I’ve commented on this video before on Octave’s channel but I highly highly recommend anyone watching Rick Beato’s TH-cam video called “How the Pros use Compression” and also interviews of Jack Joseph Puig talking about the “Art of Compression. Your eyes will be opened immensely
Exactly! JJP is a true master when it comes to anything audio. Compressors get a bad rap, because they were initially created to even out volume, but that's rarely how they are used today. The art of compression by JJP explains everything perfectly. Long story short, even the most prestine recordings have compressors engaged at various stages in the recording, mixing and mastering process. Nowadays we even have limiters that sound very transparent.
I think most music is recorded to be background music often targeting the mobile listener. If you are in a car, on a motorcycle, running or working out in a gym, you want every note to be the same loudness to rise over the background noise. In a dedicated audiophile listening session we want to strain a little to hear the subtle nuances and then be shocked by the explosive elements. Sadly, we are the smaller market. Thank heavens for labels like Octave.
Perhaps it's a vicious circle, the more people listen to music on portable devices, the more compressed recordings will become, the more compressed the recordings, the smaller the difference between hi fi and low fi, the less people will bother with hi fi, the more people will listen to portables.....
99% of the time people complain about "overcompression", the thing that is actually bothering them is too much softclipping and brickwall limiting, not the actual compression. Compression is such a versatile tool, and more than just a thing that makes things "louder". It can be used for artistic effects, to gel two tracks together, to increase or decrease the transients, and altering the release of a sound.
Paul I love you, the issue is all the producers and artists themselves, just dont care about "music" the same as us. thats why audiophile is such a thing. because dark side of the moon - isnt just a live performance captured perfectly - replayed in a good system for a live experience. Great music is a total package - mixed and mastered and putting the right stuff in the first place. creates a truly timeless experience. artist are too busy driving around their fast cars to even listen to the final cut of their own songs these days....
"artists themselves, just dont care about "music" the same as us. ... artist are too busy driving around their fast cars to even listen to the final cut" - stereotype much?
I've been to several Pink Floyd live concerts. ANYTHING Pink Floyd on CDs, SACDs, vinyl, modern streaming or even cassette sounds better from my experience than their live concerts. Perhaps those super popular artists are too busy but they also tend to hear their own music with a terrible distortion and compression cause that's how they usually experience it at their large concerts. The notion that "live sounding" is a great one is almost 100% false. My preference is music carefully crafted in a studio allowing fine details to thrive.
Anyone here listen to Tool? Cd's are mixed very well. And concert experience is amazing. They care, one of the few bands that make art and music one thing. Even the packaging of their CDs is art.
I purchased Gabriel Mervine's Say Somethin’ on vinyl and the DSD down load. It is a very special and wonderful recording. It's interesting, I had a few audiophile friends over to listen and compare the album to the DSD version. In the end we all agreed we liked the album version better. It seemed to have an ever so slightly more natural sound to it.
So, you bought the album in 2 formats, vinyl & dsd download. Next you compared the formats. You told us you liked the 'album' better. I'll assume you meant you preferred the album on vinyl.
@@googoo-gjoob the album is, in modern parlance, the collection of songs. Formerly, in the days of 78s, several records were contained within an album, a physical container not unlike a photograph album...particularly when it came to "classical" works that didn't fir the 3minish format of a 78.
Sound on Sound did an interesting study into how dynamic range has changed with the prevalence of higher compression in popular recordings. Counterintuitively, dynamic range did not decrease over the decades.
@@TheDanEdwards You should familiarize yourself with the "loudness wars" and read the article to understand the issue and what was found in their study.
i use dsp's for "decompressing" my files a bit in cases of heavy compression. even one more decibel of greater dynamic range can do a lot. that of course is digital guesstimation and moves further from the source, although in these cases its more benefitial than harmfull: - loudness lowering - harmonic extrapolation for highs and bass - an additive multiband compressor that accentuates transients - in bad cases: a audio-forensic declipping algorythm - in worse cases: a noisegate. the result has little to do with how the song would have sounded before compression, but is often more enjoyable than the squished audio.
As some of you may already know .. I am a recording engineer ... and this topic of compression and auto levelling , limiting and contrast expansion always comes up when I meet or even work with fellow engineers . As Paul says it's a very fine art of handling certain passages of music in order to relive their original sound ... we have to deal with losses and artifacts all along the recording route and end up ( hopefully ) with the original sound in all its glory ! But we have a final snag .... and this has been bugging me all the time ... this is the problem of playback facilities.... some listeners might have a setup like PS audio's IRS 5 system and associated amps etc and some ( and the majority) people will only have humble cheap systems with cheap speakers and poor performance amplifiers.... now ... if the latter system was fed with a recording which was just like the original .. with totally uncompressed dynamic range ... then the cheap system would soon self destruct... PS Audio's system would live another day ! That's the dilemma we face .. I'd like to see recordings made available in two categories... one for cheap setups and the other " real " recordings for top end or professional setups .
Tottaly agree with you.. that's the reason I love that special editions of old, such as DVD Audio, DTS CD etc etc. Not sure if the mastering works are different, but that's clearly about having two versions for different level of playback equipment
Oh dear. A recording engineer worth their salt knows exactly how to produce their recordings to work across the entire spectrum of end-user set-ups. The idea that there should be two separate masterings to meet "top end" and "cheap" set-ups is utter nonsense. No so-called "cheap" set-up (by the way, that's an entirely uncalled-for derisive term) would self-destruct by being fed uncompressed dynamic range; what an absurd and unnecessary claim. This kind of divisive comment is precisely why people are turned off exploring high end audio.
@@richardt3371 Oh dear oh dear .... I despare.... Have you not heard of ( and truly understand too..) exactly what dynamic range is ? I'm not diminishing or deriding cheaper setups at all ... you didn't understand what I was talking about obviously ... decent ( inc high end ) set ups are expensive ok ..? So therefore the majority of people will purchase this class of equipment.. also the majority of people don't give a rat's about frequency responses, phase response or group delay and decay plots ... so it's back to the recordings now .... they want to sell them right ? So it's no good playing uncompressed audio on a system that can't handle peak demands adequately... things will break ...! It's similar to driving a Mini down a very rocky road versus a big 4WD vehicle with heaps of clearance ...
@@janinapalmer8368 Bless you. I've been working in the industry for 30 years, working on concert halls and venues, and have worked with enough engineers and studios to have *some* concept of dynamic range and the limitations of systems. Your dramatic "things will break!" shows an inherent misunderstanding of how systems wouldn't, in real life, break due to uncompressed audio. Seems someone needs to step outside their booth sometime to avoid despair (or despare, if that's different).
The other problem that I think I’m seeing is that recording engineers have to “compensate” for listening equipment that can’t handle uncompressed music - such as - cheap portable music players.
Yes. Sometimes I listened Linda Rondstadt & Nelson Riddle's 'For Sentimental reason ' album , one of the best recording ever make _ in my boombox, and I almost cannot hear anything ..
@@Velodynamic A car cabin is acoustically difficult considering reflections but it's also an environment where you can fine tune it much more precisely than what is realistic with some generic home system in a particular room. And nowadays with electric cars, you can also achieve a high dynamic range with low noise (no gas engine noise).
@@ThinkingBetter no tuning can fix the left front position of the driver - different timing of of reflections as well as direct sound - but yes you can have good hifi in a car, I had the days back
INTERESTING facts to come out of Salford University this year...compression is used as a art tool...People prefer about 20% music compression... Phil Collins famous drum segment has 90% compression... Talking heads are the only band to release a single that increases in volume throughout the entire record using 'compression' and 'crashing'... Oasis released a single that used 100% compression from start to end...Best decade for low compression, the 80s...
Paul, there is clipping in commercial recorded music. It's easy to see it if you make a digital extraction of a track from a commercial CD of modern music or a new remaster of an older album. You can open the file in SoundForge or Audacity, zoom and observe the waveform. You can see that in many recordings the peaks are clipped, having a flat top, missing the upper part. And sometimes this happens even if those peaks don't hit the maximum level!!! During the mixing or the remastering those peaks clipped and the recording engineer lowered the level by 0.1 dB so even if they don't hit the maximum level the clipping remains. Disaster!
You've given into the dark side once you start adding compression because you think it "sounds better." Either Octave is in the audiophile recording business or they're not. First it's a "little compression," then some "light limiting," and then you're running vocals through AutoTune and pocketing tracks using Beat Detective.
I keep trying to explain this RE people saying Maggies don't have dynamics. When the existing source was already pushing the peak limiters the additional guitar solo has no more dynamic room to expand into. So typical mixes pull the rest DOWN to allow the guitar to the already established max. But when a recording has allows for building to the later dynamics, it is there.
Recording engineers from the analog Era are notorious for compressing their recordings for LPS. Alan Parsons was notorious for compressing all his music and still does. That being said some engineers today abuse the dynamic range capabilities of modern recording equipment and make many songs unlistenable with loud instruments drowning out the softer ones.
Some people “need” and want compressed music to listen to. Some people don’t want compressed music to listen to. Understandably those that sell high end audio equipment push the Audio Compression only one way to consumers as a must have. The fact is consumers choose for themselves what “they want” to listen to. Compressed audio sounds more natural and less fatiguing to some people for long term listening. Others only want uncompressed audio.
Do the artists have any say in what the finished article actually sounds like, after all they are putting their name to the finished product. I am not a musician, but I would not want to put my name on some current dreadful sounding material (some of them Grammy nominated albums), it must be damaging sales and the reputation of the artists. The last four albums I have bought have been virtually unlistenable due to really heavy compression.
They don't. The artist plays the instruments/sings, the producers make a song out of it. Mixing and mastering is often done by different people as well and they are already paid by the time the artist hears the finished product. In theory the artist could say that they don't like it and start the whole process again, but the money will be lost, so that will take a lot of extra money and time, and the record label probably won't allow it since there's a fixed budget and deadline
In 1990 when compression of music really started it wasn't that bad but over the years it became kind of awful. Although. The general public seems to accept anything as long it happen gradually. Yup. It's the boiling frog analogy.
Compression started when audio was altered to fit the format not to mention the natural tendency of some formats, like reel tape, to create compression when treated beyond it's optimum spec.
Many now listen to music on mobile phone streaming and earbuds, often while on the move commuting, so compression is vital to hear anything in that situation. If you want those SAME recordings sound "real", simply use a full range horn system, like those used in cinemas over 70 years ago.. Neither do you need fancy amps, just that old cinema horn assembly. Downside is these horn things are BIG and HEAVY.
I'm not buying this reason for compression. Back in the 80's we had portable cassette or CD players + headphones, and even when listening to music on the car stereo. If it was to low we just cranked the volume and it sounded awesome because all the recordings had natural dynamics so it was never a problem. Compare that to most recordings of today which sounds hard and unpleasant even on the lowest of low volume. It has turned into a screaming contest and I just want to plug my ears.
@@geminijinxies7258 back in the days you had the option to turn up the volume - the crap like phones you get these days limits the volume to a laughable point for health reasons - not funny with a ton of environment noise
@@geminijinxies7258 The reasons for compression / clipping date back to AM radio broadcasting to ensure best use of the transmitter, and also in cinema analogue optical sound tracks for the same reasons as in AM radio. Also in MOST listening situations where other extenal noise is present, compression is vital, otherwise quiet passages would be lost. Turning up the volume to counter this could cause ear damage and irritation to neighbours etc.. Generally for most people, uncompressed recordings would not please them. Did you know the ear uses a form of compression, otherwise weak sounds would not be heard. The Hi Fi people talk total b******s on this subject, and cease to enjoy a good artistic performance on a not so good recording. The best all round best listening was found in the old valved radios, using an 8 inch speaker in a simple open back cabinet. Rediffussion used exactly the same idea for their wired radio systems. It worked for years without performance complaints. No brainer.
I was just saying yesterday that the new Voivod came home from the Loudness War in a box, if you'll excuse the irreverent expansion of that simile. Not exactly a, surprise, though...
I agree soooooo Mutch I invited a teen in my music room, he wanted to discover my passion. so I asked the teeen tell me the name of a song you love a song you would recognize and appreciate and will play on Spotify ( should do the job I said to my self) ouffffff What a mistake I made it was yes recorded by criminals hahaha my system never sounded so bad and teen was now impressed. Once back in my track it sounded great but teen de not identifies or relate to the music grrrrrrrrrr. Sad
I like them too. I have several, but I remember that I bought the "1812 Overture" and "The Firebird" circa 1980 and they still sound wonderful. I have several by Erich Kunzel and I honestly didn't know that Telarc was still around : )
Loud is part of the reason for compression, especially with rock music but the BIG reason is broadcasting. Broadcasters have signal to noise ratio issues, even FM, if you are not close to the transmitter and / or have an inferior receiver or antenna, and / or a local source of RF noise. When you've only got say 40 db S/N, then having the signal as loud as it can be constantly makes the noise inaudible, since records don't sell unless they are heard, and since radio stations often won't play them unless they are loud from start to finish, many producers produce for the broadcast industry rather than the audience and this is what you get. Unfortunately, if you've heard digital FM you know this is not going to save us as the audio quality is absolute SHIT, even worse than analog.
That's nonsense - every broadcaster runs their studio signal through a compression and EQ chain of their own, so there's no need for compression on the original track. Ironically TH-cam and streaming services do the same thing, and there are studies that show that tracks sound worse on services like TH-cam if they are compressed before they recompress things than if they are not.
On regular gear compressed recordings sound better. Every audio component has dynamic range. The system dynamic range is limited by the component with the lowest dynamic range. The system dynamic range should be greater than the recording dynamic range. That’s why compression is used, just to get acceptable sound on average system. And average system useful dynamic range is very limited, I’m sorry but that’s true. As for me, I prefer the early CD sound where the dynamic range was relatively great compared to the new remastered versions.
Hey Paul, I agree on Adele's beautiful voice and the recording could be sooooo much better. You ought to just go for it, get in touch with her and give her a one song challenge to prove you can make it better. You never know.
I'd guess her current recording doesn't have good dynamic range. It takes a moderate system to reveal if a recording has good dynamics or not, the better the system the more obvious it is. A system like the one behind Paul I'm sure it reveals all.
@@joshdeakins1775 I purchased much better speakers than I had before. I could not listen to some of her music, but now I can. The recordings seem to be to "bright" sounding, this fatiques me and hurts my ears. I wish they would tone that down a bit,
@@Wizardofgosz Hey Richard, your probably correct, but as I said, you never know, miracles happen. You have to admit, it would be a killer boost for Octave Records.
@@Wizardofgosz I don't give a shit about octave records but that you think big names change the attitude how records are produced for masses makes you a fool
Why do 'audiophiles' so oppose compression, loudness, limiting etc? If the artist (engineering is an art also) decides to use those tools in order to craft their track, I just need to respect that. I really enjoy well made dynamic recordings, yet I love other albums that are more 'fabricated'. Improvements in my systems reveal layers in all recordings that are so enjoyable. Its like the law, one must respect that the law is perfect, otherwise one will have a hard time to find peace and justice.
Because those tools are greatly abused. A lot of the time they’re not used for artistic/creative purposes, they’re just used blindly to make everything as loud as possible. At the expense of instrument and vocal quality. Those tools should be used for ALL recordings to refine and balance the sound, it’s just a matter of not going overboard.
An 'old school' music producer recently said in a podcast that today's music is compressed on purpose because most of the people buying music today are listening through earbuds which have a very limited dynamic range. If true, that's a real shame.
The mix engineer knows that 98% of Adele listeners are listening on a phone, car stereo, or a Bluetooth speaker. The records are mixed to sound good on those, not for the 0.1% who have a high end audio system.
Is it easy to make a good recording without compression..... that depends on if you have someone like Jim Morrison on the mic. Good luck in keeping that level of loud and soft between the "rails" of too soft, and too loud. The more erratic a performer is, in the studio, the more compression or even limiting is needed. If a performer understands the recording process, they have a better change of keeping their sound levels more consistant, relative to the mic pick up level. Mic technique is a biggie, when in the studio with a singer, if minimal compression (or limiting) is desired. Is it easy to make a good recording without compression: that depends on the artist that you're recording, and their understanding and prowess in maintaining consistant sound levels (within a range.)
@@JerryRutten As I ponder your answer, I say no, you're wrong. Knowing how to not get too loud (into the mic), as singer, in a studio, doesn't translate to no dynamics. You can have dynamics within a range, with vocal control. Using vocal control doesn't mean no dynamics.
I think you nailed it, almost no audiophile recordings are close and individually miked. The better ones use only one stereo microphone. And I don’t think that’s easy.
Let's give a bit more context to this...compression is VITAL at the mixing stage to get a good song completed. Almost every instrument needs a bit of compression to deal with transients and levels that will sit in the mix properly. Compression at the mastering stage is to be used with an extremely light touch though. Like Paul has said, it ruins dynamic range and flattens the sound if overdone. To make my point a bit more scientifically, I would challenge anyone to find an album from the 1960's onwards that doesn't use compression on at least a few channels in each song. EQing as well is vital to make things sit in the mix, the trick is to use the right amount.
Agreed. Used wisely, it's a very usefull tool. People judge yet are not aware that their knowledge is far to little to judge. A recording in perhaps a rock session, raw and emotional, with a band interacting, might result in exceeding expected levels, yet the recording is magic. Its up to the engineer to craft a great capture.
@@TheDanEdwards Multiple sites like ASR measuring the raw files from Octave records and my own experience , with my hearing being freakishly good as tested from my doctor. I am 30 years old and my hearing is perfect at 10k. My audiogram is totally flat
This is getting really annoying now. Every question is answered in a not-so-subtle sales schpiel. I would love to hear a genuine informative answer to a question without plugging PS audio equipment and associated companies.
@@RobCCTV Have you considered that your preoccupation would also be biasing your judgement? I understand and like that Paul is so enthousiastic about his studio and company, that is something typical of a founder and entrepeneur. There is sense and knowledge behind his tales, everybody has a perception of his vids and most have an opinion or judgement.
@@edmaster3147 No. It is not a "preoccupation". There is a LOT of evidence to show that high rate PCM is not distinguishable from DSD. Not seen any detailed science reports on this yet, but as an electronics engineer, I can say with high confidence that it looks extremely unlikely that DSD is inherently superior.
@@RobCCTV As an engineer, could you agree with me that a Germanium diode sounds better in a rectifier than a high quality, silicone, which measures about the same?
I’ve commented on this video before on Octave’s channel but I highly highly recommend anyone watching Rick Beato’s TH-cam video called “How the Pros use Compression” and also interviews of Jack Joseph Puig talking about the “Art of Compression. Your eyes will be opened immensely
I enjoy Rick's videos too from time to time.👍
Exactly! JJP is a true master when it comes to anything audio. Compressors get a bad rap, because they were initially created to even out volume, but that's rarely how they are used today. The art of compression by JJP explains everything perfectly. Long story short, even the most prestine recordings have compressors engaged at various stages in the recording, mixing and mastering process. Nowadays we even have limiters that sound very transparent.
Love Rick Beato
I think most music is recorded to be background music often targeting the mobile listener. If you are in a car, on a motorcycle, running or working out in a gym, you want every note to be the same loudness to rise over the background noise.
In a dedicated audiophile listening session we want to strain a little to hear the subtle nuances and then be shocked by the explosive elements. Sadly, we are the smaller market.
Thank heavens for labels like Octave.
Perhaps it's a vicious circle, the more people listen to music on portable devices, the more compressed recordings will become, the more compressed the recordings, the smaller the difference between hi fi and low fi, the less people will bother with hi fi, the more people will listen to portables.....
An Dutch expert commented that most recordings are good and most audio-systems are not so good. I do agree.
99% of the time people complain about "overcompression", the thing that is actually bothering them is too much softclipping and brickwall limiting, not the actual compression. Compression is such a versatile tool, and more than just a thing that makes things "louder". It can be used for artistic effects, to gel two tracks together, to increase or decrease the transients, and altering the release of a sound.
Some of the best ones I have heard on Roon so far that are high quality. Michael Jackons thriller, Suzzane Vega, Eric Clapton, Diane Krall
Paul I love you, the issue is all the producers and artists themselves, just dont care about "music" the same as us. thats why audiophile is such a thing. because dark side of the moon - isnt just a live performance captured perfectly - replayed in a good system for a live experience. Great music is a total package - mixed and mastered and putting the right stuff in the first place. creates a truly timeless experience. artist are too busy driving around their fast cars to even listen to the final cut of their own songs these days....
"artists themselves, just dont care about "music" the same as us. ... artist are too busy driving around their fast cars to even listen to the final cut" - stereotype much?
I've been to several Pink Floyd live concerts. ANYTHING Pink Floyd on CDs, SACDs, vinyl, modern streaming or even cassette sounds better from my experience than their live concerts. Perhaps those super popular artists are too busy but they also tend to hear their own music with a terrible distortion and compression cause that's how they usually experience it at their large concerts. The notion that "live sounding" is a great one is almost 100% false. My preference is music carefully crafted in a studio allowing fine details to thrive.
Anyone here listen to Tool? Cd's are mixed very well. And concert experience is amazing. They care, one of the few bands that make art and music one thing. Even the packaging of their CDs is art.
I purchased Gabriel Mervine's Say Somethin’ on vinyl and the DSD down load. It is a very special and wonderful recording. It's interesting, I had a few audiophile friends over to listen and compare the album to the DSD version. In the end we all agreed we liked the album version better. It seemed to have an ever so slightly more natural sound to it.
So, you bought the album in 2 formats, vinyl & dsd download. Next you compared the formats.
You told us you liked the 'album' better. I'll assume you meant you preferred the album on vinyl.
@@googoo-gjoob Yes, the album on vinyl.
@@googoo-gjoob In my day, many moons ago, we all called them "albums". The times have changed, shows my age, yikes.
@@lights80088 , 'album' is the _collection._ regardless of the medium.
i predict youve had *The WHITE Album* on vinyl, cassette, CD
@@googoo-gjoob the album is, in modern parlance, the collection of songs. Formerly, in the days of 78s, several records were contained within an album, a physical container not unlike a photograph album...particularly when it came to "classical" works that didn't fir the 3minish format of a 78.
Agree, should be criminal. Most listeners prefer quantity over quality.
Sound on Sound did an interesting study into how dynamic range has changed with the prevalence of higher compression in popular recordings. Counterintuitively, dynamic range did not decrease over the decades.
"dynamic range did not decrease over the decades." - pop music was often recorded for radio since the 1930's.
@@TheDanEdwards You should familiarize yourself with the "loudness wars" and read the article to understand the issue and what was found in their study.
@@thomastmc link?
@@jmarz2600 Google - 'Dynamic Range' & The Loudness War - Sound On Sound
@@thomastmc Found it. Thx.
i use dsp's for "decompressing" my files a bit in cases of heavy compression. even one more decibel of greater dynamic range can do a lot.
that of course is digital guesstimation and moves further from the source, although in these cases its more benefitial than harmfull:
- loudness lowering
- harmonic extrapolation for highs and bass
- an additive multiband compressor that accentuates transients
- in bad cases:
a audio-forensic declipping algorythm
- in worse cases: a noisegate.
the result has little to do with how the song would have sounded before compression, but is often more enjoyable than the squished audio.
As some of you may already know .. I am a recording engineer ... and this topic of compression and auto levelling , limiting and contrast expansion always comes up when I meet or even work with fellow engineers . As Paul says it's a very fine art of handling certain passages of music in order to relive their original sound ... we have to deal with losses and artifacts all along the recording route and end up ( hopefully ) with the original sound in all its glory ! But we have a final snag .... and this has been bugging me all the time ... this is the problem of playback facilities.... some listeners might have a setup like PS audio's IRS 5 system and associated amps etc and some ( and the majority) people will only have humble cheap systems with cheap speakers and poor performance amplifiers.... now ... if the latter system was fed with a recording which was just like the original .. with totally uncompressed dynamic range ... then the cheap system would soon self destruct... PS Audio's system would live another day ! That's the dilemma we face .. I'd like to see recordings made available in two categories... one for cheap setups and the other " real " recordings for top end or professional setups .
Tottaly agree with you.. that's the reason I love that special editions of old, such as DVD Audio, DTS CD etc etc. Not sure if the mastering works are different, but that's clearly about having two versions for different level of playback equipment
Oh dear. A recording engineer worth their salt knows exactly how to produce their recordings to work across the entire spectrum of end-user set-ups. The idea that there should be two separate masterings to meet "top end" and "cheap" set-ups is utter nonsense. No so-called "cheap" set-up (by the way, that's an entirely uncalled-for derisive term) would self-destruct by being fed uncompressed dynamic range; what an absurd and unnecessary claim. This kind of divisive comment is precisely why people are turned off exploring high end audio.
@@richardt3371 Oh dear oh dear .... I despare.... Have you not heard of ( and truly understand too..) exactly what dynamic range is ? I'm not diminishing or deriding cheaper setups at all ... you didn't understand what I was talking about obviously ... decent ( inc high end ) set ups are expensive ok ..? So therefore the majority of people will purchase this class of equipment.. also the majority of people don't give a rat's about frequency responses, phase response or group delay and decay plots ... so it's back to the recordings now .... they want to sell them right ? So it's no good playing uncompressed audio on a system that can't handle peak demands adequately... things will break ...! It's similar to driving a Mini down a very rocky road versus a big 4WD vehicle with heaps of clearance ...
@@janinapalmer8368 Bless you. I've been working in the industry for 30 years, working on concert halls and venues, and have worked with enough engineers and studios to have *some* concept of dynamic range and the limitations of systems. Your dramatic "things will break!" shows an inherent misunderstanding of how systems wouldn't, in real life, break due to uncompressed audio. Seems someone needs to step outside their booth sometime to avoid despair (or despare, if that's different).
The other problem that I think I’m seeing is that recording engineers have to “compensate” for listening equipment that can’t handle uncompressed music - such as - cheap portable music players.
Yes. Sometimes I listened Linda Rondstadt & Nelson Riddle's 'For Sentimental reason ' album , one of the best recording ever make _ in my boombox, and I almost cannot hear anything ..
The smart phone era with many people listening to music on crappy earbuds or smart phone speakers definitely has not helped.
Many artists want their music to sound good in cars with "standard" speakers. It's not the most acoustic friendly environment in the world.
@@Velodynamic A car cabin is acoustically difficult considering reflections but it's also an environment where you can fine tune it much more precisely than what is realistic with some generic home system in a particular room. And nowadays with electric cars, you can also achieve a high dynamic range with low noise (no gas engine noise).
@@ThinkingBetter no tuning can fix the left front position of the driver - different timing of of reflections as well as direct sound - but yes you can have good hifi in a car, I had the days back
Thank u Paul
INTERESTING facts to come out of Salford University this year...compression is used as a art tool...People prefer about 20% music compression... Phil Collins famous drum segment has 90% compression... Talking heads are the only band to release a single that increases in volume throughout the entire record using 'compression' and 'crashing'... Oasis released a single that used 100% compression from start to end...Best decade for low compression, the 80s...
Paul, there is clipping in commercial recorded music. It's easy to see it if you make a digital extraction of a track from a commercial CD of modern music or a new remaster of an older album. You can open the file in SoundForge or Audacity, zoom and observe the waveform. You can see that in many recordings the peaks are clipped, having a flat top, missing the upper part. And sometimes this happens even if those peaks don't hit the maximum level!!! During the mixing or the remastering those peaks clipped and the recording engineer lowered the level by 0.1 dB so even if they don't hit the maximum level the clipping remains. Disaster!
You've given into the dark side once you start adding compression because you think it "sounds better."
Either Octave is in the audiophile recording business or they're not.
First it's a "little compression," then some "light limiting," and then you're running vocals through AutoTune and pocketing tracks using Beat Detective.
I keep trying to explain this RE people saying Maggies don't have dynamics. When the existing source was already pushing the peak limiters the additional guitar solo has no more dynamic room to expand into. So typical mixes pull the rest DOWN to allow the guitar to the already established max. But when a recording has allows for building to the later dynamics, it is there.
Recording engineers from the analog Era are notorious for compressing their recordings for LPS. Alan Parsons was notorious for compressing all his music and still does. That being said some engineers today abuse the dynamic range capabilities of modern recording equipment and make many songs unlistenable with loud instruments drowning out the softer ones.
But is it as big a problem for genres of music that are and never were radio friendly?
Some people “need” and want compressed music to listen to. Some people don’t want compressed music to listen to. Understandably those that sell high end audio equipment push the Audio Compression only one way to consumers as a must have.
The fact is consumers choose for themselves what “they want” to listen to.
Compressed audio sounds more natural and less fatiguing to some people for long term listening. Others only want uncompressed audio.
My Octave Reccords SACD sounds great APM-vol 3 and Reference set up
Clipping is common in pop music. What do you do after you've compressed it as much as possible. Clip it.
Most music that sounds overcompressed is because of improperly done dynamics processing and mostly with software.
Do the artists have any say in what the finished article actually sounds like, after all they are putting their name to the finished product. I am not a musician, but I would not want to put my name on some current dreadful sounding material (some of them Grammy nominated albums), it must be damaging sales and the reputation of the artists. The last four albums I have bought have been virtually unlistenable due to really heavy compression.
They don't. The artist plays the instruments/sings, the producers make a song out of it. Mixing and mastering is often done by different people as well and they are already paid by the time the artist hears the finished product. In theory the artist could say that they don't like it and start the whole process again, but the money will be lost, so that will take a lot of extra money and time, and the record label probably won't allow it since there's a fixed budget and deadline
No, every record label will have their own mastering engineer who gives it "their" sound. And that sound is driven by what the public want.
In 1990 when compression of music really started it wasn't that bad but over the years it became kind of awful. Although. The general public seems to accept anything as long it happen gradually. Yup. It's the boiling frog analogy.
Compression started when audio was altered to fit the format not to mention the natural tendency of some formats, like reel tape, to create compression when treated beyond it's optimum spec.
Such amazing explanations! Love you Paul :)
Many now listen to music on mobile phone streaming and earbuds, often while on the move commuting, so compression is vital to hear anything in that situation. If you want those SAME recordings sound "real", simply use a full range horn system, like those used in cinemas over 70 years ago.. Neither do you need fancy amps, just that old cinema horn assembly. Downside is these horn things are BIG and HEAVY.
I'm not buying this reason for compression. Back in the 80's we had portable cassette or CD players + headphones, and even when listening to music on the car stereo. If it was to low we just cranked the volume and it sounded awesome because all the recordings had natural dynamics so it was never a problem. Compare that to most recordings of today which sounds hard and unpleasant even on the lowest of low volume. It has turned into a screaming contest and I just want to plug my ears.
@@geminijinxies7258 back in the days you had the option to turn up the volume - the crap like phones you get these days limits the volume to a laughable point for health reasons - not funny with a ton of environment noise
@@geminijinxies7258 The reasons for compression / clipping date back to AM radio broadcasting to ensure best use of the transmitter, and also in cinema analogue optical sound tracks for the same reasons as in AM radio. Also in MOST listening situations where other extenal noise is present, compression is vital, otherwise quiet passages would be lost. Turning up the volume to counter this could cause ear damage and irritation to neighbours etc.. Generally for most people, uncompressed recordings would not please them. Did you know the ear uses a form of compression, otherwise weak sounds would not be heard. The Hi Fi people talk total b******s on this subject, and cease to enjoy a good artistic performance on a not so good recording. The best all round best listening was found in the old valved radios, using an 8 inch speaker in a simple open back cabinet. Rediffussion used exactly the same idea for their wired radio systems. It worked for years without performance complaints. No brainer.
Hi Paul, ok enough with the teasing can you play your new speakers
What's the point? They will only sound as good as the system you are playing the youtube video on.
It is idiotic listen to speakers recorded by a microphone on different speakers
I was just saying yesterday that the new Voivod came home from the Loudness War in a box, if you'll excuse the irreverent expansion of that simile. Not exactly a, surprise, though...
I agree soooooo Mutch I invited a teen in my music room, he wanted to discover my passion. so I asked the teeen tell me the name of a song you love a song you would recognize and appreciate and will play on Spotify ( should do the job I said to my self) ouffffff What a mistake I made it was yes recorded by criminals hahaha my system never sounded so bad and teen was now impressed. Once back in my track it sounded great but teen de not identifies or relate to the music grrrrrrrrrr. Sad
I love all my Telarc recordings for dynamics etc etc.
I like them too. I have several, but I remember that I bought the "1812 Overture" and "The Firebird" circa 1980 and they still sound wonderful. I have several by Erich Kunzel and I honestly didn't know that Telarc was still around : )
Loud is part of the reason for compression, especially with rock music but the BIG reason is broadcasting. Broadcasters have signal to noise ratio issues, even FM, if you are not close to the transmitter and / or have an inferior receiver or antenna, and / or a local source of RF noise. When you've only got say 40 db S/N, then having the signal as loud as it can be constantly makes the noise inaudible, since records don't sell unless they are heard, and since radio stations often won't play them unless they are loud from start to finish, many producers produce for the broadcast industry rather than the audience and this is what you get. Unfortunately, if you've heard digital FM you know this is not going to save us as the audio quality is absolute SHIT, even worse than analog.
That's nonsense - every broadcaster runs their studio signal through a compression and EQ chain of their own, so there's no need for compression on the original track.
Ironically TH-cam and streaming services do the same thing, and there are studies that show that tracks sound worse on services like TH-cam if they are compressed before they recompress things than if they are not.
Dan at NT Mastering
Compression is the work of the devil. BTW, I've seen clipping, also. Perhaps it's deliberate but it is heartbreaking.
On regular gear compressed recordings sound better. Every audio component has dynamic range. The system dynamic range is limited by the component with the lowest dynamic range. The system dynamic range should be greater than the recording dynamic range. That’s why compression is used, just to get acceptable sound on average system. And average system useful dynamic range is very limited, I’m sorry but that’s true. As for me, I prefer the early CD sound where the dynamic range was relatively great compared to the new remastered versions.
Compressed like a brick to be compatible with the dynamics of FM radio😅
Hey Paul, I agree on Adele's beautiful voice and the recording could be sooooo much better. You ought to just go for it, get in touch with her and give her a one song challenge to prove you can make it better. You never know.
I'd guess her current recording doesn't have good dynamic range. It takes a moderate system to reveal if a recording has good dynamics or not, the better the system the more obvious it is. A system like the one behind Paul I'm sure it reveals all.
@@joshdeakins1775 I purchased much better speakers than I had before. I could not listen to some of her music, but now I can. The recordings seem to be to "bright" sounding, this fatiques me and hurts my ears. I wish they would tone that down a bit,
@@Wizardofgosz Hey Richard, your probably correct, but as I said, you never know, miracles happen. You have to admit, it would be a killer boost for Octave Records.
@@Wizardofgosz I am baffled how naive you are
@@Wizardofgosz I don't give a shit about octave records but that you think big names change the attitude how records are produced for masses makes you a fool
Why do 'audiophiles' so oppose compression, loudness, limiting etc? If the artist (engineering is an art also) decides to use those tools in order to craft their track, I just need to respect that. I really enjoy well made dynamic recordings, yet I love other albums that are more 'fabricated'. Improvements in my systems reveal layers in all recordings that are so enjoyable. Its like the law, one must respect that the law is perfect, otherwise one will have a hard time to find peace and justice.
Because those tools are greatly abused. A lot of the time they’re not used for artistic/creative purposes, they’re just used blindly to make everything as loud as possible. At the expense of instrument and vocal quality. Those tools should be used for ALL recordings to refine and balance the sound, it’s just a matter of not going overboard.
Wow if you could actually make a record with Adele that would be so good.
An 'old school' music producer recently said in a podcast that today's music is compressed on purpose because most of the people buying music today are listening through earbuds which have a very limited dynamic range. If true, that's a real shame.
A lot of people also just want easy to listen to / pleasant, and not "having to turn up and down the volume"
@@RennieAsh nonsense - nobody turns up and down volume because of proper dynamics
@@Harald_Reindl nonsense. Many people complain when they can't hear parts of something, and then it gets very loud.
@@RennieAsh on proper speakers dynamics is no problem and i am tired of fuckers producing music for crap systems
I like Paul, he's a nice guy : )
The mix engineer knows that 98% of Adele listeners are listening on a phone, car stereo, or a Bluetooth speaker. The records are mixed to sound good on those, not for the 0.1% who have a high end audio system.
Is it easy to make a good recording without compression..... that depends on if you have someone like Jim Morrison on the mic. Good luck in keeping that level of loud and soft between the "rails" of too soft, and too loud. The more erratic a performer is, in the studio, the more compression or even limiting is needed. If a performer understands the recording process, they have a better change of keeping their sound levels more consistant, relative to the mic pick up level. Mic technique is a biggie, when in the studio with a singer, if minimal compression (or limiting) is desired. Is it easy to make a good recording without compression: that depends on the artist that you're recording, and their understanding and prowess in maintaining consistant sound levels (within a range.)
If the artist can maintain a constant sound level… than there is still no dynamics!
An orchestra playing Bolero, that is dynamics!
@@JerryRutten As I ponder your answer, I say no, you're wrong. Knowing how to not get too loud (into the mic), as singer, in a studio, doesn't translate to no dynamics. You can have dynamics within a range, with vocal control. Using vocal control doesn't mean no dynamics.
I think you nailed it, almost no audiophile recordings are close and individually miked. The better ones use only one stereo microphone. And I don’t think that’s easy.
Every time I invest and improve my music system I get worse sound on music like rock or Heavy metal.
Let's give a bit more context to this...compression is VITAL at the mixing stage to get a good song completed. Almost every instrument needs a bit of compression to deal with transients and levels that will sit in the mix properly. Compression at the mastering stage is to be used with an extremely light touch though. Like Paul has said, it ruins dynamic range and flattens the sound if overdone.
To make my point a bit more scientifically, I would challenge anyone to find an album from the 1960's onwards that doesn't use compression on at least a few channels in each song. EQing as well is vital to make things sit in the mix, the trick is to use the right amount.
Agreed. Used wisely, it's a very usefull tool. People judge yet are not aware that their knowledge is far to little to judge. A recording in perhaps a rock session, raw and emotional, with a band interacting, might result in exceeding expected levels, yet the recording is magic. Its up to the engineer to craft a great capture.
Aaah yes the DSD rabbit hole. Proven multiple times it leads to lower Fidelity and adds noise. Snake oil is slippery, watch out!!
"Proven multiple times it leads to lower Fidelity and noise." - citations?
@@TheDanEdwards Multiple sites like ASR measuring the raw files from Octave records and my own experience , with my hearing being freakishly good as tested from my doctor. I am 30 years old and my hearing is perfect at 10k. My audiogram is totally flat
@@Wizardofgosz I agree. I will edit my comment because it is a bit confusing.
DSD is another scam paul pushes like his power regenerators and 33k speaker cables
@@sergeysmelnik
Haters going to hate.
songs lyrics are pretty bad and dump todays music specially pop and American Idol
Why not start with the artists that sell they're shit. They don't care long as they getting rich!
Your right Adell album is terrible recorded
@@Wizardofgosz I have everyone of her LPs and they sound terrible her voice sounds terrible on them
@@Wizardofgosz you are naive thinking there are geniuses in the studio just because of a big name - nobody gives a shit as long it sells
This is getting really annoying now. Every question is answered in a not-so-subtle sales schpiel. I would love to hear a genuine informative answer to a question without plugging PS audio equipment and associated companies.
It's a commercial channel, the content is up to Paul in this case. One can choose not to watch.
@@edmaster3147 i hate it when company perpetuate myths in order to sell their products. It is the dishonesty that I have a problem with.
@@RobCCTV Have you considered that your preoccupation would also be biasing your judgement? I understand and like that Paul is so enthousiastic about his studio and company, that is something typical of a founder and entrepeneur. There is sense and knowledge behind his tales, everybody has a perception of his vids and most have an opinion or judgement.
@@edmaster3147 No. It is not a "preoccupation". There is a LOT of evidence to show that high rate PCM is not distinguishable from DSD. Not seen any detailed science reports on this yet, but as an electronics engineer, I can say with high confidence that it looks extremely unlikely that DSD is inherently superior.
@@RobCCTV As an engineer, could you agree with me that a Germanium diode sounds better in a rectifier than a high quality, silicone, which measures about the same?
First Yes yes yes 🥇🏆🍾🥂👏🇳🇱
th-cam.com/video/gCCD40eB-cU/w-d-xo.html
And giving a thumb's up to your own useless comment is pathetic.