album as soundtrack, which indicates that when Rick and the boys had finished they delivered something that wasn't a complete mess to the record company.

Similar thing with RHCP and Stadium Arcadium - the CD was loud and overpumped.
The vinyl release was a different beast altogether.
Kevin Gray and Steve Hoffman are both credited with mastering.

I'd look at record company instructions to the CD production mastering engineer as being to blame.
If the production mastering wasn't as per the instructions the engineer (a) wouldn't get paid, and (b) wouldn't be used by that record company ever again.
Everyone has to make a living.

 

One way you can often tell that a track was over-compressed vs over-limited is that a highly compressed track will often have a "pumping" effect. Although that often isn't a mistake of overcompressing, its to the taste of the artist. I hate it, but lots of people like that.

 

Rick Rubin is infamous for clipping. And I've read elsewhere that DM was delivered to the mastering engineer walled like crazy, and there just wasn't much that could be done with it.

It wouldn't surprise me, Metallica has signed off on more than their fair share of **** mixes. They as a band seem to have zero sense of what a good mix sounds like or what clipping is, and they are only occasionally saved by a Producer who insists on doing it the right way. Although for every Bob Rock Black album, there's also a Bob Rock St. Anger, so it seems the band and their god awful ears wins out more often than not.

 

The Black Album is the only one of theirs that I think is any good.

 

Some very good insights into current mastering practise from someone who really does know (I've been using Crispin's amazing Crookwood mastering console, and other gear, daily for nearly a decade now):

Elephants in the (mastering) room - Crookwood

 

SeeDeeFirth can you upload a picture of the 09 or 87 V.S. the 17 mix? I cant't because my Optical Drive is dead, so I can't use Audaicty. According to DR Database there is a significant change in versions.

2017 has a DR of 8
1987 has a DR of 11

 

A Day In The Life 2009



A Day In The Life 2017

 

Wow no wonder I did not take too kindly to the new remix. It was especially disappointing because it is my first Beatles album ever. I already ordered both the 87 and 09, they should be here soon I can't wait. Thanks for the photo SeeDeeFirth.

 

The compressed music is a caricatural deformation of the original sound like a face pressed on window.

 

Compression is a tool in the toolbox. Used badly it can cause music to be a "caricature" but used correctly it can really elevate the recording. If all these studio tools, be it compression or EQ or other processing were subtractive and not additive, we'd all just prefer listening to 100% unprocessed takes colored only by the choice of microphone and preamp, but fact is most recording music sounds much better when a seasoned engineer starts turning knobs. All these tools at his/her disposal glue the track together and give it life. Raw, unprocessed, line in takes tend to sound pretty lifeless until you start glueing it together with all these tools, and compression absolutely has its place. Without any compression, a ton of recordings would sound pretty lifeless.

The problem is when any of these tools are overused or used improperly by an untrained hand.

 

Exactly, it's a tool like any other, and can be used or abused. Same with any substance.