The lack of dynamics in modern music

[pzaur]

I found this article while browsing through artsjournal.com. A nice little critique on the "dumbing down" of audio and the beginning of the backlash.

It would be nice to hear "real" music being played again. I would consider this one of the multitude of reasons that modern groups have no "staying power" and dissipate so quickly. All marketing and no music.

-pat

 

[gene]

I found this article while browsing through artsjournal.com. A nice little critique on the "dumbing down" of audio and the beginning of the backlash.

It would be nice to hear "real" music being played again. I would consider this one of the multitude of reasons that modern groups have no "staying power" and dissipate so quickly. All marketing and no music.

Agreed 100% Have you seen our articles about Dumbing Down and Compression in music?

 

[skizzerflake]

So what's new about dumbed down music and compressed audio? Most of the popular music sold since the beginning of the audio era has been just that. Since the days of old 45's, cassettes, 8 tracks, bad vinyl recordings, one hit wonders, an entire musical establishment in Nashville that demanded 3 chord songs, it's always been a challenge to separate wheat from the chaff both musically and sonically. Fortunately there always seem to be people who keep on looking for the good stuff. If it were too easy, it wouldn't be as much fun.

 

[pzaur]

Gene - definitely read the articles and agreed with them. I found it refreshing to hear the industry starting to lash out at itself from the actual creators of the product when I read the article.

skizzerflake - the biggest problem with the industry continuing to 'bump' up the volume levels is that even the good music can be un-listenable.

-pat

 

[MDS]

Since the days of old 45's, cassettes, 8 tracks, bad vinyl recordings, one hit wonders, an entire musical establishment in Nashville that demanded 3 chord songs, it's always been a challenge to separate wheat from the chaff both musically and sonically. Fortunately there always seem to be people who keep on looking for the good stuff. If it were too easy, it wouldn't be as much fun.

Different people will have a different opinion of the 'good stuff'. It reminds me of the arguments among music aficionados when I was a kid where a band like Rush or Yes was automatically deemed the 'good stuff' because the music is complex. Well guess what? Not everyone enjoys the result just because it shows musical prowess and the many one-hit-wonders and 3 chord songs are more enjoyable.

Whether the song is musically complex or lyrically complex or neither is not dumbing down audio. Dumbing down audio is taking music in whatever form and destroying it by compressing the crap out of it so that there are no dynamics and it is unlistenable.

In my CD Waveforms Illustrated thread I cite as one example Air Supply. Regardless of whether you like that soft, sappy type of pop rock or prefer complex music it is obvious that it shouldn't be compressed so much that it sounds like 70s Black Sabbath - that is dumbing down audio, not the fact that the music is simplistic.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Very consistently, with almost no exceptions, I find that I prefer new recordings and remasters to older CDs. Does this mean that compression results in a sound that I like?

 

[chas_w]

Good article. I find it depressing that with every upgrade I make to my system, the "bad" recordings sound worse, leaving me with only a handful of CD's that sound consistently good.

 

[stratman]

Good article. I find it depressing that with every upgrade I make to my system, the "bad" recordings sound worse, leaving me with only a handful of CD's that sound consistently good.

That is very true, as you upgrade to a more transparent sytem, your so-so CDs will sound worse, this certainly happened to me and I've been collecting CDs since they came out. I still have original releases from the early 80s that now sound pretty crappy.

 

[Sheep]

That is very true, as you upgrade to a more transparent sytem, your so-so CDs will sound worse, this certainly happened to me and I've been collecting CDs since they came out. I still have original releases from the early 80s that now sound pretty crappy.

That is if you even want a transparent system to begin with. Some people prefer a non flat system.

SheepStar

 

[pzaur]

Very consistently, with almost no exceptions, I find that I prefer new recordings and remasters to older CDs. Does this mean that compression results in a sound that I like?

My guess would be that the older recordings were compressed poorly or the new, re-releases are less compressed or compressed much more efficiently.

-pat

 

[Adam]

...Air Supply...compressed so much that it sounds like 70s Black Sabbath...

I can make Air Supply sound like Black Sabbath?!? Oh, glorious compression...

***DESPERATELY TRIES TO OPEN iTUNES***

 

[skizzerflake]

Different people will have a different opinion of the 'good stuff'. It reminds me of the arguments among music aficionados when I was a kid where a band like Rush or Yes was automatically deemed the 'good stuff' because the music is complex. Well guess what? Not everyone enjoys the result just because it shows musical prowess and the many one-hit-wonders and 3 chord songs are more enjoyable.

Whether the song is musically complex or lyrically complex or neither is not dumbing down audio. Dumbing down audio is taking music in whatever form and destroying it by compressing the crap out of it so that there are no dynamics and it is unlistenable.

In my CD Waveforms Illustrated thread I cite as one example Air Supply. Regardless of whether you like that soft, sappy type of pop rock or prefer complex music it is obvious that it shouldn't be compressed so much that it sounds like 70s Black Sabbath - that is dumbing down audio, not the fact that the music is simplistic.

Dumbing down music and dumbing down sound are different processes, but frequently they go together. There is a kind of cynicism that goes with both forms of dumbness, assuming that your audience has no ears is close to assuming that nothing is between the ears.

 

[Pyrrho]

Many people like severely compressed music. They complain vigorously when the music is not horribly compressed. Read some of the reviews of my favorite recording of Orff's Carmina Burana and you will see many examples:

http://www.amazon.com/Orff-Carmina-Burana-Jonathan-Summers/dp/B00001ZSXC/

I think it is a great disc. But it is totally unsuitable for background music, and cannot be listened to in anything but a quiet room, with the soft portions barely audible, and the loud portions are then quite loud. Of course, Orff did not write it to be background music, so it should not be made for such a purpose.

 

[WmAx]

Many people like severely compressed music. They complain vigorously when the music is not horribly compressed.

Indeed. I took some select rock recordings with good dynamic range and re-mastered them to current trend ranges, being as careful as I good to avoid pumping or distortion side effects. I then gave two examples to some people that I know are not serious music listeners, and simply asked them to identify which files they preferred after listening to them. The high compressed versions were always picked. This is no better than anecdotal evidence, but it was still a rather depressing result to me.

But it is totally unsuitable for background music, and cannot be listened to in anything but a quiet room, with the soft portions barely audible, and the loud portions are then quite loud. Of course, Orff did not write it to be background music, so it should not be made for such a purpose.

Yes. It seems that most people do not actually listen to music today as a concentrated experience. They typically use it as background or accessory music (portable music player on the go or in the very high noise floor environment of a car). However, this is still not a good excuse to destroy the recording, IMO. Now many such portable devices have a user enabled compression circuit to make any music recording useful for background noise. Simply expand this feature to all portable devices, and have it activated by default from the factory. I suspect that most people will never know the difference.

-Chris

 

[Pyrrho]

Indeed. I took some select rock recordings with good dynamic range and re-mastered them to current trend ranges, being as careful as I good to avoid pumping or distortion side effects. I then gave two examples to some people that I know are not serious music listeners, and simply asked them to identify which files they preferred after listening to them. The high compressed versions were always picked. This is no better than anecdotal evidence, but it was still a rather depressing result to me.



Yes. It seems that most people do not actually listen to music today as a concentrated experience. They typically use it as background or accessory music (portable music player on the go or in the very high noise floor environment of a car). However, this is still not a good excuse to destroy the recording, IMO. Now many such portable devices have a user enabled compression circuit to make any music recording useful for background noise. Simply expand this feature to all portable devices, and have it activated by default from the factory. I suspect that most people will never know the difference.

-Chris

In my opinion, instead of using a processor to compress concert music for background listening, one should simply select background music for use as background music. Handel's Water Music is a good example of background music. It is an excellent choice for that purpose. It was written for that purpose, and is therefore quite suitable for it.

But, of course, I prefer your idea of putting defeatable compression circuitry in playback equipment instead of compressing the recordings so that no one can listen to them properly.

 

[pzaur]

In my opinion, instead of using a processor to compress concert music for background listening, one should simply select background music for use as background music. Handel's Water Music is a good example of background music. It is an excellent choice for that purpose. It was written for that purpose, and is therefore quite suitable for it.

Completely agree. All music is not suitable for all types of purposes. It's depressing/annoying to hear someone complain about a piece of music being too soft or too loud or the dynamics being too extreme when it is meant to be! Music is not meant to played at one level. Oops, I guess we should tell the recording studio engineers who are mixing rock/pop music to be musical and let the music sell the CDs instead of some CEO who's looking only at the dollar figure.

It's unfortunate that we're being trained to believe that louder is better. Purely a societal thing being driven by money and dividends. Nuances in art are disappearing and it's very evident in the music arena.

But, of course, I prefer your idea of putting defeatable compression circuitry in playback equipment instead of compressing the recordings so that no one can listen to them properly.

I believe that most current receivers have some sort of dynamic compression technology in them. I know my low end Sony receiver does as well as my cable box (wide/normal/narrow), and my DVD player. It's all there. Just rarely taken used. Then again, as techno-philes, we'd have to actually read the manuals to figure this out...it's much more fun to push buttons and see what happens!

-pat

 

[zhimbo]

Well Pyrrho, I picked up a copy of that recording of Carmina Burana - $5.47 was too cheap to pass up!

 

[no. 5]

Indeed. I took some select rock recordings with good dynamic range and re-mastered them to current trend ranges, being as careful as I good to avoid pumping or distortion side effects. I then gave two examples to some people that I know are not serious music listeners, and simply asked them to identify which files they preferred after listening to them. The high compressed versions were always picked. This is no better than anecdotal evidence, but it was still a rather depressing result to me.

That is quite depressing, but out of curiosity, what quality of gear were these people using?

 

[pzaur]

Indeed. I took some select rock recordings with good dynamic range and re-mastered them to current trend ranges, being as careful as I good to avoid pumping or distortion side effects. I then gave two examples to some people that I know are not serious music listeners, and simply asked them to identify which files they preferred after listening to them. The high compressed versions were always picked. This is no better than anecdotal evidence, but it was still a rather depressing result to me.

I wonder if it would be possible to have them listen to both versions with the volume leveled between the two? It would remove the perceived increase in volume. Think the results would still be the same? I don't.

-pat

 

[Sheep]

That is quite depressing, but out of curiosity, what quality of gear were these people using?

It was probably his masterful stereo...

SheepStar