Dynamic Range : Is it a problem, No Problem, Or a solved problem?

[yepimonfire]

I actually got them matched up to the same section of the song and kept switching back and forth. I'm struggling to hear a difference.

*Edit: I just listened again. A lot more critically this time. If anything the first one sounds better to me. They're so close though. If I couldn't switch back and forth, and listen to the same section of song back to back, I don't think I could tell a difference.

When I used to record and mix my own music it was the same way. Dynamic range compression isn't a bad thing if it's done right. I can tell you one thing though, the full dynamic range version played back over a car stereo with road and engine noise sounds worse. Our ears apply some of their own compression when louder sounds are involved anyways. The real problem with the loudness war is when its taken to an extreme, where the range is compressed to +-3dB and the level is cranked up to 0dBfs. Several albums mastered in this way have minor clipping issues. Often its less about the amount of compression and more the attack and release times used.

A good mix and master sounds good, even when compression is applied. It's not the be all end all.

I wonder, with all entertainment delivery formats being digital, why can't we just have built in dynamic range compression metadata like film soundtracks have? That way one could have stronger DRC when listening to music in the car, or over a crappy Bluetooth speaker, where it's actually useful, and less or no compression when listening at home. The way compression is used in most modern recordings caters to the assumption listeners will be using things like car stereos or speakers that just can't properly represent the full dynamic range. Movies have a massive amount of dynamic range, but there are plenty of people who watch movies on crappy laptop speakers or TV speakers with no issue, since compression can be applied on the fly.





Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk

 

[Bucknekked]

A good mix and master sounds good, even when compression is applied. It's not the be all end all.

I would agree ! Even crunching the DR down can sound pretty good with the right music.
In the last post I put up I mention Santana, Migra from the Supernatural album. The sound on the track is very good and its a fun song to listen to. The DR database puts the song at a 7db range. That's pretty squished. But, its a rythm song, mostly drums and guitar, and it works. It fits the music even though.

I think the future is open to options like you mention. With the technology within reach, some bright engineer will figure it out.

 

[MrBoat]

IMO, the biggest disaster to happen to music is the vocoder. Where all the vocal ranges that cannot be reached by an "artist" (bs artist, more like) can be filled in with an obvious, computerized patch of their voice.

 

[NINaudio]

I'm sure that death metal fans are few and far between on this forum, but if you can handle having a listen to these two tracks, you can get an idea of just how different music sounds with absolutely no compression.

I like the second one better. I noticed more of a separation between the instruments and they were easier for me to pick out. The compressed one was definitely a "wall of sound" to me. The guitar distortion was much more noticeable on this track to me, though.

I actually got them matched up to the same section of the song and kept switching back and forth. I'm struggling to hear a difference.

*Edit: I just listened again. A lot more critically this time. If anything the first one sounds better to me. They're so close though. If I couldn't switch back and forth, and listen to the same section of song back to back, I don't think I could tell a difference.

I like a lot of metal and industrial music, but not so much death metal; although the song yep linked to was a good one. Who do else do you both listen to?

 

[Pogre]

I like a lot of metal and industrial music, but not so much death metal; although the song yep linked to was a good one. Who do else do you both listen to?

Tool is probably my favorite band, but right now I'm on a Chevelle kick (listening to them right now). I like Stain'd, old Metallica, some Disturbed, Pantera SOAD, some Slipknot and others... the heavier the better. Not so much into death metal and thrash tho.

I like music that's intelligent, dynamic and heavy.

 

[NINaudio]

Tool is probably my favorite band, but right now I'm on a Chevelle kick (listening to them right now). I like Stain'd, old Metallica, some Disturbed, Pantera SOAD, some Slipknot and others... the heavier the better. Not so much into death metal and thrash tho.

I like music that's intelligent, dynamic and heavy.

I listen to all of those bands as well. Nine Inch Nails is my favorite by far and will always hold a place near and dear to my heart. Chevelle does have some great music as well. My friends joke that if it isn't heavy/angry I don't like it. There is probably some truth to that statement.

Have you ever listened to Stereomud? They released two albums in 2001 and 2003. I really wish they would have released a few more, I thought they were fantastic.

I also really enjoyed Professional Murder Music, they released a new single in 2013 with the promise of a new album, but that promise has gone unfulfilled.

 

[Bucknekked]

IMO, the biggest disaster to happen to music is the vocoder. Where all the vocal ranges that cannot be reached by an "artist" (bs artist, more like) can be filled in with an obvious, computerized patch of their voice.

MrBoat
If there's a single item that sticks out to me as worse than techno-music (music generated by computer and has no real live instruments in it) it would be "auto tune". If ya can't sting, but want to make a record? Holller in to a microphone and then auto tune the results. Got a pop queen that really can't hit the note? Auto tune it and now suddenly she's presentable.

Auto tune is probably, I don't know the stats, the single most popular plug in in a digital studio judging by how much music it gets used on. One of the reasons you can't tell one pop princess or aspiring pop vocalist from another is because they're getting filtered through this same set of adjustments.

There's good reasons for auto tune and the dozens of spin offs that do similar or adjunct tasks. But the overall affect is everything tends to sound the same.

I think this helps a truly talented voice stand out. When you hear a vocalist that is distinctive and nailing it, its usually because they aren't auto tuned. At least that's what I'm hoping is happening.

 

[Pogre]

I listen to all of those bands as well. Nine Inch Nails is my favorite by far and will always hold a place near and dear to my heart. Chevelle does have some great music as well. My friends joke that if it isn't heavy/angry I don't like it. There is probably some truth to that statement.

Have you ever listened to Stereomud? They released two albums in 2001 and 2003. I really wish they would have released a few more, I thought they were fantastic.

I also really enjoyed Professional Murder Music, they released a new single in 2013 with the promise of a new album, but that promise has gone unfulfilled.

Being a fan of Tool, I've grown quite used to unfulfilled new album promises unfortunately. I'm always on the lookout for new music tho, I'll check out those bands.

*Edit: Listening to "Pain" by Stereomud right now. Not bad.

 

[NINaudio]

Being a fan of Tool, I've grown quite used to unfulfilled new album promises unfortunately. I'm always on the lookout for new music tho, I'll check out those bands.

Yeah, sadly Tool is good for that. Stereomud is definitely on the hard rock side, while PMM leans towards industrial rock. Let me know what you think of them, or if you have any suggestions for me as well.

 

[Pogre]

Yeah, sadly Tool is good for that. Stereomud is definitely on the hard rock side, while PMM leans towards industrial rock. Let me know what you think of them, or if you have any suggestions for me as well.

So far I like Stereomud. I'm gonna listen to them some more. I think we're on the brink of hijacking Buck's thread here though... If I think of something I'll post it in the What Are You Listening to thread.

 

[yepimonfire]

Tool is probably my favorite band, but right now I'm on a Chevelle kick (listening to them right now). I like Stain'd, old Metallica, some Disturbed, Pantera SOAD, some Slipknot and others... the heavier the better. Not so much into death metal and thrash tho.

I like music that's intelligent, dynamic and heavy.

I'm a huge Chevelle fan. I'm not actually a fan of all of Entombed's albums, I was just using that one as an example. I'm definitely a fan of heavier stuff than you listed however. I generally listen to a lot of black metal, stuff like this

Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk

 

[Pogre]

I'm a huge Chevelle fan. I'm not actually a fan of all of Entombed's albums, I was just using that one as an example. I'm definitely a fan of heavier stuff than you listed however. I generally listen to a lot of black metal, stuff like this

Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk

This is where individual perception plays a role. To me, they're not heavier. Just faster. Listen to the end of 46 & 2, or check out Lateralus. Tool have some of the heaviest breakdowns and sections in songs I've heard. Both of those songs are dynamic as well. Under the Knife by Chevelle is also very heavy, imo.

To me, speed doesn't equate to heavy. There has to be a crunch to it. A quality that has weight and substance and can kick you in the chest sometimes. You feel it in your bones.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

MrBoat
If there's a single item that sticks out to me as worse than techno-music (music generated by computer and has no real live instruments in it) it would be "auto tune". If ya can't sting, but want to make a record? Holller in to a microphone and then auto tune the results. Got a pop queen that really can't hit the note? Auto tune it and now suddenly she's presentable.

Auto tune is probably, I don't know the stats, the single most popular plug in in a digital studio judging by how much music it gets used on. One of the reasons you can't tell one pop princess or aspiring pop vocalist from another is because they're getting filtered through this same set of adjustments.

There's good reasons for auto tune and the dozens of spin offs that do similar or adjunct tasks. But the overall affect is everything tends to sound the same.

I think this helps a truly talented voice stand out. When you hear a vocalist that is distinctive and nailing it, its usually because they aren't auto tuned. At least that's what I'm hoping is happening.

Tried to quote "tha boat" on this but... I heard a story once about J-Lo, and David Coverdale(whitesnake of course) who happened to be in the same studio, but different booths obviously. One of the engineers or something happened upon both of their sessions(at different times) and was amazed at how Jlo basically stunk the place up while David hit every single note every single time.(I've seen him and he can) Thought that was hilarious! Sorry for the side road...

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Being a fan of Tool, I've grown quite used to unfulfilled new album promises unfortunately. I'm always on the lookout for new music tho, I'll check out those bands.

*Edit: Listening to "Pain" by Stereomud right now. Not bad.

I thought now that the lawsuit was over it would be a done bun. Ugh......facepalm...

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

When I used to record and mix my own music it was the same way. Dynamic range compression isn't a bad thing if it's done right. I can tell you one thing though, the full dynamic range version played back over a car stereo with road and engine noise sounds worse. Our ears apply some of their own compression when louder sounds are involved anyways. The real problem with the loudness war is when its taken to an extreme, where the range is compressed to +-3dB and the level is cranked up to 0dBfs. Several albums mastered in this way have minor clipping issues. Often its less about the amount of compression and more the attack and release times used.

A good mix and master sounds good, even when compression is applied. It's not the be all end all.

I wonder, with all entertainment delivery formats being digital, why can't we just have built in dynamic range compression metadata like film soundtracks have? That way one could have stronger DRC when listening to music in the car, or over a crappy Bluetooth speaker, where it's actually useful, and less or no compression when listening at home. The way compression is used in most modern recordings caters to the assumption listeners will be using things like car stereos or speakers that just can't properly represent the full dynamic range. Movies have a massive amount of dynamic range, but there are plenty of people who watch movies on crappy laptop speakers or TV speakers with no issue, since compression can be applied on the fly.





Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk

I think a great example of this is Metallicas "Death Magnetic". All the levels are at "0" or higher even and it sounds like $}{|T. Lars(hack) said that's how we make albums now. Turn it up to 11 or some stupid thing. There was a lot of backlash. Too bad too, I think James is a brilliant guitar player. Wish someone would take away Kirks Wah pedal, and fire Lars at the same time. Oops. The first part of that was related to the op at least.

 

[Bucknekked]

I think a great example of this is Metallicas "Death Magnetic". All the levels are at "0" or higher even and it sounds like $}{|T. Lars(hack) said that's how we make albums now. Turn it up to 11 or some stupid thing. There was a lot of backlash. Too bad too, I think James is a brilliant guitar player. Wish someone would take away Kirks Wah pedal, and fire Lars at the same time. Oops. The first part of that was related to the op at least.

I have heard this before on the Death Magnetic album. Great example of how to do it wrong. Metallica brings out strong emotions no matter what they do. Love em or hate em. Thanks for the post. right on target

 

[MrBoat]

Tried to quote "tha boat" on this but... I heard a story once about J-Lo, and David Coverdale(whitesnake of course) who happened to be in the same studio, but different booths obviously. One of the engineers or something happened upon both of their sessions(at different times) and was amazed at how Jlo basically stunk the place up while David hit every single note every single time.(I've seen him and he can) Thought that was hilarious! Sorry for the side road...

Coverdale with Whitesnake was Coverdale 2. He was with Deep Purple before that. He was a powerhouse. Rob Halford, from Judas Priest, yet another.

 

[lovinthehd]

Tried to quote "tha boat" on this but... I heard a story once about J-Lo, and David Coverdale(whitesnake of course) who happened to be in the same studio, but different booths obviously. One of the engineers or something happened upon both of their sessions(at different times) and was amazed at how Jlo basically stunk the place up while David hit every single note every single time.(I've seen him and he can) Thought that was hilarious! Sorry for the side road...

Yeah, but does Cloverdale have the bootie Jlo does? Can he dance?

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Yeah, but does Cloverdale have the bootie Jlo does? Can he dance?

Lmao! I would say no. Can't dance. Personally, can't stand Jlo's caboose.

 

[lovinthehd]

Lmao! I would say no. Can't dance. Personally, can't stand Jlo's caboose.

It's her thang, even back when she was a Fly Girl on the Wayans' show. Not a big bootie guy myself but it apparently can be the basis of whole careers....e.g. Kardashians.