Article: Dynamic Range: No Quiet = No Loud

[mitchco]

View full article

[mitchco]

23 hours ago, MarkS said:

One of the best pieces I've read at this site, and one of the most depressing too!

Thanks Mark, I appreciate both of your comments. I tried not to be too glib, but I feel it is the #1 issue in mainstream music today.

[mitchco]

18 hours ago, esldude said:

Par for the course for Mitchco.  Of course Mitcho is playing from pro tees and par is a darned good result.  Very nice article as usual. 

 

In my limited experience recordings are not too terribly compromised when you get DR12 (yes a generalization).  Yet they are in a condition where you can enjoy them in a moving car or similar conditions.  Of course they get better when you start getting DR15 scores.  Your writing makes me think that is more or less in agreement with your thinking on this.

 

Thanks for the work that went into the article.

Thanks and good to hear from you Dennis. I agree.

[mitchco]

Thanks @jimf42, @svrit-hvitt, @PeterG for your comments. @Mike27, agreed, I have had similar declipping results from a peak limiting perspective. Unfortunately, it seems like everything is also (over) compressed.

[mitchco]

11 hours ago, AlexMetalFi said:

Great article Mitch! I actually have a follow-up to mine that ties in with yours!

 

Thanks Alex, looking forward to your next article.

 

 

[mitchco]

23 hours ago, Archimago said:

Wow. Great article as usual Mitch! Really appreciate you sharing of experience as well as the pictures of the Old-Skool gear from the studio. Nice to see the old PCM vs. tape comparisons!

 

It really is sad how unfortunate it has become that music production has over time stooped down to truly the very lowest "common denominator". The unsophisticated concept of "louder sounds better" presumably for just the psychological reason of catching people's attention between songs on radio (and streaming these days). Such desperation for whatever perceived "edge" this gives that whatever joy and value the music itself could have truly expressed becomes sacrificed on the altar of misguided popularity. Even if this worked (ie. the loud mastering gets a number of folks to click "Buy" on their iTunes for 99 cents), it would be yet another example of short-term gain at the expense of long-term enjoyment. It really is a sad reminder of how disposable music has become and such disrespect for the art form.

 

I also like your reminder that music production takes skill and experience. After 20+ years of MAKE IT LOUD ALL THE TIME music, there are a lot of studio conventions/habits to overcome I suspect! Just like how gradually the sound has shifted over the years, it might take the next generation of audio engineers as well as assertive musicians, and educated consumers to work together to turn this around. Who knows, given the cycles in society, maybe we're finally due for artists/producers/engineers to step forth and rebel against the ugly practices of so many years in the rock/pop/blues/alt/metal/country genres.

 

Sadly, with all the high-resolution equipment we have at our disposal these days, the blatant disregard for quality reminds me of the proverbial casting of "pearls before the swine". Not only could this be fueling the rise of the LP (not in itself a bad thing per se... just not really high fidelity by digital standards...), but perhaps ultimately also the inexorable decline of the recording industry for not producing engaging music by their self-inflicted degradation of the very product they're peddling.

 

By the way... Anyone tried the automated mastering software LANDR? Any chance a machine can be taught to be judicious and spare the dynamic range? :-)

 

Hey Arch, good to hear from you and thanks. One has a slightly different view when sitting in the mixing or mastering chair, especially when comparing ones own mix/master to other competitive mixes/masters. Also, our ears seem to be attracted to compression like candy. But too much and one gets sick.

 

Bob Katz's AES article on An Integrated Approach to Metering, Monitoring, and Levelling Practices has everything one needs to produce a dynamic mix and master. I think it makes good sense and my sound reproduction system is calibrated in this way. Not sure why the industry has not adopted en masse, as the process will produce a better quality and more dynamic sound for the music lover.

 

Keep up the good writings Archimago.

[mitchco]

@Booster MPS Thanks for your comment. That was one of my goals. @mkrzych yes, crying shame man. @mav52 - thanks mav, in the  Obsession with Compression article, "there is no evidence of any significant correlation between loudness (& implied compression) and commercial success"  Given the success of Back In Black referenced in the article, which is not hyper-compressed, one has to wonder what is going on in in the recording, mixing and mastering industry...

[mitchco]

@freddie40 Very interesting. How many of those are non-classical? I did something similar in JRiver. Made a playlist with everything I have that is classified as rock, blues, alt, etc., but contains no classical or jazz type recordings. Sorted by DR with a total of 16,564 titles. DR11 or less = 13,106. About 20% of my collection is DR12 or greater.

[mitchco]

Hi Dave, I sorted on DR10 or less = 11,390 titles, which is a about 70% of my collection. Cheers, Mitch

[mitchco]

@ednaz As mentioned in the article, mastering engineer, Bob Katz has an excellent article on an integrated approach to metering, monitoring and leveling practices. This helps answer both at what listening level one wants to be listening to, plus the addressing dynamic range issue. Highly recommended for you and your recording friend.

[mitchco]

Hi Andy, thanks for your comment. For the article, I arbitrarily chose crest factor DR to get the point across about overly compressed sound, with a handy database to compare. Interesting example you have there Let me give it some thought for a potential follow-up article. Cheers!  Mitch

[mitchco]

Hello @cdnguy, thanks for your comment. You may have missed this sentence in my article, "I am not saying that dynamic range is the end all beat all attribute that determines the overall enjoyment of a musical piece, but there is a minimum bar that should be met on any musical piece."

 

Of course there are other factors. In the case of the CCR double disc, which I own and have played to death, the mix and master is indeed "flat" or in record production terms, "dry".  I had asked a remastering engineer from HDTracks, who got the 1/2" CCR analog tapes, what he was planning on doing to give the mix more depth and there was not much that can be done as the recording is generally bright sounding, with little depth (i.e. delay and reverb in production terms), and already printed to tape. So frequency response shaping and effects also play a role in how a mix/master sounds.

 

Dynamic range compression is "candy" to our ears. A little bit generally tastes good, too much and ... is my point.