Tweet
Compressed...
With the mp3 download of Tattoo having been in my daily regimen for the last 12 days, I've been a (mostly) happy man-that is with the exception of the *sound* of the recording.
It sounds extremely compressed and the result of that is several fold:
1: the vocals are magnificently magnified
2: the drums have lost virtually all balls. The bass does not cut through and the snare has no punch. The snare is easily muffled during the louder parts of the song and that to me is tragic.
3: The overall loss in dynamic range makes the entire song very harsh on the ears when turned up loud. That is because of the fact that the entire song is limited and then compressed to create a volume-maximizing effect and the result of this effect is that the information in the recording is VERY loud but in order to achieve that high average loudness, you have to limit and virtually eliminate the natural peaks, for example, the snare drums, the cymbals, the extra room for the bass drum to really thump.
Overall I'm somewhat saddened by this as VH have never released anything that had been hit by the compression-monster. Is this the doings of Ross Hogarth?
I looked at the waveform of Tattoo in an audio editing program and indeed there are some periods where digital clipping occurs, thankfully it is VERY sparse, but for the most part of the recording it is practically "brickwalled"
A zoomed-out view of Tattoo. Notice how much of the mix seems to be maxed out
tattoo-fucked.JPG
(click the image to see full size)
So F'n What?
Here's what. Let's say you had the original recording of the song and then lets say you took the compressed version and overlayed them.
Let's then say you reduced the volume on the compressed recording to match the RMS level of the original. What you would then see is the waveform of the compressed recording looks a LOT smaller, but when played back they're about the same volume.
Back to that overlay thing
So now if you could overlay the compressed waveform ontop of the original waveform, what would you see? All the extra peaks that are missing of course. What does that mean to your ear? It means those snare hits sound more crisp, the cymbals don't turn into background white noise and overall, the sound is just better.
...BUT ITS NOT AS LOUD!!!1
Shut the fuck up. You have a volume knob dont you? TURN UP THE GODDAMN STEREO.
The reason for all of this bullshit is the mentality that suggests that if a listener puts in cd X and listens to it, and then puts in the brand NEW cd and it's LOUDER, they'll think it sounds BETTER! WOW! IT'S LOUDER!!! YEA!!
The average listener is a tool and could care less...
but even metallica fans hit them back VERY hard
Click Here to read Death Magnetic vinyl vs cd (Article)
Ok Ok where am I going with all of this?
I am posting this for the sake of
a] getting it off my chest
b] there is an ultimate point.
Based on the article I posted regarding the death magnetic vinyl vs cd, is there any possibility the vinyl ADKOT release will sound any better?
Perhaps you don't see what the big deal is, well let me show you then. For this I will use Romeo Delight to make my point.
The warner remasters were given the same loudness treatment. Diver down sounds horrible on the remaster, but i digress - i don't have an original to compare so forgive me.
If anyone has the original release of WACF AND the remaster version on CD, listen to the solo in Romeo Delight.
These are my notes on the two:
The Remastered Version:
There is decent punch and overall the recording isnt really too bad. It just sounds a bit louder.
The Original Version:
The original version sounds much better because I could actually hear all of the cymbals in the background as they pretty much jumped at me. The bass is clearer. The overall sound of the recording is much better.
Why the original is better than the remaster
Because the natural peaks that occurred during the recording of the fucking track haven't been CUT OFF AND REDUCED.
And finally.. Romeo Delight, Original vs Remastered
The wave form of the remaster has been reduced in volume to match the volume of the original recording. This is the same process that they'll have used on the ADKOT album only probably much worse.
I made some recordings of the solo but can't seem to upload them here. I don't have a webhost at the time so ohwell.
original_vs_remaster_compensated.JPG
(click the image to see full size)
So again.. Does the vinyl stand a chance here?
Would someone with a connection to the band be willing to ask why the production was done in such a manner?
I guess this makes me an audio snob, but the truth is that the simple days of the 70s and early 80s gave us treasures that we didnt appreciate because they weren't 'loud' or 'lush'...but they always sounded GREAT when you maxed your volume knob didnt they?
With the mp3 download of Tattoo having been in my daily regimen for the last 12 days, I've been a (mostly) happy man-that is with the exception of the *sound* of the recording.
It sounds extremely compressed and the result of that is several fold:
1: the vocals are magnificently magnified
2: the drums have lost virtually all balls. The bass does not cut through and the snare has no punch. The snare is easily muffled during the louder parts of the song and that to me is tragic.
3: The overall loss in dynamic range makes the entire song very harsh on the ears when turned up loud. That is because of the fact that the entire song is limited and then compressed to create a volume-maximizing effect and the result of this effect is that the information in the recording is VERY loud but in order to achieve that high average loudness, you have to limit and virtually eliminate the natural peaks, for example, the snare drums, the cymbals, the extra room for the bass drum to really thump.
Overall I'm somewhat saddened by this as VH have never released anything that had been hit by the compression-monster. Is this the doings of Ross Hogarth?
I looked at the waveform of Tattoo in an audio editing program and indeed there are some periods where digital clipping occurs, thankfully it is VERY sparse, but for the most part of the recording it is practically "brickwalled"
A zoomed-out view of Tattoo. Notice how much of the mix seems to be maxed out
tattoo-fucked.JPG
(click the image to see full size)
So F'n What?
Here's what. Let's say you had the original recording of the song and then lets say you took the compressed version and overlayed them.
Let's then say you reduced the volume on the compressed recording to match the RMS level of the original. What you would then see is the waveform of the compressed recording looks a LOT smaller, but when played back they're about the same volume.
Back to that overlay thing
So now if you could overlay the compressed waveform ontop of the original waveform, what would you see? All the extra peaks that are missing of course. What does that mean to your ear? It means those snare hits sound more crisp, the cymbals don't turn into background white noise and overall, the sound is just better.
...BUT ITS NOT AS LOUD!!!1
Shut the fuck up. You have a volume knob dont you? TURN UP THE GODDAMN STEREO.
The reason for all of this bullshit is the mentality that suggests that if a listener puts in cd X and listens to it, and then puts in the brand NEW cd and it's LOUDER, they'll think it sounds BETTER! WOW! IT'S LOUDER!!! YEA!!
The average listener is a tool and could care less...
but even metallica fans hit them back VERY hard
Click Here to read Death Magnetic vinyl vs cd (Article)
Ok Ok where am I going with all of this?
I am posting this for the sake of
a] getting it off my chest
b] there is an ultimate point.
Based on the article I posted regarding the death magnetic vinyl vs cd, is there any possibility the vinyl ADKOT release will sound any better?
Perhaps you don't see what the big deal is, well let me show you then. For this I will use Romeo Delight to make my point.
The warner remasters were given the same loudness treatment. Diver down sounds horrible on the remaster, but i digress - i don't have an original to compare so forgive me.
If anyone has the original release of WACF AND the remaster version on CD, listen to the solo in Romeo Delight.
These are my notes on the two:
The Remastered Version:
There is decent punch and overall the recording isnt really too bad. It just sounds a bit louder.
The Original Version:
The original version sounds much better because I could actually hear all of the cymbals in the background as they pretty much jumped at me. The bass is clearer. The overall sound of the recording is much better.
Why the original is better than the remaster
Because the natural peaks that occurred during the recording of the fucking track haven't been CUT OFF AND REDUCED.
And finally.. Romeo Delight, Original vs Remastered
The wave form of the remaster has been reduced in volume to match the volume of the original recording. This is the same process that they'll have used on the ADKOT album only probably much worse.
I made some recordings of the solo but can't seem to upload them here. I don't have a webhost at the time so ohwell.
original_vs_remaster_compensated.JPG
(click the image to see full size)
So again.. Does the vinyl stand a chance here?
Would someone with a connection to the band be willing to ask why the production was done in such a manner?
I guess this makes me an audio snob, but the truth is that the simple days of the 70s and early 80s gave us treasures that we didnt appreciate because they weren't 'loud' or 'lush'...but they always sounded GREAT when you maxed your volume knob didnt they?
Comment