Sound engineering is complicated, and I don't even begin to understand all the nuances.

Sometimes we can't tell the difference unless it is pointed out to us. I've taken several (good-natured) pokes at mp3s on this site. The truth is, on the average playback equipment the quality of mp3s is sufficient. On the average set of ear buds, you wont' know what you're missing. But it could be better. Hearing music live, in a room so small that it doesn't require amplification, would be ideal. But we're not likely to have Sam Bush playing in our living rooms. When you go to a show, you're somewhat at the mercy of the sound guy, and the good ones are worth more than they're getting paid. Now if we could just find a filter to get rid of the clinking glasses and the people who are talking at the table next to me.

Today's playback equipment is better, so I hear sounds on recordings that I hadn't heard on my old eqipment. Part of what makes music interesting to us is the dynamics. When you start using compression to boost levels but you sacrifice dynamics, you start to lose part of what makes the music appealing. That alone would convince me that it's time to end the Loudness Wars.

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. What keeps a CD from sounding like a live performance isn't compression, its the sampling. 16-bit/44.1 kHz just doesn't offer enough music detail to fool the ears.

Analog recordings (all analog from start to finish) don't have this issue since they don't attempt to slice up the sound). A good tape recording with decent SNR (and quality speakers) may even be good enough to fool your ears. A CD will never be, in my opinion.

I used to laugh at my musician friends when they said that they preferred the sound vinyl. Now I've seen the light, too. Vinyl doesn't slice the music into ribbons!

One more thing: compression is a good thing as it keeps your sound from "running off the end of the page," so to speak. Is it better to keep from flattening sound yet let a chunk of it get chopped off (i.e., clipped)? Or is it better to hear both ends of it with a little compression.

Music mastering is an art form. The audio engineer crafts sound the way a photographer or a painter crafts light. Compression is like a brush in this regard. You can use it like Michaelangelo or you use it like Bob Ross. Just don't blame the brush if it doesn't turn out the way you expect!

/former recording engineer

Sorry Mark, but while sampling rate can certainly have an effect on it, compression is definitely a real issue.

Part of what you're hearing in vinyl is the fact that sound engineers didn't compress the crap out of stuff when vinyl was big. Nowadays everyone mixes stuff with more compression because it *seems* to have more "power" or "punch". They want it to blast you and get your attention when you hear it on the radio, and they don't want it to get lost because *other* people are compressing to be heard better on the radio.

And btw, no one's saying not to use compression, compression is a tool like anything else.

The problem is, nowadays, things have escalated to the point that compression is a hammer to cover up the engineer's inability to make a good mix, or as a way to bludgeon the listening public into thinking "man, this song has ENERGY!" when the band can't do it themselves.

Compression has it's place, but it shouldn't be the default last step in any mixdown, which is pretty much what the industry has been relegated to now.

I don't think it's due to the engineer's inability to mix, but more a combination of public tastes and record industry pressure.

I was recently working with a studio vet who complained about this very issue. Most people wouldn't notice it unless you pointed it out. But after that, it become very obvious.

It's really disappointing, because the various frequencies sound better at different volumes. Play something too loud and all you get is highs and lows. At too low a volume, all you hear is mids.

Compress it all so it can be loud, and you're losing a lot of the "natural" sound of the music.

Agreed, too much compression is bad. But it doesn't answer his initial question as to why its easy to tell live music from recorded music. That's sampling.

You can record without compression and it will still sound recorded, compressed or not. That's my point.

There are many things that can take away from the "reality" of a recording.

I'm no advocate of 16/44 but to my ears, that is far from the weakest part of most recordings, which I maintain IS the eradication of dynamic range.

Of course, in most recordings there are a hundred other things as well.

Oh, and having a divergent point of view is not the same as knowing (or not knowing) what one is talking about. Such blanket statements say more about the writer than the subject.

Happy Listening!
Barry
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

Hi Mark,

Wish I could edit that last post.

Of course you are entitled to your perspective. I just wish it was voiced in a way that promoted a tolerant exchange of viewpoints with the goal of moving the art of recording forward, instead of merely being somewhat dismissive.

As a matter of fact, way back in 1983, when I became one of the first engineers in the world to master for CD (I believe I was the fifth), I sat on a panel of mastering engineers at a meeting of the AES. I was the only voice on that panel that spoke out about "Perfect Sound Forever" being more like "Decent Sound Once In A While".

To my ears, compression has been the "great evil" of recordings since the days when vinyl was all we had.

Of course "one can record without compression and it will still sound recorded". But one cannot record *with* compression and have it remotely close to sounding *not* recorded.

In fact, one doesn't even have to record. All you need do is apply compression/limiting to a good mic feed and the Life is gone. (No digital, no analog, no recording at all.)

Happy Listening!
Barry
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

Hi Barry,

Speaking of editing posts, I'd like to edit my first as well.

You've got more experience behind the boards than I do so I'll defer to your opinion. I shot from the hip and for that I do apologize. I should not have been so dismissive.

I wrote because I didn't think you gave enough blame to sampling, but now I see your point. I now agree that compression is mostly to blame for watering down the sound.

Thanks for sharing your insight.

Mark

Wow, I'm torn on this one. I totally agree that compression ends up killing dynamics. And a lot of times, that's bad. On the other hand, you sometimes want to "shrink" the dynamics of an audio signal. Ever since my band added 8 compressors to our PA rig, everyone I've talked to after the shows has pointed out how much better the vocals can be heard. This is mainly because you have guitar amps, drums, bass amps, and the vocals all with different dymanic ranges fighting for clarity. In some situations, compression "levels the playing field" and allows more elements of the musictobe heard when some of the elements without compression would be stepped on.

Hi Matt,

If it works for your band when using the PA system that is a good thing but it isn't necessarily the only way to achieve the goal of everyone being heard.

In my experience, this can be done with balances too, without having to alter dynamics. It all depends on the type of sound you're after.

Often when a band member can't hear themselves, they start to play louder. When everyone plays at "blastissimo" it gets tough to hear things. Careful setting of monitor levels as well as PA levels (not to mention amp levels by the players) can achieve an overall clarity that doesn't occur when the signal gets compressed.

Then again, as I said, it all depends on the type of sound you want to hear. If you like the sound you're getting, go for it. Just don't let anyone tell you that you *have to* use compression.

Happy Listening!
Barry
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com