SH Spotlight Why the new "LOUDNESS CRAZE" in digital mastering really robs music of life..

I posted earlier that I sent an email to Steve Hackett's online store about another post regarding his last remasters. (Wish I was savvy enough to post the cross reference here) Here is the reply I got from management. Frankly, it was far more than I expected. Nice of him to reply and give his viewpoint as well as Steve's. I invited him to join the forum, told him it was as simple as a few clicks. And if I can do it, my guess is anybody can.


Dear John,

Thanks for your email. Some interesting perspectives on the forum you mentioned.

The remastered albums are louder, yes, but that's one small part of the
remastering process. To my ears there's much more detail apparent, an improved soundstage and expanded frequency range (i.e. more information available at the extremes). I think some of the correspondents felt that there's a loss of dynamic range relative to a supposed previous standard. (I couldn't access the images as I'm not a forum member) and that that's a bad thing. The original CD transfers were limited by the technology then available (particulary the first two albums), and there were certainly many limitations inherent in vinyl mastering. A balance also has to be struck between the needs of the audiophile listener and playback in a vast variety of other contexts and those decisions will vary between artists and engineers. Quite a hotly debated topic in fact.
The remastering was supervised by this artist at every stage and the result
represents his chosen comprises. He's pretty happy with them in fact!

In the end of course all that matters is whether the music moves you to a
greater or lesser degree or affords more enjoyment than the original editions
and in that respect the customer is always right.

With best wishes,

Billy Budis
KUDOS Management

 

What a fascinating response. Thanks for posting this.

A couple of his responses struck me as interesting.

This answer in particular fascinates me as I see no practical difference between "the audiophile listener" and, if I may coin a phrase, "the home listener" or, even more simply, "the listener."

Very nice sentiments, no doubt. It's surprise and a pleasure to see them in print, even if not a single word seems believable.

Dale

 

Those of you in the industry, who are posting anonymously:

Who in the business, ever told you to compress the sound beyod your best recommendations? Who is responsible?

As consumers, we need to know, to avoid anything these people are involved with. Or at least, we need to forward this little presentation to them. Or, we need to contact their supervisors.

Is there anything more urgent in your career than helping you do the job that you know you are capable of and will improve your reputations, and see direct response from consumers as a result?

 

This point came up in an email exchange I had with an amateur reviewer on Amazon who felt the remastered Physical Graffiti was better because it revealed more details. Compression creates the illusion of more detail, improved soundstage and expanded frequency range because it boosts the quieter sounds that make up the details, the reverb tails and the high frequencies. The problem is that the recording no longer sounds as natural. Natural soundstages begin to sound like synthetic add-on digital reverb and the subtle nuances of good cymbal work are lost as all the highs take on a raspy quality that makes ride cymbals sound like aluminum pie plates!

The other approach to more detail, improved soundstage and expanded frequency range is to master carefully from the best possible sources, like pros such as Steve, Kevin and Barry. The results definitely speak for themselves. You get all these advantages plus a much more lifelike and realistc recording.

 

I'm becoming even more of a believer on this subject; I had a listen to Jet's new album Shine On last night, and at first I though my amp (or something) was broken - cymbals, hihats etc. sounded fried. Now, there was a song with that "distressed" sound which is au courant, but it was hard to tell this in comparison to the other tracks! And yes, when I put the CD in, I had to turn it down significantly from the volume I had set playing the previous CD (a Yardbirds comp from 10-15 years ago).

It was all squashed and grey-sounding; fatiguing? You bet. The tragedy for me is, I think I like the songs and performances; I just can't stand to listen for very long.

 

I can never understand why an engineer would go thru so much time and effort to get that perfectly balanced mix just to have it pulverized with a meat tenderizer in the mastering process!! If I want the quieter parts in my tunes to be louder, I'll mix them louder! At least that doesn't alter the characteristics of the sound.

 

Yes! This is the biggest crime of all in this whole affair. There is a lot of really good music happening out there, but it's impossible to enjoy it because of the way the recordings are being butchered. It all ends up sounding the same.

 

Can't agree more!!!

I've said it before, I'll say it again - McCartney's "Run Devil Run" and Aerosmith's "Honkin' On Bobo" would rank with their respective all-time classics if the recordings weren't so squashed and bright that you can't crank 'em up without it being painful. Rock and roll records that need to be turned DOWN.. sumthin' ain't right there!

 

This thread and its feature link beg the question if in reality "the music" can be separated from its presentation.

As communication theorist McLuhan said years ago: "Communication is something that is accomplished by the listener, If he/she does not understand or does not want to listen, it will not happen."

I must admit that I am one of those who cannot separate the presentation (sound) from the message (music). Listening to a super compressed album, no matter how good the music might be, is to me like being told to pay attention to something while being insulted. It's hard to accept this type of 'communication'. Thus, I live more happily not listening to new music presented in this way.

As the tagline to the movie "Babel" says, I would tell the record companies: "If you want to be understood... listen."

 

Ah, but there IS a difference. The average home listener isn't that concerned about the finer points of the sound, and, frankly, most artitsts aren't either.

Bottom line: most people are NOT audiophiles.

 

John, please feel free to personally quote me to Steve Hacket's management.

Dear Billy,

Have you heard any of the early 1983-1987 CBS/Sony mastered albums that have continuously beat every remaster following for sound quality on any decent system turned up loud? No limitations here and would only be a bit better being master tape sourced if in fact they weren't already.

An artist should be left out of the mastering stage because they are performers and not talent/trained mastering engineers with proven track records behind them.

 

True, but its most people who are finding that they cannot listen to the CDs - without really realizing why, gets dizzy and stops buying CDs.

So, regardless of the so-called intended audience it is in the record companies best (long-term) interests to make sure that when John Q Public buys a CD product, he wants more of it.

 

Someone should send this to Paul before he has his new remasters done (if he does).

I have literally compiled my own complete "Flowers in the Dirt" because the "remaster" is such garbage.

I have the original British album, used the UK single for "Back on my Feet" and the other single for "Flying to My Home", etc...

This happens to be an album that CAN sound good...

It's a shame that the "Figure of Eight" remix from the mini-CD single sounds better than the "remastered" regular version!

Jeff

 

Yes. If it's a great tune, the recording is secondary, very secondary. Witness Jumpin' Jack Flash and Street Fighting Man.

But since we have the means to make every great tune sound great, why not do that from beginning to end? Why hack it up for the lowest common denominator?

And most people don't care if it's sunny or raining if they're in the house playing on the computer or watching TV all day.

 

Thank you. My experiences as well.

There's nothing meaningful to be gained by overcompression. Certainly doesn't make anyone buy a CD they wouldn't have anyway. It just does things like suck the punch, kick and snap out of drums and the controlled reach out of vocals... in other words, exactly what they should not want to do to their records.

Which title(s) are we discussing in this part of the thread? Overcompression of course doesn't improve resolution (like detail, soundstage or expand the freq. response). You lose dynamic range, some harmonic information etc. It gets smashed and goes flat. Mr. Budis seems to be indicating that the remaster has improved resolution but appears to be unable to assess the contended aspect (dynamic range) as he opts not to pass an opinion on that aspect. Either the remaster was not overcompressed, or he believes dynamics are only a small to negligible consideration, or he is somehow under the curious impression that dynamics are not limited as you boost the CDs overall volume? Anyway, interesting if inconclusive exchange.

 

The reference was to last years remasters of the first 4 Steve Hackett albums. There was another post on this topic. If I was forum savvy I'd have the link here.

Here was his last reply to me. I guess in a perfect world there wouldn't be any difference between the mastering for audiophiles and the rest of the world.

Dear John,

There's undoubtedly a trend towards more and more compression and enthusiastic use of L1 limiters and suchlike. My cynical side would say that the horrible truth is that most consumers prefer their music over-compressed and distorted - check out any club, discotheque or even birthday party or wedding! Still, nice to know that there are also still lots of music lovers out there.

Best wishes and a Happy New Year

Billy Budis
KUDOS Management

 

Thank you

Perhaps Mr. Budis may take heart in my contention that in the case of instances he cites - clubs, events, etc - what the people actually want is generous audibility. In such contexts people would take great sound or crap sound, mild or excessive compression, with equal enthusiasm provided the volume is generously audible, i.e. at least fairly loud. Overcompressing the CD won't help, only getting enough volume on playback, which the record industry will just have to accept is outside of their finite control of the world. And the music industry should remember that there are music lovers and that the music industry is supposed to be trying to sell music to them.

 

Well, then you never met my older sister, because this is exactly what she does. She sets her volume level at one spot and expects all CDs to fall in that same level. I'm not kidding! We once had an argument about it. I told her it didn't make any sense.

 

Hi Grant,

Sounds like she'd love having a compressor/limiter in her system.
Maybe you could set it up to "even everything out", the way radio stations do.

If she's more sensitive to overall level between totally different records than to things like musical dynamics, it shouldn't be difficult to set up her system in a way that gives her exactly what she wants. That way, she can mix old records and new records, dynamic records and squeezed records and they'll all sound "even".

I believe the listener should have it any way they want it. But that should happen in their playback system and not in the record itself, which should allow other listeners with other sonic desires to achieve their goals as well.

Best regards and Happy New Year!
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Doing my bit to publicize the problem:

http://www.itwriting.com/blog/?p=91

If there are any tech inaccuracies let me know and I'll correct them.

Tim

 

I was NOT stated that the disorted sound is from remaster. The speaker says IT WOULD SOUND LIKE THIS IF RELEASED IN 2006

Cheers
Tomek

 

It was Not stated ....

I lost "T"
Sorry
Tomek

 

Right. But the remaster STILL sounds awful, so he made a good move by getting the original release.

Jeff

 

I think Peter Mew needs to have this link mailed to him. He's the guy responsible for the McCartney Remasters we're talking about, as well as the Deep Purple and some David Bowie reissues. (I think there's a thread going on about the "Heroes" remaster on this site) Does anybody have anything re-mastered by him that's good. I'd like to hear it if someone thinks so. I'd like to hear other peoples opinions on the Deep Purple - Burn remaster as well!

 

I think the Mew stuff's worst problem is that it sounds "dead" - loudness doesn't seem like the big issue (to my ears).

I didn't mean to swerve this thread - it's just - well, just play any of the Macca Mew remasters and then play the DCC gold equivalent - loudness isn't the real problem it's that Paul sounds like he's suffocating.

Maybe it's compressed, too - listen to "Rock Show" on the DCC Gold "Venus and Mars" and compare it to the Mew remaster.

Jeff