Analysis of hit albums...

[fleetfootmike]

...and why you shouldn't compress everything so it sounds LOUD.

http://www.airwindows.com/analysis/Dynamics.html

Quite the most awesome link. Thanks, redaxe!

Comments

[rickbooth.livejournal.com]

The problem is, it's largely nonsense. It's important to realise that although his qualitative assertion - which I paraphrase as "records with greater dynamic range sound better at the same RMS level" is one that not many serious listeners would take any exception to, that does absolutely nothing to plug up the gaping wounds in his analysis.

He argues that large-contrast records *sell more*, but in fact the metric he's using is hugely biased towards older records - he's ranking according to the product of total sales (itself biased to older records simply because of time available) and years of availability. It's an absurd number to rank on and his justification for it is the most transparent nonsense, but hey ho. What he is then *actually* asserting is that there is a correlation between

(a) old records (that have sold well)
(b) records without a large amount of mastering-stage compression

But this is virtually tautological, since pushing-the-meters master-limiting is a recent phenomenon; in other words, he is simply demonstrating that no old records are new. You don't need all the graphs for that.

His assertions about hit-record graph artifacts are interesting, though again (because of his metric) not particularly convincing in any context other than that of classic rock. The later stuff about some modern productions are interesting; maybe this *does* explain why Californication doesn't, to my ears, work that well, though plenty of people (including musicians) I know would disagree with that premise completely.

It's interesting and it's certainly pretty, but it doesn't show anything - much less what he purports to be showing.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

Agreed, that selection metric is obviously biased.

But the wider dynamic range, the difference between the background and the peaks, they're the sort of features which, I suspect, would be appreciated by those of us with tired old ears. Age, and hearing loss from other causes, loses us the ability to pick out sounds from background noise, and I suspect the modern high-volume, high-compression, style of music recording would sound terrible for that reason, whether it was Glenn Miller, Led Zeppelin, or the latest Eurovision winner.

[rickbooth.livejournal.com]

As I already said, his qualitative assertion - which I paraphrase as "records with greater dynamic range sound better at the same RMS level" is one that not many serious listeners would take any exception to, tired ears or no. But the waters are muddied by the fact that the major delivery channel of classic rock to listeners - American radio stations - is compressed every bit as much as a modern mastering engineer would. Indeed, one of the driving forces behind crush-mastering is to minimise what radio does to your record.

I'm not arguing with a lot of his assumptions. I certainly agree that records that haven't been limited to death sound better, by and large, and it's trivial (and inevitable) that they'll sound louder at the same RMS output. I'm not even going to argue with his assertion that you may be able to spot some rhythmic elements common in hit records on a chart, though I'm not frankly convinced of it. All I'm really arguing with is his metric, and the ensuing and basic correlation/causation error.

Of course, from the record industry's view, the crucial question is whether the same record released tomorrow will sell more with or without heavy limiting. My bet is that the answer is genre-determined and that the margins are small. The very fact that punters are overwhelmingly content with low-bitrate mp3s and appalling speakers tells you that the audience really isn't massively driven by production.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

No, the MP3 effect and shit speakers end up biasing the market; they don't make production irrelevant. The production ends up making a record which has the desired sound under those circumstances.

Which is exactly what is being done by compressing the dynamic range, with respect to US radio broadcasting. They're making records that can survive what the radio stations do to them.

[guitardilettant.livejournal.com]

There's always been a bias of some kind, before 'MP3s and shit speakers' personal and car stereos were frequently used as a form of reference by various mixing engineers.

For another 'classic rock' datapoint (of sorts), take a look at Bob Clearmountain's site, where he states that he uses an old set of Apple Computer Speakers as a reference point.

-- chris

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

I question a study that defines "importance" as this one does. ISTM that he's looking for a way to promote '70s rock. :-)

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

There needs to be some analysis done of the stuff that was big in the Seventies, but hasn't lasted. Such as the Bay City Rollers. And I'd like to see an analysis of Abba too.

[ian-myatt.livejournal.com]

Probably seen this before, but along similar lines.