Why are so many albums, compressed, brick walled

[tas7]

The first chorus of The Garden is really clear as there is no bass and percussion. With the addition of the bass and percussion in the second chorus it becomes less clear.

[maxdistortion]

its mostly the mastering... they squashed the hell out of the entire mix and beefed up the bottom end to an overexagurated extent. I've heard albums mixed worse than this one, sadly.

 

If you guys compare the 2010 version of Bu2b and Caravan, to this one...its sad...

 

Shame too really cus the more I listen to this album the more I absolutely love it...including trying desperately to adjust my ears to the mix if nothing else lol

[CrossedSignals]

QUOTE (maxdistortion @ Jun 14 2012, 05:31 AM)

its mostly the mastering... they squashed the hell out of the entire mix and beefed up the bottom end to an overexagurated extent.  I've heard albums mixed worse than this one, sadly. If you guys compare the 2010 version of Bu2b and Caravan, to this one...its sad... Shame too really cus the more I listen to this album the more I absolutely love it...including trying desperately to adjust my ears to the mix if nothing else lol

 

The mix does sound "squashed". There isn't a good use of the whole frequency spectrum. It's weird because this isn't a necessary result of "brickwalling" or "over-compression".... it's just poorly mixed.

 

I agree, the 2010 mixes of Caravan and BU2B sound WAY better now that I've gone back and listened. I like some of the creative choices in the new mixes, but it terms of sound quality it's not even close.

[Rushman14]

I think the reason for the loudness war might be due to the invention of the ipod. Everyone is trying to make sure their song volumes arent lacking compared to others. Edited June 14, 2012 by Rushman14

[Rushman14]

QUOTE (RUSHHEAD666 @ Jun 14 2012, 01:11 AM)

What am I to do? Sit around naked when the wife is asleep and crank the first Boston album? What a clean gem!

dude, this just made me LOL in my office. My co-workers are wondering WTF?

[Babycat]

Out of curiosity, what does 'brick walled' mean..?

[Rushman14]

QUOTE (Babycat @ Jun 14 2012, 10:56 AM)

Out of curiosity, what does 'brick walled' mean..?

it means that they master the final mix as loud as possible and it starts to lose dynamics.

[Snaked]

QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jun 14 2012, 01:47 PM)

I think the reason for the loudness war might be due to the invention of the ipod. Everyone is trying to make sure their song volumes arent lacking compared to others.

The loudness wars started long before the invent of the iPod.

 

[marblesmike]

Brickwalled:

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SIifrT-siyE/ST3OeU0X5TI/AAAAAAAABX8/4tfP_GZLIkY/s320/noise.jpg

 

Not brickwalled:

 

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2479/4018672400_69ebd89499.jpg

 

CwA isn't really brickwalled, but it's pretty close. It sounds like the individual tracks were compressed a lot before being mixed and mastered.

 

Here's the famous example of Metallica's Death Magnetic album, where the Guitar Hero tracks sounded wayyyy better than the actual cd. Top is cd, bottom is Guitar Hero:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Metallica_My_Apocalypse_waveform.png/640px-Metallica_My_Apocalypse_waveform.png

Edited June 14, 2012 by marblesmike

[trenken]

QUOTE (Earthshine @ Jun 14 2012, 02:29 AM)

Don't know. But I can't help but wonder what this music would sound like with the production as on Power Windows: big, full, balanced and not so compressed. I would much rather prefer a bigger drum sound. Maybe Neil needs to get rid of those DW's and go back to Ludwig, which are the best sounding drums he ever had. The red Tamas sounded great too. But the white Ludwigs were the best.

The Power Windows production is just amazing. So crisp and dynamic, and compared to that this album sounds very cloudy and muddy. Really shitty recording, and I have no idea why.

 

There are many bands out there putting great sounding albums. Coldplay's new album, although I think its terrible, sounds as good as Power Windows. Maybe it their engineer.

[marblesmike]

QUOTE (trenken @ Jun 14 2012, 02:13 PM)

QUOTE (Earthshine @ Jun 14 2012, 02:29 AM) Don't know. But I can't help but wonder what this music would sound like with the production as on Power Windows: big, full, balanced and not so compressed. I would much rather prefer a bigger drum sound. Maybe Neil needs to get rid of those DW's and go back to Ludwig, which are the best sounding drums he ever had. The red Tamas sounded great too. But the white Ludwigs were the best. The Power Windows production is just amazing. So crisp and dynamic I have a vinyl rip of it that I've used to test my car stereo after installing new components. Great sounding album.

Edited June 14, 2012 by marblesmike

[maxdistortion]

QUOTE (marblesmike @ Jun 14 2012, 01:12 PM)

Brickwalled: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SIifrT-siyE/ST3OeU0X5TI/AAAAAAAABX8/4tfP_GZLIkY/s320/noise.jpg Not brickwalled: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2479/4018672400_69ebd89499.jpg CwA isn't really brickwalled, but it's pretty close.  It sounds like the individual tracks were compressed a lot before being mixed and mastered. Here's the famous example of Metallica's Death Magnetic album, where the Guitar Hero tracks sounded wayyyy better than the actual cd.  Top is cd, bottom is Guitar Hero: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Metallica_My_Apocalypse_waveform.png/640px-Metallica_My_Apocalypse_waveform.png

dude, your absolutely right.

 

I got so annoyed today by the mix that I decided to import everything into Garageband.

 

The tracks arent necesarily squashed like I thought. Everything IS compressed as far as individual instruments s go.

 

Also, most mixes nowadays are "dull" sounding (not alot of treble). This is probably an mp3 related thing.

 

I upped the mids and cranked the treble above 5k and exported every track with that adjustment.

 

The mix is opened up and you can hear a touch more guitar, more clarity in geds vocal, and more cymbals / attack of the drums.

 

It helps that ive uh just now lol

Edited June 15, 2012 by maxdistortion

[canadianice]

If anyone has GUP, the original Anthem cd, listen to it again, wonderful sound

[Steely Caress]

sad when you consider that some of the bands best sounding albums were recorded in weeks, not months. So much for progress.

[Steely Caress]

QUOTE (H. P. L. @ Jun 14 2012, 05:11 AM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jun 14 2012, 10:56 AM) In the new Rolling Stone interview Neil was told by the interviewer that he's the master of the drum kit! Neil said: "NO grasshopper I'm the master student and until I've studied all the jazz patterns of Freddie (rush)Gruber and Peter Foreskin I will even be nothing more than the great drum masturbator!" He also says he's gonna buy an Harley. No, he still likes to ride outside the city limits

[analog guy]

Count me among the disappointed..... I actually felt like it wasn't that bad until I started playing it in my car and made my own 320 rips.

 

Honestly, the balls have gone out of the drums completely. This might be the worst sound drum album of all time. It sounds like someone hitting garbage can lids in a back alley.

 

 

[Ghostnotes]

QUOTE (tas7 @ Jun 14 2012, 02:44 AM)

I hated when our sound engineer used Pro Tools on our recordings as it compressed the life out of the sound especially during the mastering phase. The dynamic range was sacrificed for volume and it made a rock band sound like Maroon 5. I have had a go remixing using Nuendo 3 and have managed to create a much better dynamic range. Hard to gauge Clockwork Angels as I haven't got the CD yet but have noticed the difference between the first and second choruses of The Garden at 256 kbps streaming.The second is heavily compressed to me as bass and drums were added.

I tried using Pro Tools 2 or 3 times and just did not like the end result at all. So stick I with Sonar.PT is overrated in my opinion.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Ghostnotes

[EmotionDetector]

QUOTE (analog guy @ Jun 15 2012, 12:26 AM)

Count me among the disappointed..... I actually felt like it wasn't that bad until I started playing it in my car and made my own 320 rips. Honestly, the balls have gone out of the drums completely. This might be the worst sound drum album of all time. It sounds like someone hitting garbage can lids in a back alley.

Hmmm...have you ever heard 'St. Anger' from Metallica?

 

That one fits your description way better.

[Babycat]

QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jun 14 2012, 07:09 PM)

QUOTE (Babycat @ Jun 14 2012, 10:56 AM) Out of curiosity, what does 'brick walled' mean..? it means that they master the final mix as loud as possible and it starts to lose dynamics. Gotcha. Thanks, Rushman14!

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

As someone who earns a living as an audio person I can say that part of it is the way things are recorded, part of it is mixing less than stellar recordings and finally part is mastering for iPods.

 

I have recently been a part of an audio engineering forum that has turned me around many degrees where recording is concerned. I have been working in the digital domain since the 90's and with music especially (sound effects are my main trade) I have struggled to come close digitally to even poorly recorded analog recordings I have done on cassette 4 track. The main culprit is the digital medium itself. We've had discussions like this in the MMM section (where I moderate for some of you who don't recognize me). Digital recording is inherently flawed because of how it works, especially when all of humanity is used to hearing analog recordings.

 

This is a fundamental recording issue but it effects things that are frequency dependent like EQ and modulation effects (phase, flange, chorus etc; oh and drums and cymbals and guitars...) because not all frequencies are "created equal" due to fixed sample rates. Higher frequencies lose out the lower the sample rate while lower frequencies are always represented much more closely t their analog equivalent.

 

So when you play back something that wasn't recorded as well as we are used to hearing, then mixing it with other "inferior" recorded material, then smashing it to be as loud as possible there is little wonder why we don't like what we're hearing.

 

There will always be a new technological "advances" that will take us to the next tier. Neil Young is working on a new digital format that will allegedly deal with some of this, but I will believe when I hear it.

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

QUOTE (Snaked @ Jun 14 2012, 11:11 AM)

QUOTE (Rushman14 @ Jun 14 2012, 01:47 PM) I think the reason for the loudness war might be due to the invention of the ipod. Everyone is trying to make sure their song volumes arent lacking compared to others. The loudness wars started long before the invent of the iPod. Indeed it did. This has been going on for decades. Listen to some records. Actual vinyl records and you can hear all kinds of compression there as well. It just isn;t as grating as digital compression.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Jun 15 2012, 03:44 PM)

As someone who earns a living as an audio person I can say that part of it is the way things are recorded, part of it is mixing less than stellar recordings and finally part is mastering for iPods. I have recently been a part of an audio engineering forum that has turned me around many degrees where recording is concerned. I have been working in the digital domain since the 90's and with music especially (sound effects are my main trade) I have struggled to come close digitally to even poorly recorded analog recordings I have done on cassette 4 track. The main culprit is the digital medium itself. We've had discussions like this in the MMM section (where I moderate for some of you who don't recognize me). Digital recording is inherently flawed because of how it works, especially when all of humanity is used to hearing analog recordings. This is a fundamental recording issue but it effects things that are frequency dependent like EQ and modulation effects (phase, flange, chorus etc; oh and drums and cymbals and guitars...) because not all frequencies are "created equal" due to fixed sample rates. Higher frequencies lose out the lower the sample rate while lower frequencies are always represented much more closely t their analog equivalent. So when you play back something that wasn't recorded as well as we are used to hearing, then mixing it with other "inferior" recorded material, then smashing it to be as loud as possible there is little wonder why we don't like what we're hearing. There will always be a new technological "advances" that will take us to the next tier. Neil Young is working on a new digital format that will allegedly deal with some of this, but I will believe when I hear it.

How come Jazz albums still sound great? I got Marcus Miller's new album the other week and it sounds perfect, no brick wall effect whatsoever, it sounds sharp, crystal clear, with amazing dynamics and it's still big and powerful.

[Mushfan]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Jun 15 2012, 03:59 PM)

QUOTE (CygnusX-1Bk2 @ Jun 15 2012, 03:44 PM) As someone who earns a living as an audio person I can say that part of it is the way things are recorded, part of it is mixing less than stellar recordings and finally part is mastering for iPods. I have recently been a part of an audio engineering forum that has turned me around many degrees where recording is concerned. I have been working in the digital domain since the 90's and with music especially (sound effects are my main trade) I have struggled to come close digitally to even poorly recorded analog recordings I have done on cassette 4 track. The main culprit is the digital medium itself. We've had discussions like this in the MMM section (where I moderate for some of you who don't recognize me). Digital recording is inherently flawed because of how it works, especially when all of humanity is used to hearing analog recordings. This is a fundamental recording issue but it effects things that are frequency dependent like EQ and modulation effects (phase, flange, chorus etc; oh and drums and cymbals and guitars...) because not all frequencies are "created equal" due to fixed sample rates. Higher frequencies lose out the lower the sample rate while lower frequencies are always represented much more closely t their analog equivalent. So when you play back something that wasn't recorded as well as we are used to hearing, then mixing it with other "inferior" recorded material, then smashing it to be as loud as possible there is little wonder why we don't like what we're hearing. There will always be a new technological "advances" that will take us to the next tier. Neil Young is working on a new digital format that will allegedly deal with some of this, but I will believe when I hear it. How come Jazz albums still sound great? I got Marcus Miller's new album the other week and it sounds perfect, no brick wall effect whatsoever, it sounds sharp, crystal clear, with amazing dynamics and it's still big and powerful. Jazz records sound great because there's less instrumentation, so there's room to breathe. They also arrange VERY well. Proper arrangement it SO important for mixing.   I think part of the issue today is the virtually unlimited tracks available. Back in the analog days, they were limited to 24 or 36 tracks,etc. So guys like Alex Lifeson couldn't do 17 guitar tracks back then.   On a side note, did anybody notice the issue with Neil's snare on the first chorus of Clockwork angels? It's missing, all you hear is the room mics and then it finally comes back.

[Rushman14]

QUOTE (Mushfan @ Jun 15 2012, 02:12 PM)

On a side note, did anybody notice the issue with Neil's snare on the first chorus of Clockwork angels? It's missing, all you hear is the room mics and then it finally comes back.

i definitely hear it during the slow bluesy section but I'm certain it is intentional.

[CygnusX-1Bk2]

Also with regard to Jazz there is much less overdubbing going on, if at all in many cases. Not sure about MM's album. I've seen him live and he is more progressive than a lot of Jazz guys. Generally speaking many Jazz recordings are played as a unit live. They may touch a bad phrase after the fact but generally what you hear was a moment in time where rock and pop records are much more manufactured with isolated instruments played in different studios. There is a lot to be said for recording a band as a unit. The vibe will almost always be better.

 

If you recall the hoopla surrounding S&A Alex made mention several times of "recording from the floor" meaning the three of them in the room together playing at once. Usually with rock records this is done to get drum tracks and then overdub all the other stuff but I think much of the S&A basic tracks were used on the final album.

 

What happens when recording isolated players as opposed to a whole band engineers end up trying to shoehorn instruments together into a mix. When you record a band playing all at once you can get a mix pretty close to final from the start.