Mastered For iTunes (When You Thought It Couldn't Get Any Worse)

Rich- <br />

<br />

"if RHCP decided that their newest work of art would be designed that way, no one is entitled to comment....When I receive a letter I focus on the message, not on the paper and the ink that were used to write that letter."<br />

<br />

Sorry, that has to be one of the silliest statements I've ever read.<br />

<br />

So we're allowed to spend money on it, but not comment?<br />

<br />

Of course we are all entitled to comment, and should. Comments inform others, generate discussion and thought, and help others make buying decisions. Vital to both democracy and a properly functioning free market.<br />

<br />

Any artist who doesn't want his work commented on is free to lock it away in a vault and not release it. Once it's put out, anyone who wants to can and should comment. Hopefully comments will be well thought out, as Chris' comments about audio quality certainly were.<br />

<br />

And BTW, if Metallica "chooses" this kind of high volume compression for their work, they deserve every bit of criticism they get. Extreme volume compression destroys subtleties in music and eliminates just the elements in music that make it emotionally expressive. In your metaphorical phrasing it "changes the text" and not just the "ink and paper" of the "letter". (And besides, it gives me a headache. Literally. If that's not changing the message, I don't know what is.)<br />

<br />

Only someone who has no regard for his work as art, and is only in it for the money, would deliberately choose such a sound.<br />

<br />

And to other posters, yes compression has always been used. But the use of it is qualitatively different since the mid 90's than it was before. When LP was the dominant medium, compression was used so that needles wouldn't get bounced out of grooves on an LP, as well as to overcome other limitations of the the medium itself. But until the mid 90's compression was generally applied in order to improve the sound and make what the end user heard "sound better". Since the mid 90's compression has been used in the "Loudness Wars" - no one who uses the unnecessary and heavy compression really thinks they are making the music sound better, i.e., improving its quality. They are quite aware that they are engaging in a volume "arms race", in which quality is an afterthought. <br />

<br />

If you don't think this is true, compare some of your 80's and early 90's CDs to some of the "modern" remasters with heavy volume compression. The subtleties have been removed. Somehow 20 years ago the CD medium didn't require heavy compression, and today it does? I don't think so.<br />

<br />

And finally, the fact that audiophiles are 1% of the market should have nothing to do with this. Albums without heavy compression can actually be listened to with GREATER perceived volume - just turn the volume up. The added dynamics without the extra compression accentuate the percieved differences between the softer and louder parts of the music. So again, the rationale behind the volume wars is false, but almost everyone in the popular music industry is afraid to admit it.

Hi Firedog.<br />

<br />

This is an interesting debate.<br />

<br />

I think that we disagree because we have different approach to music. You seem to listen to music with a musician's ear, visualizing the partition and imagining the instrument playing.<br />

<br />

I am more into exploration of sound. The question that interests me is " What kind of feelings and ambience can one create by using sound?".<br />

<br />

Maybe you are right, and RHCP botched the job and massacred their album only to sell more records to a broader audience.<br />

<br />

But maybe they used high compression an experiment, as a tool used to design their work of art, to obtain a particular sound as a result, the way the Tarantino "grindhouse" films have obvious grain, technical errors and voluntary bad actor performances. The end result is a unique film and what could be seen as flaws are actually part of the work and have their own meaning within the film. Isn't Tarantino a well-respected professional?<br />

<br />

As to the "no one is entitled to comment' comment, maybe I went a little too fast. This is a whole debate by itself. However most artists I have an interest in have a "take it or leave it" attitude.<br />

<br />

However I might want recorded music to sound, there is a new generation of consumers with a different aesthetic than mine. Every poor schmuck running a recording studio will have to keep up with all the latest idiocies from the recorded sound that sells. Slapping on heavy compression and various other "enhancements" makes a nobody sound like a somebody. And it's the nobodies who pay the bills for the poor schmucks.<br />

<br />

Ear fatigue ? No, culture fatigue.

<i>Albums without heavy compression can actually be listened to with GREATER perceived volume - just turn the volume up.</i><br />

<br />

Unfortunately for those of us who mostly dislike the loudness wars (why "mostly," I'll get to in a second), the fact that music with wide dynamic range can turned up is immaterial.<br />

<br />

The timing of the loudness wars is no accident. It accompanies a move toward mobility and convenience in music listening, mp3 downloads as the dominant way of getting new music, melody and lyrics as more of a style statement than earnest expression, and as a corollary of all this, music as a sort of background tape to your life rather than something you want to pay close attention to. Wide dynamic range - music that's too soft to be heard against all the background one moment, then loud enough to distract you from what else you're doing the next - is inimical to all of this. For the purposes it's being used for, it is preferable that modern popular music stay within a fairly narrow, constant dynamic range. <br />

<br />

I understand this decreases the opportunity for emotional expressiveness, unless your preferred emotional expression is to pull up next to me at a stop light and rattle my windows with your VW-sized bass boxes.<br />

<br />

And "mostly"? Well, I do like to drown out the sound of the riding mower with in-ear headphones connected to my iPhone, and if the music gets too soft.... ;-)

heycarlos,<br />

<br />

Thank you for injecting a clarifying perspective on the chatter going on about Rick Rubin (whose work I am not even familiar with). I am not entering the arena of specificity about the merits or lack of in Rick Rubins work or the rightness (is that a word?) of what one thinks about the quality of another person's work. Rather, I am appreciating the balance by way of an awareness that is mindful of what we communicate to the world and being responsible for what one is open to receive and free to give. Frankly, opinions one way or the other are not substitutes for the truth of what a person is or does.<br />

<br />

Are we a passionate group in the pursuit of excellence? I think so. As humans in training we have different models of the world. Lets also be both empathic and validating so the arena of discussion invites. Between Truth and Change, the only true constant is Change and Truth is in the service of Change. Ask Galileo about his "review" by The Church of Rome.<br />

<br />

Appreciate the pursuit. Remember the scene in Amadeus when the Emperor tells Mozart there are too many notes? And Mozart's reply: (paraphrasing) which notes should I remove?<br />

<br />

Best,<br />

Richard

I'd have to agree with Jud. Most people do not listen to music, but hear it as a background soundtrack to their lives. Besides, we are talking about the RHCP, whom resorted to dropping trou onstage to be noticed or make an impact. Them wanting to "break through" using compression makes perfect sense to me.

So, you're a recording artist. You have a choice, optimize for the many millions of iTunes customers, or optimize for a handful of purists who aren't even in your target demographic. I can be a purist at home, but if I'm rich I've got a much nicer home. What would you pick?

Connaker! Why did you have to go and throw out the tease that this mastered for iTunes hogwash might have something to do with iTunes going hi-rez in September!!!<br />

<br />

Let's not even feed that rumor!<br />

<br />

Bill

Yes, heavy compression makes sense for listening in a car<br />

<br />

No, heavy compression does not make sense for listening through headphones/Ipod: headphone users do not need compression.<br />

<br />

Yes, many people listen to music as background, and actual listening is rare. Unfortunately this practice is even true at many live concerts, where concert goers often insist on chattering away with their friends discussing who knows what, and and playing with their cell phones. Robert Fripp, guitarist, and leader of King Crimson, has retired from playing live music, mostly becuase he feels there is little chance of getting an attentive audience which he feels is necessary if the live music playing is going to succeed.<br />

<br />

Musicians are often not responsible for the heavy compression applied to their work. Do not believe that all musicians actually want this, most often they are forced by the evil overlord (the record company) and its minions (the producers). More often than not, the final compressed "product" is not the result of the musical intentions of the musician(s), but is out of their control.<br />

<br />

The irony is, heavy compression may actually be partly responsible for peoples' current lack of listening attention-who wants to sit down and listen to something closely that lacks dynamic expression and musical detail? Because of this we should continue to lobby the record companies, producers, recording engineers, and anyone we can get to listen, against heavy use of compression-if anyone reading this thread has contacts, or ideas, of how to be active in this area, please start a thread on that topic so we can band together and fight back.<br />

<br />

Also note, there is a glimmer of hope. There are groups of young people who buy, and listen, to vinyl. The very act of playing vinyl demands a considered listening approach.

Both of course - it is a digital world and much easier to have "special editions" available at twice the price than it was 50 years ago. <br />

<br />

-Paul<br />

<i>Besides, we are talking about the RHCP, whom resorted to dropping trou onstage</i><br />

<br />

When I saw 'em (in Oklahoma City, no less), there wasn't a trou to drop 'mongst the entire group. All except Flea (the bassist) were equipped solely with jockstraps and socks. Flea had 3 socks; 2 were for his feet.<br />

<br />

(By the way, if you've ever read interviews with Flea, you know that besides being a very talented bassist, he's an extremely intelligent guy who gives long, considered answers. Surprised me coming from a guy I'd seen jumping around for a couple of hours in 3 socks.)

I'm sure it all comes down to the Studio worrying that allowing CD Quality DL will destroy the already Dead Audio CD Market, what I cannot figure out is why they have'nt embraced this happenning. If they figure most people are using their music on Portable devices, it's gotta be cheaper to produce that then a physical disk. Look at the ebook market, the cost of an ebook is the same as the Dead tree version, which has gotta be cheaper to produce? Which has more profit? Itunes could allow much like HDtracks which version the user wants to DL thru Itunes, he can keep DL the Itunes Plus 256vbr version if he has limited space, or an option for an Apple Lossless or AIFF version.

You can Join to lend your support here:<br />

<br />

http://turnmeup.org/index.shtml<br />

<br />

I just started a thread on the topic for anyone who cares here:<br />

<br />

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Stop-Loudness-Wars<br />

<br />

Cheers,<br />

<br />

Bill<br />

<i>Rich- "But maybe they used high compression an experiment, as a tool used to design their work of art, to obtain a particular sound as a result, the way the Tarantino "grindhouse" films have obvious grain, technical errors and voluntary bad actor performances"</i><br />

<br />

Okay, possible, but I don't really buy it. Why? Because even artists like Paul Simon and Paul McCartney have done it on their most recent albums. Their music certainly doesn't demand it for artistic reasons. So chances are they are just afraid not to, like Metallica and 99% of the other artists, and are doing it for the money. They are afraid to test an album without high levels of compression - too afraid it will hurt sales if they don't over compress. <br />

<br />

<br />

and Kepler:<i>"Every poor schmuck running a recording studio will have to keep up with all the latest idiocies from the recorded sound that sells. Slapping on heavy compression and various other "enhancements" makes a nobody sound like a somebody."</i><br />

<br />

Except that when everybody does it, it doesn't distinguish you and doesn't make an artistic statement. <br />

<br />

from Jud: <i>"The timing of the loudness wars is no accident. It accompanies a move toward mobility and convenience in music listening, mp3 downloads as the dominant way of getting new music, melody and lyrics as more of a style statement than earnest expression, and as a corollary of all this, music as a sort of background tape to your life rather than something you want to pay close attention to. Wide dynamic range - music that's too soft to be heard against all the background one moment, then loud enough to distract you from what else you're doing the next - is inimical to all of this. For the purposes it's being used for, it is preferable that modern popular music stay within a fairly narrow, constant dynamic range."</i><br />

<br />

Okay, something to this argument. But again, it doesn't really apply to an artist like Paul Simon. He damages his art by doing it. His most recent album simply sounds awful, IMO. Won't listen to it.<br />

<br />

And the 2009 Beatles remasters (stereo) had only slight added compression, and sounded "up to date". I didn't hear complaints that people didn't want them on their iPods because they weren't loud enough.<br />

<br />

Again, I'm not against some moderate compression, just against the extreme compression that is becoming more and more fashionable the last few years. Jud, assuming your argument is correct, then why is the added compression of 1995 or even 2005 not enough today? That's why they call it the "Volume Wars" - its a parallel to an arms race, where the volume keeps getting turned up and up, for no real reason.<br />

<br />

In addition, if music companies want to apply high compression to mp3s, then maybe there is a case for it. But why market only the highly compressed version? I've already heard hi-res versions of albums with extreme compression. Why? Those aren't bought to be heard as background music, or mostly on iPods.<br />

<br />

Record companies already make multiple mixes of many releases, and having an "uncompressed" version sitting on a server costs them very little. They could sell it to us 1% of the market who want it at a premium and make money. They could market discs with both versions on one disc. Might help CD sales a bit. A few artists have already done this, by the way. The recent Apple remasters of the Harrison and McCartney solo albums are an example.

I must say that your arguments are seducing. Why don't artists say anything? <br />

I didn't think studio execs had such contempt for artists, and I would have thought that a goldmine such as Mc Cartney, famous as he is for giving out to everyone about everything, would be in a position to request things from the studio, and not the other way round.<br />

<br />

I'm puzzled.

If you have a few minutes, here's a nice little article:<br />

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122114058

I too have a hard time imagining that a band such as RHCP does not some some control over this stuff...

Jud wrote: <i> The timing of the loudness wars is no accident. It accompanies a move toward mobility and convenience in music listening....<i> <br />

<br />

I maintain it has nothing to do with MP3s, iPods, mobility, digital download convenience, etc. The same factors apply today as in 1950 for jukeboxes, or AM radio in the car; ditto for the Walkman era, when we used headphones & earbuds out on the street without nearly the sound isolation we have today. Producers have wanted more compression for decades, but they couldn't have it. Why? Compression technology wasn't as good.<br />

<br />

Not so long ago the best compressors in pro studios used tubes. At a certain point, the sound got distorted & fuzzy as excessive compression was applied. There was a limit on what an engineer could do. But over the last 15 years digital compressor/limiters have gotten so good that there is essentially no limit on how much the dynamic range can be restricted. The only limit is taste, which is in short supply.<br />

<br />

Take care -- Mark B

As far as I've understood it the main reason for global compression was radio transmission. Both FM and AM radios tend to to keep the signal better intact if it's of a narrower dynamic range. Surely as mentioned it will have something to do with the constant desire to achieve the "perfect compression" and then going a wee bit over the edge but I wouldn't say that good recording engineers (nowadays or years ago) would consider such overly compressed junk as good sounding. I am thus still convinced that the main fault lies in greedy executives and marketing strategies. Basically all the commercial music I listen to is at least 10 years old. Of all the new stuff I listen to it's usually some underground releases which are mostly for free. I am convinced that to produce music as an art nowadays you have to give it away for free or pull off one helluva balancing act between quality and executive wishes. The last album that managed to pull this off perfectly in my opinion is Roxy Music's "Avalon", the rest was either commercially unsuccessful or very obviously made with the single purpose of generating money. With that said I am obviously grateful for any suggestions in the vein of "Avalon"

Jumbo Shrimp...<br />

<br />

Military Intelligence....<br />

<br />

iTunes Sound Quality...<br />

<br />

people we aren't going down this road again are we??....<br />

<br />

<br />

JP

Paul,<br />

<br />

you have hit the nail straight on the head once again.<br />

<br />

and if you hadn't have said it first i'd had said the same myself!<br />

<br />

JP

That NPR story is all over the place. <br />

<br />

Doesn't understand the difference between file compression and volume compression. Mixes the two up. Either the reporter wasn't too good or his editor is a dolt. Maybe both.

<i>"In addition, if music companies want to apply high compression to mp3s, then maybe there is a case for it. But why market only the highly compressed version? I've already heard hi-res versions of albums with extreme compression. Why? Those aren't bought to be heard as background music, or mostly on iPods."</i><br />

<br />

After the hi-res music market is saturated with loudness war hi-res, the same music can be sold all over again to the same customers, but with less dynamic compression.<br />

Someone hit the mark. When I can, I take the time to listen to the sound quality. My wife is content to sing along and could certainly care less if the speakers cost $10 or $10,000. My daughter will walk around the house listening to music through the speaker on her Touch, in which case I would almost rather not listen at all.<br />

<br />

I recently bought "Get Better Sound" to learn and get the most from my paltry system. I'm glad to say the changes I made were positive. Again, spouse and daughter chuckled when I was measuring, listening, and repositioning.<br />

<br />

I will not buy lossy music, but who cares since I/we are in the minority.

There is some good music in the commercial rock vein coming out these days that is made with artistic integrity and not with $ as the primary/only goal:<br />

Robert Plant's last two albums: Band of Joy, and the Raising Sand collaboration with Alison Krauss come immediately to mind. If all RP was interested in was making money, he would accepted the chance to revive Led Zeppelin and cashed in huge.<br />

Shelby Lynne's last two albums: Just A Little Lovin', and Tears Lies and Alibis, were made with artistic integrity. the work of bands like Nine Inch Nails, and TOOL, are not compromised.<br />

And then there are the smaller artists, Adrian Belew comes immediately to mind.<br />

I am sure there are many more examples. Now, if you are talking about the big dogs (like that whiny U2 copy band, Coldplay) that is another story...