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

[SoundQ SVT]

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

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/33549

I had heard about this before, I think when Rush was coming out with their latest album a couple/few years ago, and why the album simply didn't sound as good as earlier releases. The dynamics were all gone in the name of making the overall recording louder. :nonono: :troutslap: :bah:

 

[FavoriteMystaque]

Radio broadcasting compression does that anyhow, they don't need to pre compress! Shame on Rush, they need dynamics, like in Moving Pictures.

 

[elraido]

And to make it worse, people listen to compressed music on their iPods and computers....only enhancing it. I know with the harddrive in my car I can definatly tell the difference in quality between it and a cd.

 

[BrApple]

thats insteresting, since starting to use an Ipod I feel I ahve heard more detail then I have before with songs I have burned to a CD. but then again when I was down loading music I always looked for the hit bitrates as I could tell the low bit rate files just didn't sound as good. Also having the component speakers in my contour I hear alot more in the music when compair to my mystique that only has 3-ways in the front door and more bass in the trunk


what I have noticed before, once I knew about it is if you listen close to the same song it can be different between radio station. Often some stations will have the guitar taken out of the music, or something like that, they also play with the speed of the song to make it sound a certain way.

 

[Desiato]

what I have noticed before, once I knew about it is if you listen close to the same song it can be different between radio station. Often some stations will have the guitar taken out of the music, or something like that, they also play with the speed of the song to make it sound a certain way.

Artists/studios often release radio remixes/edits to make a song more radio-friendly.

 

[LauraSVT]

This is a dichotomy. Music these days sucks more and more, but is recorded louder and louder, when exactly the opposite should be happening. I would find greater value in most of today's music if the CD were muted. If today's music were silent, I might actually be able to listen to it.

If anyone needs me, I'll be in 1984.

 

[elraido]

This is a dichotomy. Music these days sucks more and more, but is recorded louder and louder, when exactly the opposite should be happening. I would find greater value in most of today's music if the CD were muted. If today's music were silent, I might actually be able to listen to it.

If anyone needs me, I'll be in 1984.

And that is why on yahoo music I listen to 90's rock and altern

 

[jamesmason1]

I would find greater value in most of today's music if the CD were muted. If today's music were silent, I might actually be able to listen to it.

If anyone needs me, I'll be in 1984.

That reminds me of the movie pootie tang, simma down na

 

[dnewma04]

Compression has been getting progressively worse for well over a couple of decades but I don't agree that music is getting worse. In fact, the downloadable music world has opened up a ton of good music I wouldn't have otherwise heard. There is as much good music being produced today as ever.

 

[Matt2kSVT]

Wow, that is really interesting.

True on the ripping situation for digital playback. People don't realize how much it cuts quality. It's fine for cruising around in the car, but when I'm at home and really want to listen to something on the ol' hifi, I dig out the CDs.

 

[fordsvt98]

If you get music from P2P programs, or downloads and what not......The Bitrate helps alot......you want like a 128 or a 196 bitrate or higher download .....and stay away from 32-64bitrate that may help if youre a music downloader.....tho people lie and put on stuff that is not 196 or 128 and all that so you really gotta cut thru the garbage.

But, I hear ya on the DL'd note, that once its been ripped and all that, it never sounds the same on your burned CD. Take Windows media player, sure the song sounds good also on your computer, but when u burn it on a disc it sounds like garbage all over again.

Ive been waiting for a program to take a track, and remix it and equalise the sound a lil better, but I dont realistically have studio money to spend lol.


Maybe soon they will put out some kind of media that will have the right oscillation or whatever on some kind of disc but, I dont see even blu-ray giving us back what we lost from Vinyl.

Did you all catch that the original PS1 is a true audiophile's dream lol.

 

[loggerbomb]

Compression has been getting progressively worse for well over a couple of decades but I don't agree that music is getting worse. In fact, the downloadable music world has opened up a ton of good music I wouldn't have otherwise heard. There is as much good music being produced today as ever.

Yeah thats true but most of the crap on the radio sucks and is the same crap over and over and over and over and over and over.......

 

[elraido]

Yeah thats true but most of the crap on the radio sucks and is the same crap over and over and over and over and over and over.......

But it is a LOT harder to find with so many more things to look threw.

 

[CLASSVT]

I will try to shine some light on this, being an audio engineer with a degree in recording arts. First off, music these days is mastered to be louder more consistantly throughout the track. This in no way makes drums sound "fuzzy" or take detail away from the track whatsoever. It does take away some of the dynamics of the actual music, but that isn't always a bad thing. Take for example classical music. Try putting a CD of Bach or whoever you want in your stereo at home or in your car. This music is so dynamic that you constatly have to ride the volume control to hear the quiet parts, and then not blow your speakers during the loud parts. It's stimulating to listen to music this way, especially live, but not always pleasant. You will find yourself being startled quiet often, when the loud parts kick in and out. Now days, tracks are recorded with a certain level of compression to keep the peak points of loudness from reaching a level of distortion. Especially now that most everything is recorded digitally, distortion sounds terrible. So compression is almost always necessary, depending on the instrumentation and dynamics of the track. That being said it is used too often, but the consumer would never notice the difference. Going back to the original point, mastering a track to be as loud as possible is not a bad thing. It simply brings any quiet parts of the track up to a higher volume, and makes the whole song play at a more consistant volume. Go listen to a Led Zepplin CD, and then go listen to any new rock CD. Aside from the quality of the music, the sound quality is eleventy billion times better now. In regard to MP3's, that is a form of compression that is different from recording compression (which limits the peaks of waveforms). Compression for music files such as MP3 actually breaks the file into millions of pieces based on frequencies, and tosses aside the files holding the frequencies we will miss the least. This means the highest frequencies and the lowest frequencies are gone forever. That is why many MP3's sound like a$$, because they are missing many overtones and frequencies that complete the dynamic range of the original recording. That form of compression is called "lossy compression", because you are losing data. There are music files that don't lose data, called "non-lossy compression", but the technology isn't quite there to make the files as small as MP3. So much talk go's around that "the music industry does this wrong" and "the music sounds terrible now days..." , but it's a bunch of bandwagon bull****. Audio recording technology is outstanding now, and any engineer/producer with a hint of knowledge of what they are doing can create a recording in thier bedroom that sounds as good as anything on the radio today. So don't always believe the hype.

 

[dnewma04]

I would respectfully submit that a consistently louder track is not better sounding and often times extremely annoying when you know what the uncompressed track sounds like. Give my the days of 15-25dB crest factors on good recordings anyday over the overly compressed crap passed off as "more consistent volume". Give it to me the way it's meant, not what will sound best in a moving car with lots of road noise. Maybe it's just that I'm becoming more of a music snob, but when you site the example like you did, I'd take the older recording with more dynamics over a new "remastered" compressed one 100 out of 100 times.

That said, I know why they do it, I just don't have to like the musically poor and innacurate results. It wasn't compressed to start with...

It's more difficult now then ever to get a good recording that hasn't been destroyed in the sake of loudness.

 

[CLASSVT]

Compression is not what makes a track louder. Mastering is generally where that happens. My example of classical music stands today as it did twenty years ago, because that is how that music is meant to be heard. It is all about instrumentation and the extremely intricate dynamics. Going back to the example of Led Zepplin, comparing them to a new Mars Volta CD there is an obvious difference in sound quality. But compression has existed since the early days of multitrack recording. That means compression can't be blamed for the difference in today's music. Making a track play at a constant loudness doesn't make it "inaccurate", it just keeps you from having to fiddle with your volume control. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but there is little difference in the compression of today's music, it is simply mastered better due to major advances in technology. Music still has plenty of dynamics, it's just easier to listen to at your chosen volume. I agree that not all music needs compression, or the level of compression that it receives. But I'll bet that the majority of the music you consider old, and more dynamic is compressed just as much as today's music. The difference lies in how it is mastered and EQ'd. People prefer more bass-heavy, louder music today. That is what most people want to hear, because the advances in speaker technology allow us to listen at much higher levels. Anyone with subs or a decent amount of money in thier car or home system knows what it's like to put in a good old classic rock CD, and crank it only to find that there is no bass and it sounds thin and wimpy compared to today's music. That is how music has "evolved", and I think it sounds better than ever.

 

[dnewma04]

Compression is not what makes a track louder. Mastering is generally where that happens. My example of classical music stands today as it did twenty years ago, because that is how that music is meant to be heard.

Music is compressed much more today in all forums of music than it was 20 years ago, back when it was recorded like it was played.
[/quote]
It is all about instrumentation and the extremely intricate dynamics. Going back to the example of Led Zepplin, comparing them to a new Mars Volta CD there is an obvious difference in sound quality. [/quote]

Listen to an unmolested recording of Harry Belafonte at Carnegie Hall (from 1959, i believe). Living Stereo recording. That recording on both vinyl and CD is so perfect it defies odds. It's a live album with better detail/dynamics/realism than just about every other recording I have ever heard. Technology has certainly improved, engineering has taken a serious step back into trying to appease the general public and what they want. Again, I don't blame them, they want to get paid and produce something that the "average" person will like, not what audiophools like me want to hear.

But compression has existed since the early days of multitrack recording. That means compression can't be blamed for the difference in today's music.

True, it's the engineer's over compressing that is at least largely to blame, not the technology itself.

Making a track play at a constant loudness doesn't make it "inaccurate", it just keeps you from having to fiddle with your volume control.

Nonsense, that is EXACTLY why it makes it innacurate. When you see a live musical event, or at least a good one, the differences in volume between average and peak power is apparent and not at all annoying to me. What the mass market finds as a convenience, to me is like filling your house with a bunch of posters taht look like paintings. Sure, from a distance you might think they are real, but a closer inspection leaves you unimpressed.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but there is little difference in the compression of today's music, it is simply mastered better due to major advances in technology.

Some companies are taking advantage of these technologies to go along with doing some excellent production work. Blue Note for instance, does a masterful job leaving the dynamics in music. There are a few other very good to great recordings and even very good labels out there, but it's slim pickings.

Music still has plenty of dynamics,

music has dynamics, of course, but much less than it would live as it was meant to be played.

it's just easier to listen to at your chosen volume. I agree that not all music needs compression, or the level of compression that it receives. But I'll bet that the majority of the music you consider old, and more dynamic is compressed just as much as today's music.

You hit the nail on the head,compressing music is easier but it compromises sound quality. It's not really old music that isn't heavily compressed, a lot of reissues of old music have been significantly altered. A few years back, I measured the crest factor or various CDs in my collection. 80s era rock CDs very consistently had 10-15dB crest factors. By the time I got to more current CDs, those crest factors averaged on the low end (and unfortunately, often times lower) of that scale. If I had a better sampling size, I'd do another test and post the results.

It's purely a matter of convenience, and it's a bad trend IMO. It;s akin to making all the speakers as tiny as you can make them, accuracy be damned. I'm not trying to insult you directly, because I doubt Ihave heard you work, but I can't say I like the trend I have witnessed. It sure makes electonics choices easier, who needs high powered amps now?

The difference lies in how it is mastered and EQ'd. People prefer more bass-heavy, louder music today. That is what most people want to hear, because the advances in speaker technology allow us to listen at much higher levels. Anyone with subs or a decent amount of money in thier car or home system knows what it's like to put in a good old classic rock CD, and crank it only to find that there is no bass and it sounds thin and wimpy compared to today's music. That is how music has "evolved", and I think it sounds better than ever.

True, most people buying most records (read young people) do prefer more bass, and thats why i can understand the bass heavy mixes today. Again, it's all about sales. I think we are going to have to disagree on the technology of today vs yesteryears technology in terms of loudness. One of the more significant trends in audio has been the downsizing of everything speaker related which goes completely against the ability to get loud. Technology has improved in terms of low distortion performance and linearity, but in terms of output/dynamics, no significant improvements have been made aside from creating some horns/wave guides that cut down on early reflections and higher order modes. Some of the old, very large speakers, were capable of tremendously loud volumes without running into compression within the drivers themselves because they were only being fed a watt or two.

You are entitled to your opinion on sound quality, but audiophiles/music lovers will probably not often agree with you.

 

[SoundQ SVT]

Try putting a CD of Bach or whoever you want in your stereo at home or in your car. This music is so dynamic that you constatly have to ride the volume control to hear the quiet parts, and then not blow your speakers during the loud parts. It's stimulating to listen to music this way, especially live, but not always pleasant. You will find yourself being startled quiet often, when the loud parts kick in and out.

When I read this, my first thought would be that I need better equipment to reproduce the real music, dynamics and all, not a band-aid on the recording making the quiet parts louder without letting the dynamics of the peaks get louder. Don't fix something for me that wasn't broken.

A more appropriate and acceptable option (and one that has been/was used) is to place the compression circuitry on the electronics doing the playback along with an on/off switch. This way, the recording is as pure and original as the performance but if the listener happens to be in a temporary situation where a more consistent volume is desired they have control to do that. I know some of the higher-end Pioneer car CD players in the mid to late 90's had this circuitry built in.

Most people today don't know what a real audiophile recording is or what it could sound like when reproduced on a capable system. Yet, in my experiences when people have been exposed to recordings with extremely minimal to no mixing or alterations from the original musical performance they have been truly amazed. It is a desirable thing and something to strive for, not shunned. I am most impressed with the direct to two-track recordings on the Mapleshade and WildChild labels (they are affiliated with each other).

Ask Bagged and his wife what they thought of the gospel choir recording I played for them in my car at SZ, (Shady Green Pastures, performed by the Arc Choir) or heck what they thought of any of the tracks on that particular Mapleshade sampler disc (Mapleshade Music Festival).

Here's a link from Mapleshade's website about them - http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/main/aboutus.php - and there is a DownBeat magazine article linked at the bottom of that page that is a peek into the recording process they use.

 

[Rooster]

i agree with clssvt, new music bass hits a lot harder. the rest of you, stfu.

 

[fordsvt98]

I guess its all about about recording equipment. So I can say
"they just don't make em like they used to eh."


So what youre saying is, unless youre all about recording with sweet ass cables, excellent mic's, solid software, and a couple good musician's, the record company's will just keep recording with the same ol crapola equipment that they rent out, and same stuff everyone else uses...... After that , youre stuck with a low grade, compressed, computer enhanced sound that you could probly make on your damn computer at home.

SoundQ are those IASCA cd's real musicians, or are those tracks computer enhanced. Compared to lets say, a bass mechanix cd.

I mean, if youre trying to discern good quality sounding car, or Home system, wouldnt you use a test track on mapleshaderecords disc?

Will those guys from BestBuy after youve spent 6K on a home stereo, come over to your house with oscilloscope's and stuff to verify where the sound will be best? lol.

Maybe Im not getting the point of HOW to make a good quality sound then, Is it:
A. Good recording equipment.
B. Good musician's
C. Good software.
D. Good player youre using to actually play BACK the sound lol.

Even tho stuff now might seem worse, is it actually getting "better"?