danger! danger! sound engineers...

[samuel33]

I post a quote from another forum that sum up my opinion about most of YOUR work...

"ATTENTION SOUND ENGINEERS
Dear sound engineer,
As you certainly know, a recording that sounds BAD on a "high-end" or "audiophile" playback system may still sound GOOD or at least acceptable on a the average more modest mass-marked systems (such as one might buy at Circuit City).
However, a recording which sounds GOOD on a "high-end" audio playback system will also sound GOOD on a the average Circuit City system... In fact, (please pay attention here) a recording which sounds GOOD on a "high-end" system will sound THAT MUCH BETTER ON THE AVERAGE CIRCUIT CITY SYSTEM.
So WHY then do you the SOUND ENGINEERS so often record in a way that is listenable only via "Circuit City level systems"? I am not talking about subtleties here; what are you using to verify the results of your work?
Again, I could understand the situation if the relative few "audio psycho freak systems" required special recording techniques which would not sound good when played back via more modest systems, but this is not the case! Everybody would benefit from recordings which sound good on better systems! I have proven this to myself numerous times when listening to better recordings either in my office (a system which I bought from the French equivalent of Circuit City), in the car (the factory installed system... real junk), or in some cases, on the systems of non-audiophile friends. Yes, (are you still listening?) better recordings do also sound better on "normal systems".
The most obvious and offending characteristic is the tendency for levels that are too strong in the upper mid range, and higher frequencies (this is almost standard with Rock and Pop music).
It shouldn't cost anything to get this right.
Don't make me start my own record label!
Thanks for listening,

Jessie.dazzle "


Why don't make a version non over compressed to the death? hugh?
Why most of you have not even the knowledge of what is an imaging (scale, depth, ...)?

Some -stupid and boring- people think that Cd has killed musicality....i think it's your work that have made the most of the destruction part ...ok with the pressure of the industry...

[china jam]

Why danger?? What are you even talking about?

[samuel33]

my post is clear...

Few sound engineer are amazing, most destruct music/musicality/dynamics/tonality/....

And some great sound engineers do a bad work because industry ask them to work this way : traitor !

[china jam]

But what is your agenda? Do you realise how bitter you sound..are you a woman beater?

[psycho_monkey]

Please no-one feed the troll....

[samuel33]

I don't even know that there are troll in sound engineer forum....

I'm just a composer, amazed by the low quality of Cd production.

That's all.

[samuel33]

Originally Posted by china jam

But what is your agenda? Do you realise how bitter you sound..are you a woman beater?

I know my post is quite provocative...but there is something true in it, no?

[lucey]

Originally Posted by samuel33

I don't even know that there are troll in sound engineer forum....

I'm just a composer, amazed by the low quality of Cd production.

Go make a great CD, don't wast time here. Mastering engineers work for artists. We may suggest things to the but we can't control them and shouldn't. Your beef is with artists and their often low-budget approach to recording and mixing that ends up on our laps to make "loud" after many compromises have already taken place. Don't shoot the last guy to work on a record which is an artist-driven combination of writing, arranging, performing, tracking, mixing ... and then mastering.

Cheap recording technology, recording and mixing skills, plus the limiter era/loudness war is the issue ... it's not the MEs that are doing this. We can only protest so much or lose the work. Sometimes we may choose to lose the work, but mostly we need the work.

Please relax. Your post is not provocative, it's old news, and it's been addressed many many times. Just yesterday actually, on this forum.

[samuel33]

Originally Posted by lucey

Go make a great CD, don't wast time here. Mastering engineers work for artists. We may suggest things to the but we can't control them and shouldn't. Your beef is with artists and their often low-budget approach to recording and mixing that ends up on our laps to make "loud" after many compromises have already taken place. Don't shoot the last guy to work on a record which is an artist-driven combination of writing, arranging, performing, tracking, mixing ... and then mastering.

Cheap recording technology, recording and mixing skills, plus the limiter era/loudness war is the issue ... it's not the MEs that are doing this. We can only protest so much or lose the work. Sometimes we may choose to lose the work, but mostly we need the work.

Please relax. Your post is not provocative, it's old news, and it's been addressed many many times. Just yesterday actually, on this forum.

You're right, i know it ...I bought 5 CD last week and 3 of them are ugly recorded ...i'm just kinda disapointed...

There is still the problem of compression : a version for the radio but for Cd, there is no need to compress the sound like that...

[Energie]

Just curious, what are your recordings sounding like? better then commercial releases? Got any samples of what you want cd's to sound like from your compositions?

[Masterer]

Originally Posted by samuel33

I don't even know that there are troll in sound engineer forum....

Oh, there are many troll.

[samuel33]

Originally Posted by Energie

Just curious, what are your recordings sounding like? better then commercial releases? Got any samples of what you want cd's to sound like from your compositions?

Even if I wanted to produce my music i couldn't be able to, i'm a composer not a sound engineer...it would be too much difficult -in fact impossible- to achieve by myself what most of you are capable of.

Don't misunderstand me, i say it's a waste when you listened to good music and you know that it could be much more enjoyable if there were more dynamics, if the imaging was more subtle and using the background....

Another point is that there are too many very expensive private school that teach how to make boom boom sound and nothing else....

A guy in another forum was speaking about a mainstream artist very well produce : Björk.

It sound good on cheap speakers and WONDERFULL on hi-end speakers.

So why they are not all produce at this quality?

[structuredloud]

Originally Posted by samuel33

However, a recording which sounds GOOD on a "high-end" audio playback system will also sound GOOD on a the average Circuit City system... In fact, (please pay attention here) a recording which sounds GOOD on a "high-end" system will sound THAT MUCH BETTER ON THE AVERAGE CIRCUIT CITY SYSTEM.

This is just plain wrong. In fact, as far as balance and clarity is concerned it is potentially exactly the opposite and thus your advice may be "dangerous" to young engineers who take it. I've substituted some words to put this in the context for "composers"

"However, an orchestra which sounds GOOD on "high-end" instruments will also sound GOOD on a the average 1990's stradivarius copies ... In fact, (please pay attention here) an orchestra which sounds GOOD on "high-end" instruments will sound THAT MUCH BETTER ON THE AVERAGE 1990'S STRADIVARIUS COPIES."

[Energie]

Originally Posted by samuel33

Even if I wanted to produce my music i couldn't be able to, i'm a composer not a sound engineer...it would be too much difficult -in fact impossible- to achieve by myself what most of you are capable of.

Don't misunderstand me, i say it's a waste when you listened to good music and you know that it could be much more enjoyable if there were more dynamics, if the imaging was more subtle and using the background....

Another point is that there are too many very expensive private school that teach how to make boom boom sound and nothing else....

A guy in another forum was speaking about a mainstream artist very well produce : Björk.

It sound good on cheap speakers and WONDERFULL on hi-end speakers.

So why they are not all produce at this quality?

I guess I am a little confused, you compose music? how do you write your music, do you record and make your music on a DAW? Do you mix your music? Not quite sure what CD's you are listening to, but most of the stuff I hear I think is really well done. I guess I am not sure why you are critisizing something that you don't really seem to know much about, engineering. Not trying to be harsh, just kinda confused at what you are getting at. I can see someone with clips and proof of their stuff sounding better, but without that, its just like regurgatating someone else's argument.

Most composers have to have engineering experience with make their music realized. If you havn't tried to record your stuff yet, I highly reccomend you do so.

[samuel33]

Your argue is a non sense...

A MP3 would be difficult to differentiate with a WAV when you make the comparison on cheap speakers, on hi-end (or just good) speakers the difference is quite hudge.

You have to explain me why pushing the work to extreme quality for whose who have the system to enjoy it can be prejudicial to the other people who listen the same track on cheap speakers.

[samuel33]

Originally Posted by Energie

I guess I am a little confused, you compose music? how do you write your music, do you record and make your music on a DAW? Do you mix your music? Not quite sure what CD's you are listening to, but most of the stuff I hear I think is really well done. I guess I am not sure why you are critisizing something that you don't really seem to know much about, engineering. Not trying to be harsh, just kinda confused at what you are getting at. I can see someone with clips and proof of their stuff sounding better, but without that, its just like regurgatating someone else's argument.

Most composers have to have engineering experience with make their music realized. If you havn't tried to record your stuff yet, I highly reccomend you do so.

I do experimental music, I compose on protools, i never use bank of sound or samples, I create all of my sounds -with a portable recorder (a sound devices 722)-

But never mind, in the process of production today i think there are too much compression, it is another world between a compressed track and *natural* one.
Furthermore -when the track is not live- the mix often appears to be too flat. You have all the sound in the front of the speakers *in your face* but rarely BEHIND the speakers in the background. For egs : an instrument behind the speakers just a little on the left, the singer in front right etc....

[Thomas W. Bethe]

A lot of what gets recorded today is done following the logic that "cheaper is better. " People convince themselves that if they spend $2000 for an all-in-one recorder and mixer and a microphone and a couple of computer speakers that they can make themselves sound like their stuff was recorded through an SSL console using vintage microphones with a professional audio engineer.

Let me set the record strait - IN AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!

They also know nothing of recording or how to mix and they read in a magazine that in the olde days engineers got a warmer sound by pushing up the levels on tape so they assume that the same thing will happen if they run all the input channels on their digital board in the red as well as the output channels. They put all the instruments in the middle of the sound field and bury the whole thing in effects and reverb to make it sound wider and deeper. Then they bring that mess to a hapless mastering engineer and tell him to make it sound "good".

Having the equipment is only a small part of the total picture and you need to have some idea of what you are doing and have some experience doing it. Today a lot of CDs are made in people's basements or bedrooms by someone who purchased the equipment last week and is now the performer, the audio engineer, the producer, the mix engineer and in many cases the mastering engineer and the graphic artist. They have so little experience and so little time behind the console that they get themselves into trouble from the start. They are also doing this literally behind closed doors and no one except them hears what they are hearing since they are working in a creative vacuum.

If you are unhappy with the quality of a lot of CDs produced today then you are not alone. In the past couple of months I have taken back four CDs that were so over done that they were trashed beyond what I could listen to. The store clerk gave me another copy and it too was terrible and I finally got my money back. If more people did that maybe the record companies would get the idea that people are tired of paying for sh!t.

Imagine if you will that as a composer you decided to record your cat walking up and down the keyboard and then put in through a bunch of effects and then compressed the whole mess at the end. Then you foisted this onto an unsuspecting buyer as a compositional masterpiece. That is literally what a lot of people are doing today with their "music" It is ill conceived , it is ill performed and it is ill recorded and mixed and then in order to "save some money" they decide to master the whole mess themselves and so you get what you are discribing.

There are some wonderful musicians doing wonderful work but their stuff takes time and talent and in the present climate of GET IT DONE and OUT THE DOOR and START MAKING MONEY they may not be able to compete.

It is a WALMART world and the bottom line is the bottom line.

[samuel33]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

A lot of what gets recorded today is done following the logic that "cheaper is better. " People convince themselves that if they spend $2000 for an all-in-one recorder and mixer and a microphone and a couple of computer speakers that they can make themselves sound like their stuff was recorded through an SSL console using vintage microphones with a professional audio engineer.

Let me set the record strait - IN AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!

They also know nothing of recording or how to mix and they read in a magazine that in the olde days engineers got a warmer sound by pushing up the levels on tape so they assume that the same thing will happen if they run all the input channels on their digital board in the red as well as the output channels. They put all the instruments in the middle of the sound field and bury the whole thing in effects and reverb to make it sound wider and deeper. Then they bring that mess to a hapless mastering engineer and tell him to make it sound "good".

that's so true ...sorry i have put all the "thing" on you, it's uncountable the number of people who make me listen their music compose this way -with sometimes a sound at the EXTREME right/left, with Cathedral reverb or millenium (and a bad one with grain) because "it's sound gorgeous" (!) - etc...


Having the equipment is only a small part of the total picture and you need to have some idea of what you are doing and have some experience doing it. Today a lot of CDs are made in people's basements or bedrooms by someone who purchased the equipment last week and is now the performer, the audio engineer, the producer, the mix engineer and in many cases the mastering engineer and the graphic artist. They have so little experience and so little time behind the console that they get themselves into trouble from the start. They are also doing this literally behind closed doors and no one except them hears what they are hearing since they are working in a creative vacuum.

If you are unhappy with the quality of a lot of CDs produced today then you are not alone. In the past couple of months I have taken back four CDs that were so over done that they were trashed beyond what I could listen to. The store clerk gave me another copy and it too was terrible and I finally got my money back. If more people did that maybe the record companies would get the idea that people are tired of paying for sh!t.

Imagine if you will that as a composer you decided to record your cat walking up and down the keyboard and then put in through a bunch of effects and then compressed the whole mess at the end. Then you foisted this onto an unsuspecting buyer as a compositional masterpiece. That is literally what a lot of people are doing today with their "music" It is ill conceived , it is ill performed and it is ill recorded and mixed and then in order to "save some money" they decide to master the whole mess themselves and so you get what you are discribing.

There are some wonderful musicians doing wonderful work but their stuff takes time and talent and in the present climate of GET IT DONE and OUT THE DOOR and START MAKING MONEY they may not be able to compete.

It is a WALMART world and the bottom line is the bottom line.

My answer is in red.

That's fair....

[Andy Krehm]

Originally Posted by samuel33

that's so true ...sorry i have put all the "thing" on you, it's uncountable the number of people who make me listen their music compose this way -with sometimes a sound at the EXTREME right/left, with Cathedral reverb or millenium (and a bad one with grain) because "it's sound gorgeous" (!) - etc...

And mastering engineers almost always have nothing to do with the above results. Sure, we will do a little L/R manipulation but very subtle and rarely is any reverb added in mastering.

In other words, complain about these items on the recording webboards.

[Energie]

samuel33

If you are unhappy with the way things sound, mix and master your own recordings the way you want.. I am still confused at how you "compose". And if you use a DAW like pro tools, then cool, just make the product how you evnision it to sound.

[samuel33]

Originally Posted by Energie

samuel33

If you are unhappy with the way things sound, mix and master your own recordings the way you want.. I am still confused at how you "compose". And if you use a DAW like pro tools, then cool, just make the product how you evnision it to sound.

I don't talk about me, but if you want to know much about what kind of music i do listen to michel chion, parmegiani, bayle, pierre henry.

I don't use melody or 4/4 rythm or any tempo, it is more free and quite more complex.

For mainstream music the job is quite often, so never mind if you don't understand this, i can't explain it better.

[samuel33]

Originally Posted by Andy Krehm

And mastering engineers almost always have nothing to do with the above results. Sure, we will do a little L/R manipulation but very subtle and rarely is any reverb added in mastering.

In other words, complain about these items on the recording webboards.

I was talking about the tracks that some acquaintance make me heard BEFORE send it to a sound engineer....just to say that in these cases your job
is very difficult to do.

[Rick Sutton]

Originally Posted by samuel33

I don't use melody or 4/4 rythm or any tempo, it is more free and quite more complex.

That explains a lot.

[bob katz]

I think the headline "Danger" is just designed to attract attention. In my opinion, the underlying theme of the post is about "translation".

I personally can confirm some of the following precepts mentioned or implied in the original post:

---if you master or mix a recording on small speakers, it usually narrows its translation to a smaller subset of the listening audience, whereas vice versa---if you master on the most neutral, accurate system, it produces a recording which will translate to the widest variety of venues

Subsets of this:

----bass boom and thump which are unheard on small mixing speakers will cause problems and not translate well to large systems and especially cars and clubs with subwoofers---- if the problem is not dealt with or cannot be dealt with in mastering

---a recording which has been purposely made shrill, harsh, or overbright so as to play well on cheap speakers and especially in cars, will not play well on so many other systems


---a recording which is overcompressed and which has less impact and transients will play worse on smaller systems, it just won't have as much impact and depth. The reverse, a program which sounds a bit too "lively" or "snappy" or even a bit over dynamic, often sounds better or fine on smaller systems that "self-compress".


Bottom line: The more accurate and the more in the center of the bell curve the system you mix (and especially master) on, the wider the translation, and in my opinion, that can only amount to more sales!

Some of my favorite recordings have been ruined by the false hi-fi concepts of exagerrating frequency ranges that would really have been better left alone. The same goes for overcompression.

So: Are the audiophiles right? Answer: This is not an audiophile argument, that's a misdirection. This is a logical argument based on long-term experience.

[Rick Sutton]

Originally Posted by bob katz

---a recording which is overcompressed and which has less impact and transients will play worse on smaller systems, it just won't have as much impact and depth.

I agree with your excellent post with the possible exception that when we are dealing with internet playback on laptop or even desktop computers (which is becoming more of an issue everyday) the compressed version of a song often sounds better.
I have become acutely aware of this living with two college age music lovers that always have something playing back on their 'puters.

[samuel33]

Originally Posted by bob katz

I think the headline "Danger" is just designed to attract attention. In my opinion, the underlying theme of the post is about "translation".

I personally can confirm some of the following precepts mentioned or implied in the original post:

---if you master or mix a recording on small speakers, it usually narrows its translation to a smaller subset of the listening audience, whereas vice versa---if you master on the most neutral, accurate system, it produces a recording which will translate to the widest variety of venues

Subsets of this:

----bass boom and thump which are unheard on small mixing speakers will cause problems and not translate well to large systems and especially cars and clubs with subwoofers---- if the problem is not dealt with or cannot be dealt with in mastering

---a recording which has been purposely made shrill, harsh, or overbright so as to play well on cheap speakers and especially in cars, will not play well on so many other systems


---a recording which is overcompressed and which has less impact and transients will play worse on smaller systems, it just won't have as much impact and depth. The reverse, a program which sounds a bit too "lively" or "snappy" or even a bit over dynamic, often sounds better or fine on smaller systems that "self-compress".


Bottom line: The more accurate and the more in the center of the bell curve the system you mix (and especially master) on, the wider the translation, and in my opinion, that can only amount to more sales!

Some of my favorite recordings have been ruined by the false hi-fi concepts of exagerrating frequency ranges that would really have been better left alone. The same goes for overcompression.

So: Are the audiophiles right? Answer: This is not an audiophile argument, that's a misdirection. This is a logical argument based on long-term experience.

Great post thanx bob katz.

[samuel33]

You think there is a possibility for the next generation of music storage (hd-dvd, ?) to have 2 versions adapted for différent purpose?

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Rick Sutton

I agree with your excellent post with the possible exception that when we are dealing with internet playback on laptop or even desktop computers (which is becoming more of an issue everyday) the compressed version of a song often sounds better.

I've noticed something on that line where the low level stuff from the less compressed version is lost on the laptop. But am I ready to compromise the recording for all other purposes? I certainly am meeting up with more clients whose "standard" has become the laptop and shaking my head in disbelief at this trend. More research is needed on this one.

Fortunately, there's still the Ipod, which even with the generic earbuds sounds so much better than the laptop that I think (I hope) the small speaker laptop is too far off base to be considered part of the standard.

I have become acutely aware of this living with two college age music lovers that always have something playing back on their 'puters.

Hmmmm..... well, if it's streamed it's going to be precompressed a la radio anyway.

A lot of food for thought in this one. I'm not saying there is a full right or wrong in the issue of standardizing for laptop. I can only say that if you precondition a recording for a laptop it sucks almost everywhere else!

Another note: Mac Laptop speakers are getting much better. Laptops are not all "generic". A cheap Dell sucks royally with little 2" speakers with no baffle at all. A new Macbook Pro 17" sucks MUCH Less. A new Imac 24" sucks much much much much less and actually has some bass. So the curve of what you can get (at least from MacIntoshes) keeps on moving towards the good track.

[Kiwiburger]

Bear in mind that practically any small consumer playback system will have some form of eq - which the average punter cannot resist engaging. Smiley faces all around.

I would wonder how the original poster has set up his playback software ...

There is no need to change the spectral balance to suit crappy little systems: they can be futzed with to suit whatever peculiar taste the listener desires.

The standard should always be quality full range speakers with a nominal "flat" response. Aim for the moon, and we should at least clear the back fence.

I would also strongly suggest that the consumer playback industry consider incorporating software compressors/limiters/multiband compressors into their devices. Why?? Four strong reasons:

1 - because it's easy, and it gives these junk marketers another feature they can sell

2 - because it will level out dangerous jumps in levels when a listener has a mixture of mp3's from various decades. (I have a friend who recently was audibly raped by a music shop demo headphone system that caused immediate tinnitus damage that hasn't gone away. Headphone systems are dangerous and compression/limiting should be made mandatory in public demo systems.)

3 - if consumer device compression becomes a new trend, this will allow ME's to go back to supplying dynamic masters again. In fact - by leaving dynamics in, these should appear louder and better when auditioned in a shop, and bring an end to the loudness wars.

4 - last and not least - those of us who give a shit can turn the sodding things OFF.

[Hybrid]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

A lot of what gets recorded today is done following the logic that "cheaper is better. " People convince themselves that if they spend $2000 for an all-in-one recorder and mixer and a microphone and a couple of computer speakers that they can make themselves sound like their stuff was recorded through an SSL console using vintage microphones with a professional audio engineer.
Let me set the record strait - IN AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!

The problem with this explanation is that some of the worst recordings out there are mega million artists with "the best" engineers and producers money can buy. On the other hand I have friends in different parts of the world with smaller studio, with a simple pro-tools or RME firewire interface and they make great sounding stuff.
How can this be explained?

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

There are some wonderful musicians doing wonderful work but their stuff takes time and talent and in the present climate of GET IT DONE and OUT THE DOOR and START MAKING MONEY they may not be able to compete.
It is a WALMART world and the bottom line is the bottom line.

You are absolutely right. As an example I can mention a lot of newcomers that have one excelent first CD and get forced into "competing" and they pretty much never come out with a good CD again because they probably spent several years to get good material for the first CD and then they are expected to produce the same quality in less than a year, while they are touring and doing all kinds of other stuff. It's not going to happen.

Peronally I don't believe art is a competition - a great artist will always have fans that will buy their stuff - even if it takes 3-4 years between CD's, so for the record companies to force artists to release compromized work is not good for business. If they actually understood that I think record companies would be far better off - on the bottom line.

Regards
H