In article , MiNe 109
wrote:
In article , "David Looser"
wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote

I don't see the difference what stage the compression is added makes.

It makes no difference to the final result, of course. What I meant
was that if the compression is part of "the sound" (as you said it
was) then it would be part of the recording process prior to the
point that the recording is approved by producer and artist, not
added in later.

Yes, artists and producers approve the compromised product. They have to
or it won't be released in any form.

It is important to distinguish between compression and clipping, and
between these occuring 'at source' and 'during output format creation'.

If clipping occurs at any stage then information is lost from the result.
So clipping at source means the information is lost during recording.
Whereas if clipping occurs when the recordings are used to 'produce a CD'
then the CDs may be clipped, but new versions could be made from the
recording that were not clipped in the same way, so would provide the
information omitted from the above CD.

Similarly, if artists and producers 'approve' a recording that may not mean
they then approve the final CD/LP/etc. They may also not know if the
material has been clipped.

Because the producer may be under corporate pressure to deliver a
commercial sound for the mass market product.

But everything I hear says it's the producers who decides. The "suits"
are in no position to listen to every track or to decide what degree
of compression does, or does not, make for a "commercial sound". What
the suits want is sales, it is up to the producer to decide how to
deliver that.

The "suits" can and will reject the final product if it does not conform
to their wishes.

The above is interesting as combined with what you asserted above it
implies that someone other than the artists and original recording
producers controls the 'final product'. That may well be where the problems
stem from, although until all the people involved are more open we can only
surmise from their products what they were up to.


The limited run lp is all but ignored so the producer can choose a
less commercial sound. We recently discussed an example by Tom Petty
of this case, the "free" relatively uncompressed cd with the lp
package.


Yet another bit of nonesense from the record companies. Why demand
that the purchaser buys a redundant LP before they are allowed to
purchase a well-mastered CD?

No, it's huge favor to the public who would never have the opportunity
to buy the well-mastered cd otherwise.

Ah. post-modern irony. 8-]

It is a "huge favor" to provide material that is *not* heavily compressed
and/or clipped! If that is how they feel, perhaps it tells us something
about attitudes to pop/rock music in the industry. :-)


Think of it as a $30 cd like
Mobile Fidelity, etc, with a free lp. This particular package was the
producer's idea, IIRC. Here's more on that:

http://www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo....ber=WEALP45586

Mudcrutch engineer Ryan Ulyate says he and the musicians felt they had
to compromise on the mass-market CD (released on April 29, 2008). That's
because, in general, most popular music CDs are mixed to sound louder
for use in cars and for conversion into MP3s. "That makes it really
unsatisfying to listen to," Ulyate says. "We have this loudness war that
has destroyed the way CDs sound, and we're trying to find a way to get
off this spiral."

The problem here is that, combined with the comments you make above, it
does indicate that the wishes of the artists and recording people are often
discarded later in the 'food chain' by the "suits" who presume they know
better when they 'approve' the 'final product'.

--

If Tom Petty and company "felt they had to compromise" there's no way
lesser-selling groups are in a stronger position.

My impression is that for decades the pop end of the music biz has run on
taking in (in more senses than one) a series of 'one hit wonders' who I
suspect are often clueless about any of these things and just do what they
are told because they are so eager to be a 'pop star'. Given this it seems
unlikely than many of them are even aware of the issues, let alone have any
ability to insist on the 'final product' not being heavily level compressed
or clipped.


Are you *really* trying to suggest that there is any kind of sense
behind record industry behaviour?

There are recognizable patterns, yes.

The patterns of behaviour do seem to show in the 'final products'. What is
far less clear is why those involved have their belief system founded on an
obsession with relentless loudness. Instead we are told that they believe
what they do because they believe they are right to so believe. i.e a form
of religeous faith adopted by a 'laying on of hands' from bishops... erm
established 'suits'. :-)

The only 'evidence' seems to be 'well people buy the product'. Which of
course tells us nothing about if they might buy as much - or more! - if it
was *not* relentelessly loud. And neatly avoids wondering if the move from
CD to MP3 is being encouraged by people finding that the CDs are clipped
and compressed - so making any audible difference a matter of 'choose your
imposed poison'. :-) I wonder if MP3 downloads would have grown so
rapidly if pop CDs had not been so level compressed and clipped?...

There seemed to be a parallel elsewhere that I encountered on Friday.
Listeing to the Radio 4 'feedback' programme they gave the BBC's
'explanation' why a long-running science programme was being axed. The
wording was long and used many 'bull**** bingo' phrases. But boiled down
to, "The BBC decided to axe the programme because they wanted to cut down
and picked this one." i.e. We did this because this is what we did. The
fact that it was arguably one of their best science prorammes was clearly
an irrelevancy. Perhaps significant that in the same week their new science
series is the 'monkey cage'. Almost literally from the sublime to the
rediculous. :-) Although that said, I did actually enjoy 'monkey cage'.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

David Looser wrote:

They could quite simply have offered the less compressed CD as an option,
without tying it into the LP purchase (and thus making it a lot more
expensive). I guess the industry nutcases were scared that if they offered a
highly compressed and a less compressed CD on equal terms so many people
would buy the uncompressed version as to undermine their quasi-religious
belief in "loudness". There is, in fact, absolutely no reason why CDs cannot
be offered in two versions. If they can offer an LP as an option they can
sell a less compressed CD as an option. Why are they scared to try it?

Isn't that what HDCD was for? The common man can listen to it compressed
and the connoisseur can use a CD player with an HDCD decoder.

Not that any of my HDCDs seem to use the peak extension feature,
or dynamic range compression for that matter.

--
Eiron.

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Bob Latham" wrote

Really? an odd comment. Care to explain what you meant by it?

It was meant to cause a smile, a joke, too trivial to pursue.

Talking of trivial pursuits, Status Quo, started out as
"The Spectres" Francis Rossi is said to have "bought"
the name Status Quo from another band.

Iain

In article ,
"David Looser" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Looser" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote

I don't see the difference what stage the compression is added makes.

It makes no difference to the final result, of course. What I meant was
that
if the compression is part of "the sound" (as you said it was) then it
would
be part of the recording process prior to the point that the recording is
approved by producer and artist, not added in later.

Yes, artists and producers approve the compromised product. They have to
or it won't be released in any form.

Exactly, and they approve it *before* mastering, so before the comprssion is
applied. If it was part of the "sound" it would be applied before, not
after.

Uh, no. These days mastering is like an extension of the mixing process.
The final product is just that: final.

Because the producer may be under corporate pressure to deliver a
commercial sound for the mass market product.

But everything I hear says it's the producers who decides. The "suits"
are
in no position to listen to every track or to decide what degree of
compression does, or does not, make for a "commercial sound". What the
suits
want is sales, it is up to the producer to decide how to deliver that.

The "suits" can and will reject the final product if it does not conform
to their wishes.

The suits do not have the time to listen to everything, nor the skills to
decide what is, or is not, "commercial"

Actually they do. What you're describing is the A&R department. They
also have the power to prescribe sound styles.

The limited run lp is all
but ignored so the producer can choose a less commercial sound. We
recently discussed an example by Tom Petty of this case, the "free"
relatively uncompressed cd with the lp package.


Yet another bit of nonesense from the record companies. Why demand that
the
purchaser buys a redundant LP before they are allowed to purchase a
well-mastered CD?

No, it's huge favor to the public who would never have the opportunity
to buy the well-mastered cd otherwise. Think of it as a $30 cd like
Mobile Fidelity, etc, with a free lp. This particular package was the
producer's idea, IIRC. Here's more on that:

Sorry Stephen, that really is the silliest thing you've said yet. To suggest
that forcing people who want a CD to buy a redundant LP as well is doing
them a "favour" is just plain nuts.

Sorry, it's logically sound. Since the cost of the package is the same
as either format would be separately, no one is "forced" to buy the
second item. In this case, the cd is the extra item due to its
inexpensive packaging.

http://www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo....ber=WEALP45586

Mudcrutch engineer Ryan Ulyate says he and the musicians felt they had
to compromise on the mass-market CD (released on April 29, 2008). That's
because, in general, most popular music CDs are mixed to sound louder
for use in cars and for conversion into MP3s. "That makes it really
unsatisfying to listen to," Ulyate says. "We have this loudness war that
has destroyed the way CDs sound, and we're trying to find a way to get
off this spiral."


They could quite simply have offered the less compressed CD as an option,
without tying it into the LP purchase (and thus making it a lot more
expensive). I guess the industry nutcases were scared that if they offered a
highly compressed and a less compressed CD on equal terms so many people
would buy the uncompressed version as to undermine their quasi-religious
belief in "loudness". There is, in fact, absolutely no reason why CDs cannot
be offered in two versions. If they can offer an LP as an option they can
sell a less compressed CD as an option. Why are they scared to try it?

The problem is that of dual inventory, the same reason consumers were
"forced" to buy stereo lps instead of having the choice of mono, cds
instead of lps and the reason the sacd introduction was botched when
Sony released DSD only discs.

--

If Tom Petty and company "felt they had to compromise" there's no way
lesser-selling groups are in a stronger position.

Are you *really* trying to suggest that there is any kind of sense behind
record industry behaviour?

There are recognizable patterns, yes.

Recognisable patterns of insanity you mean?

Well, yes.

Stephen

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , MiNe 109
wrote:
In article , "David Looser"
wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote

I don't see the difference what stage the compression is added makes.

It makes no difference to the final result, of course. What I meant
was that if the compression is part of "the sound" (as you said it
was) then it would be part of the recording process prior to the
point that the recording is approved by producer and artist, not
added in later.

Yes, artists and producers approve the compromised product. They have to
or it won't be released in any form.

It is important to distinguish between compression and clipping, and
between these occuring 'at source' and 'during output format creation'.

If clipping occurs at any stage then information is lost from the result.
So clipping at source means the information is lost during recording.
Whereas if clipping occurs when the recordings are used to 'produce a CD'
then the CDs may be clipped, but new versions could be made from the
recording that were not clipped in the same way, so would provide the
information omitted from the above CD.

Similarly, if artists and producers 'approve' a recording that may not mean
they then approve the final CD/LP/etc. They may also not know if the
material has been clipped.

I understand the technical distinction, but I do not believe it to be
the case that pop artists deliver pristine dynamic records that are
secretly 'squashed' by the record company. There's a feedback loop in
place that informs producers (and engineers) what will likely be
accepted.

Because the producer may be under corporate pressure to deliver a
commercial sound for the mass market product.

But everything I hear says it's the producers who decides. The "suits"
are in no position to listen to every track or to decide what degree
of compression does, or does not, make for a "commercial sound". What
the suits want is sales, it is up to the producer to decide how to
deliver that.

The "suits" can and will reject the final product if it does not conform
to their wishes.

The above is interesting as combined with what you asserted above it
implies that someone other than the artists and original recording
producers controls the 'final product'. That may well be where the problems
stem from, although until all the people involved are more open we can only
surmise from their products what they were up to.

Thanks for understanding this.


The limited run lp is all but ignored so the producer can choose a
less commercial sound. We recently discussed an example by Tom Petty
of this case, the "free" relatively uncompressed cd with the lp
package.


Yet another bit of nonesense from the record companies. Why demand
that the purchaser buys a redundant LP before they are allowed to
purchase a well-mastered CD?

No, it's huge favor to the public who would never have the opportunity
to buy the well-mastered cd otherwise.

Ah. post-modern irony. 8-]

It is a "huge favor" to provide material that is *not* heavily compressed
and/or clipped! If that is how they feel, perhaps it tells us something
about attitudes to pop/rock music in the industry. :-)

As we say ironically, this just in...

Think of it as a $30 cd like
Mobile Fidelity, etc, with a free lp. This particular package was the
producer's idea, IIRC. Here's more on that:

http://www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo....ber=WEALP45586

Mudcrutch engineer Ryan Ulyate says he and the musicians felt they had
to compromise on the mass-market CD (released on April 29, 2008). That's
because, in general, most popular music CDs are mixed to sound louder
for use in cars and for conversion into MP3s. "That makes it really
unsatisfying to listen to," Ulyate says. "We have this loudness war that
has destroyed the way CDs sound, and we're trying to find a way to get
off this spiral."

The problem here is that, combined with the comments you make above, it
does indicate that the wishes of the artists and recording people are often
discarded later in the 'food chain' by the "suits" who presume they know
better when they 'approve' the 'final product'.

--

If Tom Petty and company "felt they had to compromise" there's no way
lesser-selling groups are in a stronger position.

My impression is that for decades the pop end of the music biz has run on
taking in (in more senses than one) a series of 'one hit wonders' who I
suspect are often clueless about any of these things and just do what they
are told because they are so eager to be a 'pop star'. Given this it seems
unlikely than many of them are even aware of the issues, let alone have any
ability to insist on the 'final product' not being heavily level compressed
or clipped.

Listen to Bruce Springsteen's works as an example of a major star who
puts sounding current ahead of pursuing sound quality as such.

Are you *really* trying to suggest that there is any kind of sense
behind record industry behaviour?

There are recognizable patterns, yes.

The patterns of behaviour do seem to show in the 'final products'. What is
far less clear is why those involved have their belief system founded on an
obsession with relentless loudness. Instead we are told that they believe
what they do because they believe they are right to so believe. i.e a form
of religeous faith adopted by a 'laying on of hands' from bishops... erm
established 'suits'. :-)

The only 'evidence' seems to be 'well people buy the product'. Which of
course tells us nothing about if they might buy as much - or more! - if it
was *not* relentelessly loud. And neatly avoids wondering if the move from
CD to MP3 is being encouraged by people finding that the CDs are clipped
and compressed - so making any audible difference a matter of 'choose your
imposed poison'. :-) I wonder if MP3 downloads would have grown so
rapidly if pop CDs had not been so level compressed and clipped?...

There seemed to be a parallel elsewhere that I encountered on Friday.
Listeing to the Radio 4 'feedback' programme they gave the BBC's
'explanation' why a long-running science programme was being axed. The
wording was long and used many 'bull**** bingo' phrases. But boiled down
to, "The BBC decided to axe the programme because they wanted to cut down
and picked this one." i.e. We did this because this is what we did. The
fact that it was arguably one of their best science prorammes was clearly
an irrelevancy. Perhaps significant that in the same week their new science
series is the 'monkey cage'. Almost literally from the sublime to the
rediculous. :-) Although that said, I did actually enjoy 'monkey cage'.

Networks are even more mysterious than record companies!

Stephen

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Bob Latham" wrote

Really? an odd comment. Care to explain what you meant by it?

It was meant to cause a smile, a joke, too trivial to pursue.

Talking of trivial pursuits, Status Quo, started out as "The Spectres"
Francis Rossi is said to have "bought" the name Status Quo from another
band.

You mean he changed the Status Quo? That sounds like he should have chosen
the name Paradox instead. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , MiNe 109
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
..

My impression is that for decades the pop end of the music biz has run
on taking in (in more senses than one) a series of 'one hit wonders'
who I suspect are often clueless about any of these things and just do
what they are told because they are so eager to be a 'pop star'. Given
this it seems unlikely than many of them are even aware of the issues,
let alone have any ability to insist on the 'final product' not being
heavily level compressed or clipped.

Listen to Bruce Springsteen's works as an example of a major star who
puts sounding current ahead of pursuing sound quality as such.

I think I'll let that cup pass me by... Afraid he is another act which
sounds to my 'uneducated' ear as 'make every song the same as the last one
because that sold OK'. I'm clearly a philistine... :-) I guess he can
prosper without my help, though.

In terms of a 'star' who tries to 'stay current' I must admit that Cliff
and the Shads spring to mind as a more listenable example. ;- But there
again I have at least one Shadows CD that sounds like it has far more level
compression than in ye olde days, but alas my old LPs were trashed by my
ancient Dansette so became unplayable long ago. Hence I can't do a
comparison. Alas, they are terribly unfashionable so I guess most people
dare not mention them. :-)

FWIW I'm currently listening to the CDs I bought last week. The most
'modern' of those is Flanders and Swann (inc. the original mono version of
the first 'hat'). The rest are Elgar, VW, etc.

I can quite understand why/how some musicians and/or 'suits' may want to do
what they *believe* may increase sales, and then presume that also means
'increased happiness' for the buyers. It makes sense for them to do what
they think best. However...

The enigma is in the thought processes by which they associate clipping and
excess level compression for this, and the apparent vacuum of testable
evidence that might stand up to scrutiny. Thus to me it looks more like a
faith on their part than an idea with solid foundations. And one which may
damage the music, and perhaps even a factor driving people away to mp3,
etc.

Indeed, I do wonder if I and others have lost interest in much of 'pop'
music in recent decades because of the relentless level compression, even
when not consiously aware this was why.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , MiNe 109
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
.

My impression is that for decades the pop end of the music biz has run
on taking in (in more senses than one) a series of 'one hit wonders'
who I suspect are often clueless about any of these things and just do
what they are told because they are so eager to be a 'pop star'. Given
this it seems unlikely than many of them are even aware of the issues,
let alone have any ability to insist on the 'final product' not being
heavily level compressed or clipped.

Listen to Bruce Springsteen's works as an example of a major star who
puts sounding current ahead of pursuing sound quality as such.

I think I'll let that cup pass me by... Afraid he is another act which
sounds to my 'uneducated' ear as 'make every song the same as the last one
because that sold OK'. I'm clearly a philistine... :-) I guess he can
prosper without my help, though.

A fifteen-second preview of a song or two from each album would do the
job. Or you could look at pictures here of another long-time recording
artist:

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/as_...etween_the_not
es/

JA looks at Delbert McClinton's newest in Bias Peak Pro 6.

In terms of a 'star' who tries to 'stay current' I must admit that Cliff
and the Shads spring to mind as a more listenable example. ;- But there
again I have at least one Shadows CD that sounds like it has far more level
compression than in ye olde days, but alas my old LPs were trashed by my
ancient Dansette so became unplayable long ago. Hence I can't do a
comparison. Alas, they are terribly unfashionable so I guess most people
dare not mention them. :-)

Just search amazon mp3 store for 'Apache' and sample away for different
mastering decisions. Only one mono!

FWIW I'm currently listening to the CDs I bought last week. The most
'modern' of those is Flanders and Swann (inc. the original mono version of
the first 'hat'). The rest are Elgar, VW, etc.

I can quite understand why/how some musicians and/or 'suits' may want to do
what they *believe* may increase sales, and then presume that also means
'increased happiness' for the buyers. It makes sense for them to do what
they think best. However...

The enigma is in the thought processes by which they associate clipping and
excess level compression for this, and the apparent vacuum of testable
evidence that might stand up to scrutiny. Thus to me it looks more like a
faith on their part than an idea with solid foundations. And one which may
damage the music, and perhaps even a factor driving people away to mp3,
etc.

Indeed, I do wonder if I and others have lost interest in much of 'pop'
music in recent decades because of the relentless level compression, even
when not consiously aware this was why.

That and aging have been the case for me.

Stephen

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Rob" wrote in message
m...
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
m...
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote
Told you so!

(Vinyl Nut)
Who told what to whom?

David.

You told me/others that we are told that CDs must be mastered at such a
high level at to actually clip "because that is what the market
demands". But that LPs can be cut at a much more reasonable level. Why,
if the market demands "loud" do the LPs not need to be "load". loud'?


So when you said "told you so" you meant *I* was the one doing the
telling? So you meant to say "told me so!" You do seem remarkably
confused :-)

Anyway I never said that "CDs must be mastered at such a high level at
to actually clip "because that is what the market demands". That's what
Iain keeps saying. But neither he, nor the industry, has ever offered an
ounce of proof.

All *I* actually said was that this lame excuse for loudness long
pre-dates the CD.

Do you understand now?


Yep :-)

Go back a few steps, look at what you wrote, read Dave P's reply, read my
reply to your reply, then work it out.

So if your post was a response to Dave's post, not mine, why did you send
it in response to mine?. To the best of my knowledge you have never
previously told me anything, so saying "I told you so" to me was
meaningless. You said "You told me/others that we are told that CDs must
be mastered at such a high level at to actually clip "because that is what
the market demands". So when I report what others say you think that means
I believe it myself? I assure you I do not! You were trying to make a
point, and failing - badly.

Less prosaically, and in search for a verifiable truth,

A what? a verifiable truth in an area where there is no data? What an
absurd notion!

There is plenty of data. It's just that you, David, have no access to
it:-))

Have you checked the JAES, or asked for data from the BPI, APRS,
ISCE, MTAs, Studio Sound, or any of the record companies?
No, of course you haven't.

I have several papers on this subject written for internal use
by people at both Decca and RCA in the time that I worked for those two
companies. I have also been to a number of seminars ove rthe years,
in the UK, Holland, Germany, Denmark where the subject has been
discussed on the basis of data presented, so there is definately no
shortageof information..

You will probably have to splash out a little of the elusive spondoolicks
if you are not entitled to free material from the professional bodies.
Having to part with cash to find out that you were wrong will probably
be an unacceptable step for you:-)

A word of advice, David, try to adopt a different attitude to the
one you use here, or they will almost certainly decide youi are a
another armchair expert and timewaster and politely tell you to
"p*ss off!"

There is no reason why "such a complete and utter hash has been made of
some CDs" - beyond sheer incompetence.

Such an absurd statement makes me think that you are trolling on a
subject about which you know nothing. That's sad:-(

Iain

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Bob Latham" wrote

Really? an odd comment. Care to explain what you meant by it?

It was meant to cause a smile, a joke, too trivial to pursue.

Talking of trivial pursuits, Status Quo, started out as "The Spectres"
Francis Rossi is said to have "bought" the name Status Quo from another
band.

You mean he changed the Status Quo? That sounds like he should have chosen
the name Paradox instead. :-)

Rossi called the band "The Status Quo" at the start.
I don't know the details of how the name changed hands, or if any
money was paid. There already was a band called "Paradox" a folk
group from the Midlands.