Mixing/mastering has always been about finding a balance between fidelity on good sound systems and crappy systems. Every studio of note had Aurotone speakers to test how a mix will sound on a crappy TV/radio speaker. We also used to take rough mixes and go out the car to give it listen to see how it would sound on a car stereo. The fact of the matter is, most people don't own nice stereos and they listen to most of their music in their cars or with crappy earbuds.
Indeed. It's always about achieving that balance. But would you agree having different masters for differing environments would improve sound overall? What I mean is that they'd be optimized for crappy and better systems and setups.
@@dougschneider8243 Absolutely would be ideal! Although I can already see and hear the confusion from customers who buy the hi-fidelity versions of songs/albums expecting it sound better than the 'normal' version in their cars lol. I used to work at a jingle studio that did separate mixes of ads for TV and radio. Mono for TV (and AM radio) and stereo for for FM radio. But that was a lifetime ago when TVs only had one tiny speaker with no DSP or any of the fancy stuff we have now.
My dream 'fix' (which could happen, but likely never will): With DSP's now being ubiquitous, I've always thought that a great compromise would be to produce everything for best sound, then use a levelling amplifier and multi-band compressor combination within the car audio system. Essentially, that's what most radio stations do; back in the olden days, they'd have an Aphex Compellor to level between differing source content and an Orban Opimod to do the multi-band compression / limiting (essentially, the Aphex kept the levels in the sweet-spot range to best drive the Optimod). Okay, the DSP code would be a chunk of work, but the manufacturers would only have to write that once, so it'd be a one-off cost (and the DSP's are cheap). NB I actually use an Aphex Compellor 320A (which is an astonishingly transparent sounding unit) between my microphone channel strip and my amateur radio transmitter's audio input, and, for example, when transmitting on FM the available audio input range is very 'tight'; too low and I can't be heard and slightly too high and it hits an audio limiter within the transmitter (and that sounds rough, so I use the Aphex to avoid both). In my case, I use the Aphex set mostly for gain levelling and also a touch of compression and the results are amazing (and one of my friends uses an old Optimod for short wave transmitting). Hey, one can only dream, eh? 😀
I remember seeing an interview with Aerosmith talking about recording Get a Grip, obviously a very intentionally radio friendly album. They rented a car so they could have an average car stereo to test the mixes on to optimize them for radio
An important and, in my opinion, unfortunately more and more current topic. Many new songs sound good on the car radio and headphones but unfortunately no longer sound on an audiophile system. It seems that for many artists good playback via radio and streaming is more important than audiophile quality with good dynamic. One of the keywords was sometimes loudness war.
Good point -- and that's directly related to this video. Basically, they're either mastering on lousy systems or they're mastering directly for these types of systems. It's also about the mastering and how that affects what we hear in these different environments.
In mixing they call it translation. Does it translate from studio to car to earbuds, etc. Actually each speaker set has strengths and weaknesses. The “trick” is to make one mix sound good on every one of these systems as well as a mono mix for single speaker systems. When you do this, it’s done. You can’t blame the speaker for your mix.
I remember when my late father used dbx to record from vinyl records to reel to reel or on cassette tapes. His YAMAHA K1000 and K2000 had both dbx and the signal to noise ratio was extremely high under dbx and it sounded to my young ears 👂 much more interesting than the original recording.
Interesting. The guys over at Alpha Audio did a podcast recently where they talked about the idea that analog is not inherently superior to digital- its that the copy for vinal is mastered differently than for digital and if you can get digital copies made of those vinal masters, it sounds as good if not better.
100% true. Analog is not inherently superior. Not even close. At best it's just different. But like I said in this video, what's mastered for analog playback CAN be superior to what's mastered for digital playback.
I have been pushing this argument for years, that digital has the potential to be much better than vinyl, but very often we're not allowed the opportunity to hear it. So, if you want to hear the best version of your favourite albums, you essentially need to have the ability to play several formats, including vinyl. Not because vinyl is inherently better, but because for so much great music, the vinyl version is the best one practically available. I agree with Doug that it will likely never happen, but I feel the most likely "shortcut" to two different versions would be to make the vinyl master be the "hifi" version, and then have a seperate digital "catch-all" version. There's always been a market for special audiophile versions of albums - maybe we could convince the studios that they are leaving money on the table? Most modern vinyl is digitally mastered anyway, so the files probably sits on a drive somewhere, for a lot of it. But we proably also need to throw Atmos into the mix in this debate, and then it starts getting really muddy... /Otto, Dynaudio Academy
@@DynaudioAcademyplease correct me if I’m wrong… 1. Digital and vinyl is mastered differently. 2. Hi-res digital master/process is actually better than analog because analog ‘colours’ the sound differently, and has more potential for noise in the process. 3. Vinyl actually has more dynamic range; ie isn’t compressed like someone sitting on a whoopi cushion. With that said, it also depends on what needle is used to playback the vinyl. 3a. Listening to “Dreams” by cranberries - original and re-master I prefer the remaster. Bass is brought up a bit, but there is some clipping when comparing and inverting the original and playing with the remaster. 3b. ‘95 Ghost in the shell OST making of a cyborg. The original is waay better and has much more dynamic range compared to the over-compressed remaster.
I love your intro, with the crackle hiss of needle on vinyl. Reminds me why I won't go back to vinyl. There is a scam industry built around making your car mix sound great, as if that is the key to sonic excellence.
I am a Dua Lipa fan, but I actually don't like the approach of baselining for some random car's sound system. Some of use have good studio monitors at home!
I bet with todays technology they could have one high quality master and then some dsp solution to automatically compress it for the car or other specific listening environments. We already have loudness and night mode for home theater for example.
I'm sure you could easily have dynamic range compression implemented on a car stereo. Since most radio stations use DRC heavily I see no reason it couldn't be used playback side. Would save having multiple masters.
I always thought it was common to make at least 2 completely different masters, one for the vinyl/cassettes that are not compressed and have more dynamic range whereas you can basically do full wall loud mastering for CD/Digital without any clipping or distortion issues. I can see that sometimes they may use the same loud master for all formats and maybe just lower the decibels but it can still cause some slight distortion, i'm almost certain it happened with a recent album i bought on CD, Cassette and Vinyl, i think they used the same loud master for all because the cassette clips and sometimes the vinyl distorts slightly.
When they are mastering and pushing right to the top range of the bits, they're not necessarily exploiting all the dynamic range -- they're making it so it plays back louder relative to something mastered to a lower level. But the dynamic range doesn't necessarily follow. For example, it's possible to push everything on CD to 15 or 16 bits, but have it go no lower than 15 bits, meaning effectively no dynamic range. Also, you can run into another problem when things are mastered that high -- what's being called "interoversamples." Benchmark Media initially brought a lot of attention to this. It's possible that although clipping hasn't occurred, a signal that high could clip after it's gone through the filter, which I've seen happen on poorly designed converters. One I had, in fact, let out a loud static-like pop on clipping. For that reason, they build overhead into the filters and/or like Benchmark does, reduce the loudness by a few dB so it can't clip. Google Benchmark Media and interoversample and you'll find more information.
Interesting idea that's been discussed for a while. Agreed that it's not likely to have artists/ masterers release multiple versions. Another interesting idea might be to have a compression "modifier/setting" that is embedded into the metadata of the track and readable by car sound systems. Car sound systems have some robust processing capabilities and a "good sounding compressor" (have to come to agreement about what that means) could be used to make the track more listenable in the car. An example of this already used for decades is radio broadcast. Stations will play the record, CD, digital file that is off the shelf, but run it through a compressor prior to broadcast to ensure it sounds good on the radio. The solution already exists, just gotta have others start implementing it.
Susan Rogers is quoted as saying Prince would check his mixes/recordings in his car as a reference… If its good enough for Prince, its good enough for Dua Lipa!
If I understand correctly, we are mainly talking about the mastering and not the mixing, right?The mix should always be at the maximum in every respect and only the master should and can be different Am I wrong in my assumption?
Generally the mastering is where the dynamic range gets the most crushed. But you can't be sure what's happening, particularly these days with so much home recording. The Peter J. Moore I mentioned in the video once told me that since he did a lot of mastering of recordings he didn't make, he'd often have to tell "recording engineers" making these recording to at least add a subwoofer to the system so they'd have an idea what was going on in the bass. He told me that many would make these recordings on the worst of systems.
Maybe on an entry level vehicle but I find most 50k and above cars have really good systems, there’s a reason the audio aftermarket isn’t so hot like the old days.
@@mikeg2491 Interesting you should bring that up. Back when, car stereos from the company were utter crap and it was just normal to replace them. Then the manufacturers started improving them until, today, they're what I'd call "good enough" for most people. But I definitely wouldn't call them great. They're still highly compromised to hit a cost constraint -- and then you have the speaker-placement issues.
@@dougschneider8243 I guess it just depends on what you seek. I bought a 2022 dodge ram and it came with a Bose system. Regardless of Bose’s reputation it sounds great to me as someone who owns some equipment from Accuphase to McIntosh. It’s pretty neutral sounding and not the shake the street junk from the Alpine and Pioneer days of my youth. I’m too old for that. I’m sure with more money and a speaker upgrade I could get some more dynamics out of it but it’s just clean distortion free sound at high volumes I see no reason to spend more.
Well.....the rabbit hole...total agree. Back in Cretaceous period...as soon as cassette copies could be made...I did...and soon added a compressor to record them. Learned early in a noise environment pushing low volume up resulted in an astonishing demo from friends who couldn't understand why my mediocre system sounded so good...hope she gets sorted and with her clout maybe we get compressed cassettes ....ha....right...no cassette in cars so means pioneer needs to do a flashback ..great video thanks...yes Canadian......we have great studios
Highly suspect - serotonia is a good example of "bad for car" dynamics The quiet parts nearly disappear in a car if you're not blasting it. Then if you do turn it up, its uncomfortably loud when the chorus comes back. But on headphones with no external noise, it sounds amazing. You really should release multiple versions if you want fans to enjoy the nuances in any environment. But it can get out of hand too, headphone only mixes would be cool, since it is such a different experience, the stereo image is going to have a much different impact then 2 speakers in a room or a car. If you're at a venue, you're not really going to want hard panned instruments, or in a club too much reverb. It sucks imo, a middle of the road mix is really a boring mix. A headphone only mix could get very cool and spicy vs a club friendly mix in headphones
Radio station compress even more their content as most listening takes place in the car, and sounding louder is generally what attracts audience. When they designed the original DAB (in the late 90s, I didn't check the specs of DAB+), the idea was to broadcast high dynamic content and let each receiver apply compression.
Nowadays you have EVs with much better conditions for dynamic range. Also there are cars with much care done on the audio fidelity and with the listening positions and acoustical environment being known, OEMs can fine tune (stereo to speaker output up-mix via DSP) performance much more in a car than what is achieved by off-the-shelf consumer audio products in the home. Still I would agree that a home system can reach higher standards when proper setup incl. room acoustic considerations using high quality components.
@@dougschneider8243 Yes but "correct" is more ambiguous in a home system as you have room acoustics to deal with and too often you are stuck with whatever can be optimized in speaker placement, listening position and room treatment.
@@ThinkingBetter This is true, but a lot of research has been done on what makes for a "neutral" and also well-liked speaker, and room acoustics are also much better understood. For the latter, many tools are available for the consumer for passive acoustical treatment but also "room correction" and the like. A remarkable system can be set up by many people these days.
I mix and master. What is my standard? My speakers, iloud mtms (small speakers) and my in-ears, yes you read that right. Why? Because most people listen to Bluetooth speakers (many which are mono) and Air Pods or something like that. The car? Well it depends on the system, but my mixes and masters do translate well. Radio is what sucks, mainly because many transmit IN MONO. Yes, many radio stations think they transmit in stereo, but somewhere the line the audio “becomes” mono. Oh, and yes, I have had artists that when they put out their video in TH-cam they have uploaded it in mono also!!
She needs an engineer nerdy enough to go check the mix in her ride. ;) Her music is mostly dance pop. Making sure the bass and kick are bumping in a car AND in the studio shouldn't be hard. It may be a product of the engineer decreasing loudest (LUFS) parts (probably kick/bass) in the mix in order to get the loudest possible master without too much clipping (and thus distorting) loud bass sections. But I wouldn't know, because I've never paid attention to her music.
Rather, Dr. Floyd Toole's work is totally applicable where maximum fidelity is to be sought in typical home listening rooms. That was his and his team's intent. I have read over his papers, and I've seen no "circle of confusion" anywhere in them at all.
@@robinkleinsteuber5217 "FIGURE 2.3 (a) The “circle of confusion” modified to more accurately reflect its effect on the audio industry. The true role of loudspeakers is shown here. (b) Unless the loudspeakers involved in the creation of the recordings are similar in performance to those used in reproduction, the “art” is not preserved." - the discussion I believe was on whether the art is preserved or we as consumers of the audio is provided in many cases with some average or worse version of the art because the producer is trying to cater for wide variety of loudspeakers and different situations - in this case apparently a car.
@@Trebleclefaudio That excerpt you brought out is exactly the problem -- if recordings are made on systems that aren't at all accurate, decisions will be made from a flawed frame of reference. But it might sound good on that system. But then you play it on an accurate system -- or one that has its own characteristics -- and you're going to wind up with different sound. It is, as he wrote, the "circle of confusion" that existed then and still now.
@@Trebleclefaudio Thanks for your response. The material of Dr. Floyd Toole that I read would be about two decades old now, and so am not familiar with this diagram, or possibly somehow I missed it. Interesting. I also thought the response was a derrogatory attack on Dr. Toole, so I came to his defense. However, that was not so. Ooops! Thanks again for the reference. I need to obtain more recent papers of his, clearly. Have a great day! 👍
Music is always best appreciated while driving, or on public transport and in noisy public spaces and it should always be mastered to suit🙄. Actually the brick-walling that's been an "industry standard" for 25 years or more was a result of in-ear headphones and ear-buds becoming widely de-facto, which prompted voltage and current (volume) limiting regulations for personal devices, the industry responded with the 'loudness war' to get the highest possible RMS SPLs from them. For anyone wanting to kick back and listen to (for example) Muse at home - tough.
No sir. The recordings themselves should carry the best and most honest representation of the musician's performance ... if your favourite medium is a crappy pair of earbuds or a 6x9 car speaker, the electronics to make it sound right should be in your amplifiers... not the recording. And no, the brick walling is not a result of mobile users... it is the result of corporate demands that their music be the loudest on the radio... to sell more crappy recordings. It was not called the "loudness war" for no reason.
As an audio professional, what's missing from this equation is how is the music being delivered to her car? 15+ years ago, you could take a professionally recorded CD, listen to it in the studio, take it home, put it in your car, play it on a large concert sound system or play it on a club system and you could notice the difference in the way the system it was being played on sounded (and yes, notice deficiencies in how it was recorded or mastered). The "low hanging fruit" was and still is, what would it sound like on the radio? That is more about what processing the radio station is using, or more specifically, what the radio station manager and program director think the station "should" sound like, based on their target demographics and music they are playing. Competitive loudness is, sadly, one of the prime considerations (heavy compression, limiting and clipping). I could go on and on about the processing, data compression, etc. used in streaming services and let's not forget Bluetooth connections. I also have to point-out, I have three different cars and they all sound VASTLY different . Perhaps Ms. Lipa needs to ask a professional why her music sounds like crap in HER car, rather than blame studio monitors, recording engineers or the industry.
The best solution - that will NEVER be implemented - would be a file standard made out of stems and then make the listening device do the mastering based on its mechanical capabilities.
A great arrangement played live in the studio doesn't have these problems! You can blame a lot of this on excessive piece by piece overdubbing/assembly combined with today's lack of arrangers.
Some car systems have tried simple things like automatic gain, but we're at the point where car audio can just implement some AI to make sure everything is audible over the cabin noise. This is also what pisses me off about all those suitcase record players that are in fashion again, are we supposed to master vinyl for those things?
Vinyl typically has a dynamic range of 55-70 dB, whereas CD-quality PCM offers 96 dB, and high-resolution digital formats go even higher. Doesn't make sense not to offer e.g. 24bit on download platforms for the absolute highest and closest to what was recorded. This video makes it sound like Vinyl master was the original, it wasn't, everything is recorded digitally, then mastered, just sounds like Vinyl got the better mix - which makes no sense, who are they to guess and decide what and how you will play the music? Not everyone is rocking a $20 BT turdspeaker. Like you say, give us more options from the original recording.
That's POTENTIAL dynamic range of each medium. If you look at what's used, however, it's never close to being used. I looked up what the dynamic range of most pop recordings is and numbers I found indicate an average of about 10dB. So many are even less than that! In a nutshell, the dynamic range isn't being exploited -- so it's quite easy to make a vinyl master sound more dynamic than a digital one.
@@dougschneider8243 You're missing the point or not making any sense. "it's easy to make a vinyl master sound more dynamic than a digital one." That just means they compressed whatever will be released digitally, source is the same. It's far easier in the digital domain, if you tried going too dynamic on vinyl the needle would skip tracks.
@@thr0nic Hi. I didn't miss the point. When I said "it's easy" I meant that if the digital master is compressed, then you still have lots of room within vinyl's limitation to make a less compressed on. Thinking about it -- potentially more than 90dB of dynamic range on digital and 10dB gets used. On vinyl, 50-60dB, so use 20dB and you have a way more dynamic sound.
@@dougschneider8243 " if the digital master is compressed". I'm talking before. Would be no problem at all to keep dynamics beyond that of a vinyl in digital form. It's whatever they do between digital recording and mastering that matters and they could easily offer 24bit downloads to those who value true lossless. I've heard producers (e.g. AP Mastering) wanting to do it on bandcamp for instance.
The mistake... and it's a BIG one... was to mess with the mastering depending on audience. Audio engineers should be mixing and mastering for good quality home and sound reinforcement systems. Best fidelity, optimal sound. If a situation such as a car requires audio compression to overcome road noise the compressor should be in the CAR ... not the recording. In a situation like a radio broadcast where loudness sells records... the maximizing gear should be in the TRANSMITTER... not the recording. When walking around noisy streets with little tiny speakers jammed into your ears, the compression and limiting required should be in the PLAYER... not the recording. Audio engineers made this mistake decades ago when they started mixing for digital sources (CD, Streaming, disk files, etc) with maximum loudness. They should have continued the vinyl-like methods at the "alignment level" (do a search) so that everyone who buys the recording gets the benefit of maximum range and fidelity and recommended changes to mobile and broadcast gear to do what needed to be done on the fly. Instead, they ruined (and are still ruining) a lot of musicians best efforts and decades of music... rather than speak out. When I listen to music, I don't want to hear extra loud, pitch and time perfect sound produced by engineering wizardry ... I want to hear what the musicians actually played.
I bet she have never produced or mixed her music, she only sings without knowing how to make the song sound good on every sound system. The loudness problem caused a paradox where producers and even mix engineers pump their recordings to maximum with limiter then they upload it on Streaming Service that has it's own limiting, compression algorithm to gain match all the songs to certain level which differentiates slightly on every streaming platform. If you want to listen loud, turn it up if not enough buy better sound system. Crushing the dynamic range and quality of recording only to achieve maximum loudness is stupid.
She needs to cover Eyes of the Insane by Slayer, and to be less like Gary Glitter. We have all seen the Joker escaping the police by running down steps.
There is not THAT much road noise in cars last couple of decades..😅 Atleast not in europe🤷♂️ Loudness war is because of radio channels trying to sound the loudest en the earlier days and it's just been around since even though it's not needed at all even in a car..
When you say headphones, I believe you're referring to portable music used by the youth and some older folks. I would think and hope that you're not referring to home-based much higher end headphone listening at home on very high quality gear. I can guarantee that they are not the same! Audiophile headphone listening is a much higher level of fidelity and listening pleasure than the typical lower-fi cheap portable players with likewise cheap headphones that most youth would use. Also important to mention, that audiophiles do listen to high-def digital streaming services and to CD's on very, very high quality gear. I would sincerely hope that highest-quality mastering is aimed for those avenues of music distribution as well, not just vinyl. Big mistake, if not!
I can guarantee you that in almost all instances, particularly for popular releases, they're "compromised" just as I described based on my discussions with the late Peter J. Moore.
@@dougschneider8243 As I said, big mistake to compromise all releases but the vinyl. LP sales have been dropping. CD sales are presently doing better again, at least, around here.
@@robinkleinsteuber5217 Unfortunately in the business to make money, appealing to the majority rules. Your in the minority as am I. Convenience over quality is the focus of this generation of consumers. Many times in the past inferior technology was adopted over superior technology for this reason.
@@dwaynepiper3261 Very unfortunate, but you're right on that. I find that searching for good recordings for favourite music is quite the chore. 😕 Anyhow, have a great day!👍
@soundstagenetwork your concept of mastering seems very off, nothing of what you said is the purpose of mastering. nobody is making anything loud because of a car nor does making anything loud have anything to do with compression. Masters are loud because of the competitive nature of the business and how loud it can get without sounding bad is dependant on so many variables that start at the recording and arranging process. If something is overcompressed, mostly it's been done in the mixing process. If something is just loud, it has been done in the mastering process but not with compression but with clipping, distortion, maximization and limiting and it's purpose again is not to sound "good" in a car but to get it to compete with other products on the market. Also no sane mastering engineer will deliberately master something for a car, that is making fun of the whole profession. I suggest you read up on the whole record production process before you make such statements.
@@mirkomarkovic3438 Now that you've explained why, I can jump in. Wherever heavy compression, etc., is being put in -- recording, mixing, mastering -- well, it's happening. That said, Peter J. Moore was one of Canada's most accomplished producers, recording engineers, mastering engineers, and restorers. As I said the video, he was the one who brought to me the idea of creating a video about compromised masters a decade ago. And this was his life.
Yes and no, when it comes to oem automotive audio systems. Some sound quite good. More sound pretty poorly. Go visit your local professional car audio installation shop and get upgraded. It can be done, don't expect it to happen for like $500 though
There's not a car audio system in the world that can sound like a good home audio system simply based on speaker placement -- providing you're not completely messing up at home. A good setup at home has the speakers symmetrically in front of the listener. In a car, the tweeter is here, the midrange woofer there, the driver is toward one side, the passenger toward another. You get sound, but it's hardly the same experience.
Well, who is the "real" professional here? Is it Dua Lipa, an actual working musician with record sales numbering in the many millions? Or the guy with a TH-cam channel? The guy who also claims to be the "founder" of the popular live music TV show "Soundstage" but whose name isn't Ken Ehrlich. Ken was still with WTTW when I interviewed with Bill McCarter c. 1980, and I met him. Ken's not this guy. We have a guy who's not who he claims to be, claiming that pop star Dua Lipa said something, but can't produce the publication where this was alleged to have said it. It sounds fishy all-around. And only an idiot thinks that "studio monitor" has a magical meaning. Two different speaker systems will sound different. Two different rooms will sound different. There's no right or wrong here. Even by secondhand account, Ms. Lipa only said that she likes to listen in her car. That's her prerogative.
Wow, thanks for all the compliments. I can only say that when you were an "interviewer" I hope you were more adept at research than you are now. I can help you, though -- there's this new thing called Google when you can look stuff up. If you do, you'll find out I founded SoundStage! in 1995, which has a registered trademark as an audio publication. That's what I do, audio. And, yes, Dua Lipa is great -- I mentioned that in the video. Now what's your point again?
@@dougschneider8243 what? When was I ever 'an "interviewer"'? And you have the gall to accuse _me_ of being bad at research? 😆 Not only are you a bad liar, you're dumb! I got the job, so I know that you aren't Ken Ehrlich, who created the show and produced the first episode in 1974. You also lied about your alleged trademark. I looked. "Window to the World" that's what WTTW stands for. It's there, and you're not WTTW. I know, I was there and you were not. That was my point, after all, that your claim to fame is fraudulent. You didn't create the TV show whose name you're using without permission, and you aren't Ken Ehrlich. Ken does have a résumé in the music industry to make Dua Lipa's pale in comparison, but you're only pretending to be him. Shame on you!
Mixing/mastering has always been about finding a balance between fidelity on good sound systems and crappy systems. Every studio of note had Aurotone speakers to test how a mix will sound on a crappy TV/radio speaker. We also used to take rough mixes and go out the car to give it listen to see how it would sound on a car stereo.
The fact of the matter is, most people don't own nice stereos and they listen to most of their music in their cars or with crappy earbuds.
Indeed. It's always about achieving that balance. But would you agree having different masters for differing environments would improve sound overall? What I mean is that they'd be optimized for crappy and better systems and setups.
@@dougschneider8243 Absolutely would be ideal! Although I can already see and hear the confusion from customers who buy the hi-fidelity versions of songs/albums expecting it sound better than the 'normal' version in their cars lol.
I used to work at a jingle studio that did separate mixes of ads for TV and radio. Mono for TV (and AM radio) and stereo for for FM radio. But that was a lifetime ago when TVs only had one tiny speaker with no DSP or any of the fancy stuff we have now.
My dream 'fix' (which could happen, but likely never will): With DSP's now being ubiquitous, I've always thought that a great compromise would be to produce everything for best sound, then use a levelling amplifier and multi-band compressor combination within the car audio system. Essentially, that's what most radio stations do; back in the olden days, they'd have an Aphex Compellor to level between differing source content and an Orban Opimod to do the multi-band compression / limiting (essentially, the Aphex kept the levels in the sweet-spot range to best drive the Optimod). Okay, the DSP code would be a chunk of work, but the manufacturers would only have to write that once, so it'd be a one-off cost (and the DSP's are cheap). NB I actually use an Aphex Compellor 320A (which is an astonishingly transparent sounding unit) between my microphone channel strip and my amateur radio transmitter's audio input, and, for example, when transmitting on FM the available audio input range is very 'tight'; too low and I can't be heard and slightly too high and it hits an audio limiter within the transmitter (and that sounds rough, so I use the Aphex to avoid both). In my case, I use the Aphex set mostly for gain levelling and also a touch of compression and the results are amazing (and one of my friends uses an old Optimod for short wave transmitting). Hey, one can only dream, eh? 😀
I remember seeing an interview with Aerosmith talking about recording Get a Grip, obviously a very intentionally radio friendly album. They rented a car so they could have an average car stereo to test the mixes on to optimize them for radio
As I said in the video, none of this is new.
@ Not sure what you’re responding to. I never said it was new
@@WhiteBubblySoup I'm just agreeing with you. This car conundrum has been around for a long time.
An important and, in my opinion, unfortunately more and more current topic. Many new songs sound good on the car radio and headphones but unfortunately no longer sound on an audiophile system. It seems that for many artists good playback via radio and streaming is more important than audiophile quality with good dynamic. One of the keywords was sometimes loudness war.
Good point -- and that's directly related to this video. Basically, they're either mastering on lousy systems or they're mastering directly for these types of systems. It's also about the mastering and how that affects what we hear in these different environments.
_maya_ does sound terribly abrasive on my home stereo. i just clicked on "meds and feds" and couldn't even make it to 20 seconds.
It is quite brutal to listen to on any decent system. I was shocked, though, to find out what it played like in a car.
In mixing they call it translation. Does it translate from studio to car to earbuds, etc. Actually each speaker set has strengths and weaknesses. The “trick” is to make one mix sound good on every one of these systems as well as a mono mix for single speaker systems. When you do this, it’s done. You can’t blame the speaker for your mix.
But do you agree with what I described in the video then -- it's a "compromised," because it has to sound good on all these systems?
I remember when the rock stations used to use a "West coast" eq and everything sounded great. Now it all sounds like crap.
I have to look that up and see what that's about.
I remember when my late father used dbx to record from vinyl records to reel to reel or on cassette tapes. His YAMAHA K1000 and K2000 had both dbx and the signal to noise ratio was extremely high under dbx and it sounded to my young ears 👂 much more interesting than the original recording.
I never got to the chance to experience DBX to see what it could really do.
Interesting. The guys over at Alpha Audio did a podcast recently where they talked about the idea that analog is not inherently superior to digital- its that the copy for vinal is mastered differently than for digital and if you can get digital copies made of those vinal masters, it sounds as good if not better.
100% true. Analog is not inherently superior. Not even close. At best it's just different. But like I said in this video, what's mastered for analog playback CAN be superior to what's mastered for digital playback.
I have been pushing this argument for years, that digital has the potential to be much better than vinyl, but very often we're not allowed the opportunity to hear it. So, if you want to hear the best version of your favourite albums, you essentially need to have the ability to play several formats, including vinyl. Not because vinyl is inherently better, but because for so much great music, the vinyl version is the best one practically available.
I agree with Doug that it will likely never happen, but I feel the most likely "shortcut" to two different versions would be to make the vinyl master be the "hifi" version, and then have a seperate digital "catch-all" version. There's always been a market for special audiophile versions of albums - maybe we could convince the studios that they are leaving money on the table? Most modern vinyl is digitally mastered anyway, so the files probably sits on a drive somewhere, for a lot of it.
But we proably also need to throw Atmos into the mix in this debate, and then it starts getting really muddy...
/Otto, Dynaudio Academy
@@DynaudioAcademy 100% agree with you.
@@DynaudioAcademyplease correct me if I’m wrong…
1. Digital and vinyl is mastered differently.
2. Hi-res digital master/process is actually better than analog because analog ‘colours’ the sound differently, and has more potential for noise in the process.
3. Vinyl actually has more dynamic range; ie isn’t compressed like someone sitting on a whoopi cushion.
With that said, it also depends on what needle is used to playback the vinyl.
3a. Listening to “Dreams” by cranberries - original and re-master I prefer the remaster. Bass is brought up a bit, but there is some clipping when comparing and inverting the original and playing with the remaster.
3b. ‘95 Ghost in the shell OST making of a cyborg. The original is waay better and has much more dynamic range compared to the over-compressed remaster.
I love your intro, with the crackle hiss of needle on vinyl. Reminds me why I won't go back to vinyl. There is a scam industry built around making your car mix sound great, as if that is the key to sonic excellence.
I am a Dua Lipa fan, but I actually don't like the approach of baselining for some random car's sound system.
Some of use have good studio monitors at home!
We agree!
I bet with todays technology they could have one high quality master and then some dsp solution to automatically compress it for the car or other specific listening environments. We already have loudness and night mode for home theater for example.
And that, indeed, is another way -- dynamic compression on the playback side.
I'm sure you could easily have dynamic range compression implemented on a car stereo. Since most radio stations use DRC heavily I see no reason it couldn't be used playback side. Would save having multiple masters.
I always thought it was common to make at least 2 completely different masters, one for the vinyl/cassettes that are not compressed and have more dynamic range whereas you can basically do full wall loud mastering for CD/Digital without any clipping or distortion issues. I can see that sometimes they may use the same loud master for all formats and maybe just lower the decibels but it can still cause some slight distortion, i'm almost certain it happened with a recent album i bought on CD, Cassette and Vinyl, i think they used the same loud master for all because the cassette clips and sometimes the vinyl distorts slightly.
When they are mastering and pushing right to the top range of the bits, they're not necessarily exploiting all the dynamic range -- they're making it so it plays back louder relative to something mastered to a lower level. But the dynamic range doesn't necessarily follow. For example, it's possible to push everything on CD to 15 or 16 bits, but have it go no lower than 15 bits, meaning effectively no dynamic range. Also, you can run into another problem when things are mastered that high -- what's being called "interoversamples." Benchmark Media initially brought a lot of attention to this. It's possible that although clipping hasn't occurred, a signal that high could clip after it's gone through the filter, which I've seen happen on poorly designed converters. One I had, in fact, let out a loud static-like pop on clipping. For that reason, they build overhead into the filters and/or like Benchmark does, reduce the loudness by a few dB so it can't clip. Google Benchmark Media and interoversample and you'll find more information.
Interesting idea that's been discussed for a while. Agreed that it's not likely to have artists/ masterers release multiple versions. Another interesting idea might be to have a compression "modifier/setting" that is embedded into the metadata of the track and readable by car sound systems. Car sound systems have some robust processing capabilities and a "good sounding compressor" (have to come to agreement about what that means) could be used to make the track more listenable in the car. An example of this already used for decades is radio broadcast. Stations will play the record, CD, digital file that is off the shelf, but run it through a compressor prior to broadcast to ensure it sounds good on the radio. The solution already exists, just gotta have others start implementing it.
Great points!
Back in the 70s and 80s there would be DJ club releases of 12 inch LPs at 45 RPM’s they were mastered with much more dynamic range, and bass impact.
Very interesting!
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand she’s insanely beautiful.
No one would argue that.
Susan Rogers is quoted as saying Prince would check his mixes/recordings in his car as a reference…
If its good enough for Prince, its good enough for Dua Lipa!
If I understand correctly, we are mainly talking about the mastering and not the mixing, right?The mix should always be at the maximum in every respect and only the master should and can be different
Am I wrong in my assumption?
Generally the mastering is where the dynamic range gets the most crushed. But you can't be sure what's happening, particularly these days with so much home recording. The Peter J. Moore I mentioned in the video once told me that since he did a lot of mastering of recordings he didn't make, he'd often have to tell "recording engineers" making these recording to at least add a subwoofer to the system so they'd have an idea what was going on in the bass. He told me that many would make these recordings on the worst of systems.
Today's car stereo systems are just a bunch of cheaply made crap that's been designed to look professional when it really isn't
I'd tend to agree.
Maybe on an entry level vehicle but I find most 50k and above cars have really good systems, there’s a reason the audio aftermarket isn’t so hot like the old days.
@@mikeg2491 Interesting you should bring that up. Back when, car stereos from the company were utter crap and it was just normal to replace them. Then the manufacturers started improving them until, today, they're what I'd call "good enough" for most people. But I definitely wouldn't call them great. They're still highly compromised to hit a cost constraint -- and then you have the speaker-placement issues.
Oh, that really depends on what you buy...😉
@@dougschneider8243 I guess it just depends on what you seek. I bought a 2022 dodge ram and it came with a Bose system. Regardless of Bose’s reputation it sounds great to me as someone who owns some equipment from Accuphase to McIntosh. It’s pretty neutral sounding and not the shake the street junk from the Alpine and Pioneer days of my youth. I’m too old for that. I’m sure with more money and a speaker upgrade I could get some more dynamics out of it but it’s just clean distortion free sound at high volumes I see no reason to spend more.
Well.....the rabbit hole...total agree. Back in Cretaceous period...as soon as cassette copies could be made...I did...and soon added a compressor to record them. Learned early in a noise environment pushing low volume up resulted in an astonishing demo from friends who couldn't understand why my mediocre system sounded so good...hope she gets sorted and with her clout maybe we get compressed cassettes ....ha....right...no cassette in cars so means pioneer needs to do a flashback ..great video thanks...yes Canadian......we have great studios
Do we have great studios anymore, though?
@dougschneider8243 metalworks???
Highly suspect - serotonia is a good example of "bad for car" dynamics
The quiet parts nearly disappear in a car if you're not blasting it. Then if you do turn it up, its uncomfortably loud when the chorus comes back.
But on headphones with no external noise, it sounds amazing.
You really should release multiple versions if you want fans to enjoy the nuances in any environment.
But it can get out of hand too, headphone only mixes would be cool, since it is such a different experience, the stereo image is going to have a much different impact then 2 speakers in a room or a car. If you're at a venue, you're not really going to want hard panned instruments, or in a club too much reverb.
It sucks imo, a middle of the road mix is really a boring mix. A headphone only mix could get very cool and spicy vs a club friendly mix in headphones
That's a song we'll have to check out -- it must have good dynamic range.
@soundstagenetwork the lyrics start out pretty weird, but it's a really good song imo
Radio station compress even more their content as most listening takes place in the car, and sounding louder is generally what attracts audience.
When they designed the original DAB (in the late 90s, I didn't check the specs of DAB+), the idea was to broadcast high dynamic content and let each receiver apply compression.
"the idea was to broadcast high dynamic content and let each receiver apply compression" -- and that was a very, very good idea.
Nowadays you have EVs with much better conditions for dynamic range. Also there are cars with much care done on the audio fidelity and with the listening positions and acoustical environment being known, OEMs can fine tune (stereo to speaker output up-mix via DSP) performance much more in a car than what is achieved by off-the-shelf consumer audio products in the home. Still I would agree that a home system can reach higher standards when proper setup incl. room acoustic considerations using high quality components.
Agree -- a home system done correctly will outperform a car system even done correctly.
@@dougschneider8243 Yes but "correct" is more ambiguous in a home system as you have room acoustics to deal with and too often you are stuck with whatever can be optimized in speaker placement, listening position and room treatment.
@@ThinkingBetter This is true, but a lot of research has been done on what makes for a "neutral" and also well-liked speaker, and room acoustics are also much better understood. For the latter, many tools are available for the consumer for passive acoustical treatment but also "room correction" and the like. A remarkable system can be set up by many people these days.
I mix and master. What is my standard? My speakers, iloud mtms (small speakers) and my in-ears, yes you read that right. Why? Because most people listen to Bluetooth speakers (many which are mono) and Air Pods or something like that. The car? Well it depends on the system, but my mixes and masters do translate well. Radio is what sucks, mainly because many transmit IN MONO. Yes, many radio stations think they transmit in stereo, but somewhere the line the audio “becomes” mono. Oh, and yes, I have had artists that when they put out their video in TH-cam they have uploaded it in mono also!!
Thanks for the great post!
Why not put a compression option in car stereos? (It’s been done before)
Yes!
She needs an engineer nerdy enough to go check the mix in her ride. ;)
Her music is mostly dance pop. Making sure the bass and kick are bumping in a car AND in the studio shouldn't be hard. It may be a product of the engineer decreasing loudest (LUFS) parts (probably kick/bass) in the mix in order to get the loudest possible master without too much clipping (and thus distorting) loud bass sections. But I wouldn't know, because I've never paid attention to her music.
Making mixes that translate everywhere actually IS very hard.
@ Not really. We do it everyday.
Part of the Dr. Floyd Toole Circle of Confusion!
100%
Rather, Dr. Floyd Toole's work is totally applicable where maximum fidelity is to be sought in typical home listening rooms. That was his and his team's intent. I have read over his papers, and I've seen no "circle of confusion" anywhere in them at all.
@@robinkleinsteuber5217 "FIGURE 2.3 (a) The “circle of confusion” modified to more accurately reflect its effect on the audio industry. The
true role of loudspeakers is shown here. (b) Unless the loudspeakers involved in the creation of the recordings are similar in performance to those used in reproduction, the “art” is not preserved." - the discussion I believe was on whether the art is preserved or we as consumers of the audio is provided in many cases with some average or worse version of the art because the producer is trying to cater for wide variety of loudspeakers and different situations - in this case apparently a car.
@@Trebleclefaudio That excerpt you brought out is exactly the problem -- if recordings are made on systems that aren't at all accurate, decisions will be made from a flawed frame of reference. But it might sound good on that system. But then you play it on an accurate system -- or one that has its own characteristics -- and you're going to wind up with different sound. It is, as he wrote, the "circle of confusion" that existed then and still now.
@@Trebleclefaudio Thanks for your response. The material of Dr. Floyd Toole that I read would be about two decades old now, and so am not familiar with this diagram, or possibly somehow I missed it. Interesting. I also thought the response was a derrogatory attack on Dr. Toole, so I came to his defense. However, that was not so. Ooops! Thanks again for the reference. I need to obtain more recent papers of his, clearly. Have a great day! 👍
Music is always best appreciated while driving, or on public transport and in noisy public spaces and it should always be mastered to suit🙄. Actually the brick-walling that's been an "industry standard" for 25 years or more was a result of in-ear headphones and ear-buds becoming widely de-facto, which prompted voltage and current (volume) limiting regulations for personal devices, the industry responded with the 'loudness war' to get the highest possible RMS SPLs from them. For anyone wanting to kick back and listen to (for example) Muse at home - tough.
No sir. The recordings themselves should carry the best and most honest representation of the musician's performance ... if your favourite medium is a crappy pair of earbuds or a 6x9 car speaker, the electronics to make it sound right should be in your amplifiers... not the recording.
And no, the brick walling is not a result of mobile users... it is the result of corporate demands that their music be the loudest on the radio... to sell more crappy recordings. It was not called the "loudness war" for no reason.
As an audio professional, what's missing from this equation is how is the music being delivered to her car? 15+ years ago, you could take a professionally recorded CD, listen to it in the studio, take it home, put it in your car, play it on a large concert sound system or play it on a club system and you could notice the difference in the way the system it was being played on sounded (and yes, notice deficiencies in how it was recorded or mastered). The "low hanging fruit" was and still is, what would it sound like on the radio? That is more about what processing the radio station is using, or more specifically, what the radio station manager and program director think the station "should" sound like, based on their target demographics and music they are playing. Competitive loudness is, sadly, one of the prime considerations (heavy compression, limiting and clipping). I could go on and on about the processing, data compression, etc. used in streaming services and let's not forget Bluetooth connections. I also have to point-out, I have three different cars and they all sound VASTLY different .
Perhaps Ms. Lipa needs to ask a professional why her music sounds like crap in HER car, rather than blame studio monitors, recording engineers or the industry.
Never heard something so wrong. A decent car stereo will be the best listening experience 90% of people have.
If you believe that, all the power to you. But it's otherwise...
The best solution - that will NEVER be implemented - would be a file standard made out of stems and then make the listening device do the mastering based on its mechanical capabilities.
A great arrangement played live in the studio doesn't have these problems! You can blame a lot of this on excessive piece by piece overdubbing/assembly combined with today's lack of arrangers.
But I'm sure you could take an live piece and compress the heck out of it, too.
Some car systems have tried simple things like automatic gain, but we're at the point where car audio can just implement some AI to make sure everything is audible over the cabin noise. This is also what pisses me off about all those suitcase record players that are in fashion again, are we supposed to master vinyl for those things?
Great points!
Vinyl typically has a dynamic range of 55-70 dB, whereas CD-quality PCM offers 96 dB, and high-resolution digital formats go even higher. Doesn't make sense not to offer e.g. 24bit on download platforms for the absolute highest and closest to what was recorded. This video makes it sound like Vinyl master was the original, it wasn't, everything is recorded digitally, then mastered, just sounds like Vinyl got the better mix - which makes no sense, who are they to guess and decide what and how you will play the music? Not everyone is rocking a $20 BT turdspeaker. Like you say, give us more options from the original recording.
That's POTENTIAL dynamic range of each medium. If you look at what's used, however, it's never close to being used. I looked up what the dynamic range of most pop recordings is and numbers I found indicate an average of about 10dB. So many are even less than that! In a nutshell, the dynamic range isn't being exploited -- so it's quite easy to make a vinyl master sound more dynamic than a digital one.
@@dougschneider8243 You're missing the point or not making any sense. "it's easy to make a vinyl master sound more dynamic than a digital one." That just means they compressed whatever will be released digitally, source is the same. It's far easier in the digital domain, if you tried going too dynamic on vinyl the needle would skip tracks.
@@thr0nic Hi. I didn't miss the point. When I said "it's easy" I meant that if the digital master is compressed, then you still have lots of room within vinyl's limitation to make a less compressed on. Thinking about it -- potentially more than 90dB of dynamic range on digital and 10dB gets used. On vinyl, 50-60dB, so use 20dB and you have a way more dynamic sound.
@@dougschneider8243 " if the digital master is compressed". I'm talking before. Would be no problem at all to keep dynamics beyond that of a vinyl in digital form. It's whatever they do between digital recording and mastering that matters and they could easily offer 24bit downloads to those who value true lossless. I've heard producers (e.g. AP Mastering) wanting to do it on bandcamp for instance.
The mistake... and it's a BIG one... was to mess with the mastering depending on audience.
Audio engineers should be mixing and mastering for good quality home and sound reinforcement systems. Best fidelity, optimal sound.
If a situation such as a car requires audio compression to overcome road noise the compressor should be in the CAR ... not the recording.
In a situation like a radio broadcast where loudness sells records... the maximizing gear should be in the TRANSMITTER... not the recording.
When walking around noisy streets with little tiny speakers jammed into your ears, the compression and limiting required should be in the PLAYER... not the recording.
Audio engineers made this mistake decades ago when they started mixing for digital sources (CD, Streaming, disk files, etc) with maximum loudness. They should have continued the vinyl-like methods at the "alignment level" (do a search) so that everyone who buys the recording gets the benefit of maximum range and fidelity and recommended changes to mobile and broadcast gear to do what needed to be done on the fly. Instead, they ruined (and are still ruining) a lot of musicians best efforts and decades of music... rather than speak out.
When I listen to music, I don't want to hear extra loud, pitch and time perfect sound produced by engineering wizardry ... I want to hear what the musicians actually played.
Great points!
Hilarious.
She prefers the playback in a vehicle to the studio. That's OK; just not the correct evaluation.
I bet she have never produced or mixed her music, she only sings without knowing how to make the song sound good on every sound system. The loudness problem caused a paradox where producers and even mix engineers pump their recordings to maximum with limiter then they upload it on Streaming Service that has it's own limiting, compression algorithm to gain match all the songs to certain level which differentiates slightly on every streaming platform. If you want to listen loud, turn it up if not enough buy better sound system. Crushing the dynamic range and quality of recording only to achieve maximum loudness is stupid.
She needs to cover Eyes of the Insane by Slayer, and to be less like Gary Glitter. We have all seen the Joker escaping the police by running down steps.
There is not THAT much road noise in cars last couple of decades..😅 Atleast not in europe🤷♂️
Loudness war is because of radio channels trying to sound the loudest en the earlier days and it's just been around since even though it's not needed at all even in a car..
When you say headphones, I believe you're referring to portable music used by the youth and some older folks. I would think and hope that you're not referring to home-based much higher end headphone listening at home on very high quality gear. I can guarantee that they are not the same! Audiophile headphone listening is a much higher level of fidelity and listening pleasure than the typical lower-fi cheap portable players with likewise cheap headphones that most youth would use. Also important to mention, that audiophiles do listen to high-def digital streaming services and to CD's on very, very high quality gear. I would sincerely hope that highest-quality mastering is aimed for those avenues of music distribution as well, not just vinyl. Big mistake, if not!
I can guarantee you that in almost all instances, particularly for popular releases, they're "compromised" just as I described based on my discussions with the late Peter J. Moore.
@@dougschneider8243 As I said, big mistake to compromise all releases but the vinyl. LP sales have been dropping. CD sales are presently doing better again, at least, around here.
@@robinkleinsteuber5217 Unfortunately in the business to make money, appealing to the majority rules. Your in the minority as am I. Convenience over quality is the focus of this generation of consumers. Many times in the past inferior technology was adopted over superior technology for this reason.
@@dougschneider8243 That's sad! 😒 Thanks for your reply. 👍
@@dwaynepiper3261 Very unfortunate, but you're right on that. I find that searching for good recordings for favourite music is quite the chore. 😕 Anyhow, have a great day!👍
Says the woman who mimes on stage. 🙄
You are the one that seems to be wildly misinformed
Can you explain why?
@soundstagenetwork your concept of mastering seems very off, nothing of what you said is the purpose of mastering. nobody is making anything loud because of a car nor does making anything loud have anything to do with compression. Masters are loud because of the competitive nature of the business and how loud it can get without sounding bad is dependant on so many variables that start at the recording and arranging process. If something is overcompressed, mostly it's been done in the mixing process. If something is just loud, it has been done in the mastering process but not with compression but with clipping, distortion, maximization and limiting and it's purpose again is not to sound "good" in a car but to get it to compete with other products on the market. Also no sane mastering engineer will deliberately master something for a car, that is making fun of the whole profession. I suggest you read up on the whole record production process before you make such statements.
@@mirkomarkovic3438 Now that you've explained why, I can jump in. Wherever heavy compression, etc., is being put in -- recording, mixing, mastering -- well, it's happening. That said, Peter J. Moore was one of Canada's most accomplished producers, recording engineers, mastering engineers, and restorers. As I said the video, he was the one who brought to me the idea of creating a video about compromised masters a decade ago. And this was his life.
Yes and no, when it comes to oem automotive audio systems. Some sound quite good. More sound pretty poorly. Go visit your local professional car audio installation shop and get upgraded. It can be done, don't expect it to happen for like $500 though
There's not a car audio system in the world that can sound like a good home audio system simply based on speaker placement -- providing you're not completely messing up at home. A good setup at home has the speakers symmetrically in front of the listener. In a car, the tweeter is here, the midrange woofer there, the driver is toward one side, the passenger toward another. You get sound, but it's hardly the same experience.
@dougschneider8243 whatever 🙄
Well, who is the "real" professional here? Is it Dua Lipa, an actual working musician with record sales numbering in the many millions? Or the guy with a TH-cam channel? The guy who also claims to be the "founder" of the popular live music TV show "Soundstage" but whose name isn't Ken Ehrlich. Ken was still with WTTW when I interviewed with Bill McCarter c. 1980, and I met him. Ken's not this guy.
We have a guy who's not who he claims to be, claiming that pop star Dua Lipa said something, but can't produce the publication where this was alleged to have said it. It sounds fishy all-around. And only an idiot thinks that "studio monitor" has a magical meaning. Two different speaker systems will sound different. Two different rooms will sound different. There's no right or wrong here. Even by secondhand account, Ms. Lipa only said that she likes to listen in her car. That's her prerogative.
Wow, thanks for all the compliments. I can only say that when you were an "interviewer" I hope you were more adept at research than you are now. I can help you, though -- there's this new thing called Google when you can look stuff up. If you do, you'll find out I founded SoundStage! in 1995, which has a registered trademark as an audio publication. That's what I do, audio. And, yes, Dua Lipa is great -- I mentioned that in the video. Now what's your point again?
@@dougschneider8243 what? When was I ever 'an "interviewer"'? And you have the gall to accuse _me_ of being bad at research? 😆 Not only are you a bad liar, you're dumb! I got the job, so I know that you aren't Ken Ehrlich, who created the show and produced the first episode in 1974. You also lied about your alleged trademark. I looked. "Window to the World" that's what WTTW stands for. It's there, and you're not WTTW. I know, I was there and you were not. That was my point, after all, that your claim to fame is fraudulent. You didn't create the TV show whose name you're using without permission, and you aren't Ken Ehrlich. Ken does have a résumé in the music industry to make Dua Lipa's pale in comparison, but you're only pretending to be him. Shame on you!