SIDENOTE: This article makes sense. Enjoy.


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

Why New Music Doesn't Sound As Good As It Did
by Christopher Null

Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:17PM EDT



Never mind that today's factory-produced starlets and mini-clones just don't have the practiced chops of the supergroups of yesteryear, pop in a new CD and you might notice that the quality of the music itself—maybe something as simple as a snare drum hit—just doesn't sound as crisp and as clear as you're used to. Why is that?

It's part of the music industry's quest to make music louder and louder, and it's been going on for decades, at least since the birth of the compact disc. Click the link for a nice little video, a mere 2 minutes long, which explains it in detail, with audio cues that you'll be able to hear in crisp detail.

The key to the problem is that, in making the soft parts of a track louder (in the process making the entire track loud), you lose detail in the song: The difference between what's supposed to be loud and what's supposed to be soft becomes less and less. The result is that, sure, the soft parts of a song are nice and loud, but big noises like drum beats become muffled and fuzzy. But consumers often subconsciously equate loudness with quality, and thus, record producers pump up the volume. Anything to make a buck.

The bigger problem is that this is all unnecessary. Stereo equipment is more powerful today than ever, and last time I checked, every piece of music hardware had a volume knob.

Don't take my word for it: Pop in the first CD you bought and play it at the same volume level as the most recent one you bought. You might be shocked by what you hear.

Anyone still wondering why the music business is suffering?

i still say its the artists

InsatiableCream said:

That too! But lousy mixing in the studio is just as worse.

TonyVanDam said:

Agree.

We are really missing all the small details you could here on vinyl. It might just be a tambourine or a conga drum, but it's missing.
[Edited 7/10/07 16:10pm]

I always kinda worry about mega-compression when I pick up a newly remastered edition of an album.

I have noticed that the hit compilation series 20th Century Masters are sorta compressed like this.

CD's did kill it, mainly because they hold 80 minutes and through most of the 90's and up till a few years ago, everyone thought you had to fill that up. Labels made artists do this rather than just lower cd prices, this is why you get so few classic albums anymore, not until the last few years have artists learned that doing 40 minutes and 10 tracks is what its about. I really dont want 80 minutes of anyones new stuff , the only time i want that cd full is when its Live or a Compilation,Box set etc.. But 80 minutes of new shit you just wrote, sorry thats just saying too much, that goes for new and old artists.

I look at my favorite cds this year and they are all 40 minutes or a little over and some under

Ryan Adams
Paul McCartney
John Mellencamp

Even pop artists have caught on finally. The new Hilary Duff and Ameries are two of my fave cds this year and neither is long both in the 40's. No stupid segues,skits,etc.
The 40 minute 10 track cd is the way, i have noticed in the last few years albums by artists getting better, especially artists i like. I dont find myself skipping tracks anymore with artists i like. Also when albums you really had to do something good or you were finished, people just wanted to drop the needle and be done, if they had to keep getting up and moving the needle, you were finished.
[Edited 7/10/07 16:54pm]

BlaqueKnight said:

True but even proven artists fell into the 80minute cd trap. Look at Prince's albums like Gold or The Love Symbol etc, those are albums that needed to be cut down, way down and they would have been works of art, instead of skip this skip that.

BlaqueKnight said:

I don't know why the music industry is making excuses.

lastdecember said:

I'm not sure i agree with your asessment. I could name several cd's that were only 40 minutes long and sucked out the ass. It is the lame as artists that are making the music. Remember when music was great in the 70's and 80's. The artists like ewf, chaka/rufus, isley brothers, stevie wonder, etc. were making great music. They would have recorded plenty of material for an 8 song album and would release an 8 song album every year and tour because they were great artists and musicians and not just some video star. Now it doesn't matter if these flavor of the month artists record a 40 minute cd or 80 minute because they suck. If van hunt or mint condition recorded an 16 song 70 minute cd you would appreciate it because you are getting a good damn cd and 40 minutes ain't enough and these artists are only putting out product every 3 years.
The bottom line is if i pay 10 to 12 dollars for a cd, i want 20 damn songs on the mutha fucka and a bonus dvd with live concert footage on it.
At the end of the day, you make your mark by touring and putting on a good live show. That is what makes a true artist.

phunkdaddy said:

Its still gotta hold someones interest, as much as i like Van Hunt,Prince etc, i dont want 16 tracks and 70 minutes, because in reality no matter what some of its gonna suck, and when some if it sucks, it pulls the whole album down and thats why i find myself not going back and listening to alot of cds, that were just loaded with 18 tracks and half were really good and the rest hit and miss. Save weak Tracks and jams for the box sets.

.
[Edited 7/10/07 23:04pm]

BlaqueKnight said:

Today's music sucks because of today's music...

fuck that, the best pop music was made in mono 40-50 years ago, so give me a break. it's about the quality of the songwriting, performance, and the undefinable "it" factor.

BlaqueKnight said:

What makes you think the industry is running this piece?

I agree, though, that CD sound levels are the least of the problem.

Not buying it.

yeah, it's the mix...

Stax said:

The record labels are the ones encouraging the high levels!!
I know this from the insiders. Don't blame mixing engineers for a start, it's not their fault. It happens in the mastering. The mastering engineers are forced to squash it as loud as possible before it hits the CD by the corporates at the label because they don't want their latest release to be any softer than anyone elses. It's a dick measuring contest from people who should have no say in the production values and it DOES make a difference in attention span and enjoyment levels.

Also I think this can indeed be given a little bit of credit for contributing to people not being crazy over modern music in general. The more they push the level, the more everything sounds the same, because once you get all frequencies slammin as loud as the next what do you think you end up with? Nothing but noise.

Have you ever thought about how some records you perceive as having a really musical vibe even though they may have an incredibly simple arrangement?
_

nd33 said:

There is some truth to the level issue but the problem starts first and foremost with the material. I have told MANY artists that a good mix doesn't equal a good record. It just makes whatever's there more pleasant to listen to.

Say that shit again for those in the back that didn't hear it!!!!!
Don't blame mixing engineers for a start, it's not their fault. It happens in the mastering.

Labels choose certain specific mastering houses. Most of the majors want engineers to mix for seperation mastering.
[Edited 7/11/07 9:59am]

Total bullshit. Remastered CD's sound better than vinyl when done right. Mastering has nothing to do with the fact that no one knows how to play an actual instrument, write music or produce a track without sampling.

BlaqueKnight said:

Write that in an article and submit it. The truth needs to be told. I co-sign times 100000 with everything you just said.

I don't know exactly when it started to go bad, but it never recovered. Ever.

You're absolutely right that sound quality has nothing to do with the talent of the artist.
Nevertheless this article, although misdirected does again raise the issue of the degradation of recorded music quality, which in itself is a valid issue.

For example I recently bought an album because I liked the single and the artists style. When I played it I didn't even want to listen right through due to the shrill, loud distorted sound that probably the label has thrust upon it.
Even if this particular album was outstanding musically, it could be prevented from becoming a timeless classic simply because it never had a chance.
I mean, if a regular person like me is put off from even having a good listen, by the excessive processing, then how could I ever call it a great album?

VoicesCarry said:

Well you can get good and bad masters on vinyl too. But albums are never limited so harsh on vinyl.
Of course CD's have the potential to sound good. Fantastic even! They are capable of a huge dynamic range. Which is not even relevant when you're mastering everything to be ear piercingly loud.
CD's aren't being used to their potential.
_

BlaqueKnight said:

Every issue I have with anything to do with music right now ties back to the shallowness of corporate greed.

It's starting to all collapse and I hope the music industry comes full circle and back to the primary focus being live performance. If you can sing or play then you'll be getting respect.

_

This is what i hate about today's music.

The mastering fucks up alot of great albums

Prince's albums have got progressively worse; starting with the gold experience.

Just bought the new linkin park cd; great music; horrible loud, squashed sound. Same with the chili peppers last three albums and the last two manson albums.

VoicesCarry said:

IGNORANCE!

nd33 said:

your preaching to the choir. I am well aware of the issue. I was just wondering what statements in the article printed in the OP suggest that it was an industry piece.

I noticed Beyonce's "Irreplaceable" was compressed exactly like they said.

Maybe that's why we think she's always yelling....




nahhhhh

BlaqueKnight said:

That's true, BUT the music industry promotes what the public wants. They follow the public.

Music industry didn't promote the psychedelic, the grunge, the gansta rap, the punk.

Music industry promotes what sells, and the public buys want they want.

If you are honest, you must question the tastes of young people.
[Edited 7/11/07 17:40pm]