Mastering, Compression etc..........

[theriskdude]

So, since joining AoS and making some improvements to my system, the thing that I now notice the most is the difference in quality of recordings. As we all know, they range from the exquisite to the downright un-listenable !

The one topic that I see mentioned often is the topic of bad "mastering" and the use of compression. Now I really don't understand what the purpose of mastering is and why it is becomes so critical, so would anyone be kind enough to explain this to me...do we have any recording/mastering engineers on here ?

I had assumed that compression is used when you have recording files that are essentially too large for CD (700Mb ?) and therefore need to be reduced...is this correct or have I got that all wrong. This is obviously a CD focused question, so how does this work in the vinyl world ? Also, are recordings mastered differently for the format they are intended for....for example if something was to be distributed by lossless download only with no size restrictions, would it naturally not need to be compressed ?

Lots of probably stupid questions to many of you, but I would love to understand this a bit more :scratch:

Cheers

Mike

[realysm42]

Compression in this context isn't about reducing the size of a file, it's a way of altering the way the recording sounds.

Compressed records sound louder, but at the loss of dynamic range (quiet being quiet, loud being LOUD). The thinking behind this is that if a song sound louder on the radio/whatever, people will notice it more and buy it.

Apparently there's no evidence to back this up.

Hope this helps a little.

[Stratmangler]

Compression in this context isn't about reducing the size of a file, it's a way of altering the way the recording sounds.

Compressed records sound louder, but at the loss of dynamic range (quiet being quiet, loud being LOUD). The thinking behind this is that if a song sound louder on the radio/whatever, people will notice it more and buy it.

Apparently there's no evidence to back this up.

Hope this helps a little.

That's not the way compression works.
Compression makes quiet parts louder, set to a predefined volume threshold.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it isn't always appropriate either.
Context is everything.

The problem with many modern commercial releases is that compression is used too heavily, and quieter sounds approach the level of loud ones.
That's then topped off with the use of a limiter, which stops the recording overloading.
Use of the limiter makes it possible to make the level of a recording as high as is technically possible without running into saturation at the input.

This leaves the recording lacking any dynamic worth talking about, and you end up with a loud noise.

[Macca]

Compression in terms of a recording is reducing the dynamic range i.e the difference between the loudest part of the recording and the quitest part. Recordings with a large dynamic range will sound excellent on your hi-fi but not so good on your car stereo or kitchen portable becasue the quiet bts will be so quiet you can't hear them whereas the louder parts may be so loud they will cause distortion on the crappy replay equipment.

It does have the effect of making some recordings unplayable on good equipment. personally I think the problem is more down to engineers not understanding how digital recording works than any deliberate attempt to tailor the sound. Recently a friend played me a mix that he is working on in a fancy studio in Manchester. Compressed to f**k with absolutely no dynamics. 'Is that what you asked for?' I said. 'I don't know' says he...

[Stratmangler]

This makes interesting reading http://sound.westhost.com/compression.htm

[Macca]

This makes interesting reading http://sound.westhost.com/compression.htm

really good article that Chris. I like this in particular:

'I don't want it to be "hot", I want it to sound the way it should, with real dynamics, soft and loud passages, and things that make me jump! Fortunately, I am not alone, but unfortunately, record companies are still producing material for people with crap systems - "Make it sound good on a crap system - we'll sell more". This is rubbish - people with only a boom box don't care that much, otherwise they would strive for something better'

I've been saying this for a long time - why tailor the sound to cater for someone who does not care what it sounds like. Utter stupidity.

[isuckedmandelsonslemons]

Mike, I share your pain. As an oddball who only listens to CDs I got more and more annoyed with bad recordings. That's why the Harry's A-Z list of good recordings came about. I can guarantee that all the CDs listed are good recordings and many of them are sublime.

As for the morons who churn out these shite recordings; hanging is too good for them.

[Audioman]

It's called the Loudness War. Unfortunately there are some engineers and artists who want their material to sound this way. Fortunately not the music I want to listen to in general. If there is a vinyl version, this is usualy lacking most of the problems, as usualy recordings are free from the worst compression until mastered to CD. Only problem some titles have lazily used what sounds like the CD master. Even if you don't subscribe to the superiority of vinyl sound the format is worth having to play listenable versions of newer releases as well as preserving AAA recordings.

[Rothchild]

http://turnmeup.org/

Nice little video about halfway down the page here that explains what you're hearing with an audio example.

If you want to get even further in to it this guy does a couple of really good lectures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhA7Vy3OPbc

[theriskdude]

Yes, thanks Marc - that video explains it perfectly. Fascinating topic.

What remains a mystery is why many artists themselves don't seem to dictate to the Mastering Engineers that they want to retain the dynamic range. I guess there are many examples out there, but the one that comes to mind for me is Rush. Their early albums (that I have on vinyl) are pretty good and yet since the advent of cd, they have had an appalling recorded sound. They have no need to chase "radio play" so don't need the misguided "loudness" and you would think could afford expert engineers that would advise them appropriately :mental:

[Haselsh1]

If you want to listen to a really good dynamic recording, try 'Morrocan Roll' by Brand X especially the track 'Hate Zone' and then listen again on vinyl. This will certainly prove quite a lot.

[SPS]

Yes, thanks Marc - that video explains it perfectly. Fascinating topic.

What remains a mystery is why many artists themselves don't seem to dictate to the Mastering Engineers that they want to retain the dynamic range. I guess there are many examples out there, but the one that comes to mind for me is Rush. Their early albums (that I have on vinyl) are pretty good and yet since the advent of cd, they have had an appalling recorded sound. They have no need to chase "radio play" so don't need the misguided "loudness" and you would think could afford expert engineers that would advise them appropriately :mental:

My understanding is that compression and the quality of the recorded material are two different things, the chances are when you play a cd, the one that sounds the loudest all the way through will have the most compression, I have have many CDs that are quite compressed and still sound very good.
As far as cd is concerned the output on the average cd playe/ dac is around 2 volts rms that is the envelope for the signal, the loudest music signal peak voltage has to fall at a level to achieve that, a good volt meter on the CD players output will usually show an average signal of much less than a volt, the more compressed the music the higher the average voltage can be, hence no one would really want their new recording to be relatively quiet. .
The others side to this is that when the music is very dymamic (and as is in low compression has been used)' the average volume is quieter, so the volume of your hi fi has to be turned up to compensate, to enable the average listening level to be at a reasonable volume, the loud passages are then going to be much louder, and with the average system likely not to sound very clean reproducing these peaks,
imagine recording compressed to 30 DBS, the average listening say around 85-90 DBS the peaks would then be 100-105 DBS, to loud for many, where as the average compression of 5 to 15 DBS reduces the volume in those peaks to a lounge friendly level.
In my experence the average low fi hi fi system struggles to reproduce the dymamincs of the relatively low compressed recordings anyway

Compression has, and has been always been used in almost every recording you are likely to hear since the mid 50's, as chris says above its all about getting a balance... What ever that may be....

Now the other thing I would say is that the average higher volume (compressed) sounds so much more detailed on the average system

[Rothchild]

You might be surprised to learn that actually (pre loudness wars) Vinyl records traditionally would have less dynamic range that CDs (in order to keep the needle in the groove).

CDs were seen as a revelation because the possible dynamic range available meant that the noise floor could be held so much lower, this has become even more true with the advent of 24bit recording (theoretical range of 144dB vs 96dB at 16bit). This means that a 24bit signal can actually carry appropriate data to represent a sound that is quieter than you can hear up to one that's louder than you can tollerate!

Somewhat like distortion, dynamic range compression can be both used and abused, tape and valve saturation (and distortion for that matter) are all forms of dynamic range compression and some devices are extremely sought after for that effect in particular. Depending what sort of music you like will probably sway your judgement as to how much (or if any at all) is too much!

As for the fashion of smashing the two track in to the final 3dB of headroom, I'm not wholey sure (it's a much debated holy war) some of it is almost certainly a hangover from analogue recording techniques being using in the digital domain even if they weren't neccessarily appropriate.

I read a quite convincing claim that it was lead out by the guy who made Oasis 'What's the story..' who demanded that the master be put down to DAT with 'the red lights on all the time' (ie digitally clipped to fu&*), the story goes that when the masters were sent to the States for duplication they were very nearly sent back as defective, but they ran with it and within a month all masters were being pushed out through clipped converters. (subsequent to that clever people like Thomas Lund (previously linked) came up with devices like the TC Finaliser and Waves L1 limiter which would allow you to smash your recordings in to the final few dB of headroom from the comfort of your own studio - which makes it quite ironic that he's now championing EBU R128, LUFS and other loudness standardisation mechanisms!).

For further insight (and an interesting list of records to check out) see: http://www.digido.com/media/honor-roll.html

[AlexM]

A good list there.

For demonstrating dynamics I quite like 'Warning' by Billy Cobham. Its an early digital recording on GRP records, mastered to show off the dynamic range available on a DDD recording.

The power of the snare rolls and floor tom hits are quite something on a system that has the power available to not compress the peak levels, assuming a relatively high average volume setting. I never find myself going 'wow' when listening to any recording with a 3db dynamic range, but many musicians want it mixed and mastered that way to hide the fact that they aren't actually very good erm ... Musicians and can't Make proper use of dynamic contrast in their compositions anyway.

Cheers,
Alex

[theriskdude]

So, i've been surfing around trying to understand more about this and one thing that is absolutely clear to me is the huge difference of opinion regarding the merits of particular mastering engineers and the listening public.

I came across a useful website called http://www.allmusic.com/ where you can search by artist, engineer or album title and get all of the credits for the cd, including the mastering engineer. This led me to look into the work of Bob Ludwig who has won Grammy's for his work and has a massive list of credits. If you google him you can find various YouTube clips of him speaking about "loudness wars". You can do the same for many other engineers who make the case against loudness. It remains a mystery as why when so any engineers speak out against this that it continues to happen.

One in particular is a guy called Brian Gardner who has mastered some of Rush's more recent albums (including the most recent "Clockwork Angels"). He is reputed to be a great engineer with constant chart success credits. In one interview he talks about the making of "Clockwork Angels":

http://www.audio-times.com/audiotimes/2012/07/01/brian-gardner-on-mastering-the-new-rush-clockwork-angels-album/

What is interesting are the comments beneath the interview where a number fans continue to criticise the mastering, as they have done for many Rush albums.

I remain intrigued as to why a highly respected engineer (like many of them it seems) seems to think he has a wonderfully mastered album when the listening public seem to disagree :scratch:

Mike

[John]

Totally agree about Rush recordings
Listen to A Farewell to the Kings on Vinyl and the sound is awesome but latter recordings do not always manage to capture this magic and its not like Rush will ever get a lot of Radio air play.

[Stratmangler]

I remain intrigued as to why a highly respected engineer (like many of them it seems) seems to think he has a wonderfully mastered album when the listening public seem to disagree :scratch:

He may well have done a fantastic job of the album before he signed off the project.

The problems start to occur with the production mastering for CD, DVD etc, and it's usually out of the original recording engineer's hands.
Record company instructions control this vital stage, and don't for one second think that your average record label gives a damn about it.

[theriskdude]

Totally agree about Rush recordings
Listen to A Farewell to the Kings on Vinyl and the sound is awesome but latter recordings do not always manage to capture this magic and its not like Rush will ever get a lot of Radio air play.

I've always thought of FTK as the probably the best recorded of all their albums. I have both vinyl and and the remastered cd and there
is no doubt the vinyl version is superior.

I just don't get why (when they have set a standard with an album like that) that so many others fall below that standard. As Stratmangler said, it must be out of their hands.

[theriskdude]

So, a couple more questions:

What is the difference between "mastering" and "production mastering" ?

I have a lot of recordings from independent artists, the quality of which is generally pretty good. It tends to be those recordings from major artists/labels that disappoint. Does this mean that the indies have more control over the producers, engineers and have final say on the output, where those with major labels don't ?

Mike


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[DSJR]

If you want to listen to a really good dynamic recording, try 'Morrocan Roll' by Brand X especially the track 'Hate Zone' and then listen again on vinyl. This will certainly prove quite a lot.

The CD transfers on all original Brand X albums were done straight without listening I think. I did hear a couple of their tracks off master copies and yes, there is a very definite snappy multi-mono production on most of them, and with a sounstage very flat and "small" too. The LP's do seem to bloom it all out nicely, but the unflattering CD's are probably how the masters really are I strongly suspect. I'd love to hear a sympathetic restorative remaster though, bitmapped and with optimised levels, but I doubt the prospective sales would allow the money to be spent.

[Stratmangler]

What is the difference between "mastering" and "production mastering" ?

The initial mastering is the recording and mixdown of the album.

Production mastering is when the album is prepared for CD/LP production.
It's usually at this latter stage that things get screwed up, under instruction from the customer (generally The Record Company).

Most artists want their material to sound as good as possible.
Most record companys don't give a rat's ass about things sounding good.
So the initial mastering sounds good, and the production mastering not necessarily so.

[DSJR]

The thing is, all recordings made for domestic consumption have compression of whatever sort in them, BUT, the fine line is between getting greater intimacy between the musicians and listener and overdoing it so the sound becomes squashed and flat in all ways. THIS is what separates a good mastering engineer from an idiot who doesn't give a sh*t.

Sometimes, the artist themselves will get involved and may even have better untouched masters of either the individual tracks, from which a new album compilation can be constructed, or even better album masters, the record company having been presented with copies of these.

One pair of CD issues I shall be getting as soon as possible is the re-issued Blue Nile Linn albums, which have been re-done from scratch (sorry) by the original engineer. I was privileged to hear some of the "Walk Across The Rooftops" master tracks (30IPS no noise reduction and on half inch tape) before release and they sounded absolutely amazing. The vinyl was ok and the CD thin toned for whatever reason (the title track of WATR on a "Q" sampler taken from a 15IPS 1/4" copy sounded better if hissier), but by all accounts these remastered tracks sound incredible.