Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: An all-time low for mastering quality? (Read 119223 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Last week my wife bought a new album - Night Visions by Imagine Dragons - and was playing it on our main system in the lounge, which has ATC SCM100A active monitors. It sounded absolutely horrendous - even on the relatively quiet bits there was this overlay of nasty non-harmonic fuzziness. I was stunned that an album could possibly be released that sounded so spectacularly bad.

I loaded it up into an audio editor to investigate, and noticed that when played back over the laptop's onboard sound through fairly cheap headphones it didn't sound anywhere near as bad. Is there a new generation of mastering engineers who don't bother to check their work on accurate monitors? If so, does this negligence contribute to the damaging effects of the loudness war?

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #1 –
I noticed this too, I think particularly on their single Radioactive.
At first I thought it was a bad Opus conversion, but after checking the original it pointed out there was nothing wrong with the converted item but it was actually the source which was horrible.
It might has something to do with the sound of the band, but I'm not sure this is really what they were aiming for or at which point of the production this was 'achieved'.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #2 –
Is this sound the inevitable side effect of the loudness wars? Yes.

Has this sound now been "the norm" for so long that it's the desired sound on some releases? I fear so.
Interestingly, the trend now seems to be for less compression, and more distortion/clipping. The tricks people used at the start of the loudness wars to hide the fact that the level was too loud (and avoid outright distortion) have sometimes been abandoned - they're now happy with obviously audible clipping and distortion.

Do we now have a generation of engineers who only know how to create this sound? Again, I fear so.

Remember - there are people who have created records that have sold in their millions with this kind of sound on them. They believe "Millions sold = we did a good job."


I listened to some tracks from Night Visions on Spotify. I'd say the distortion is intentional. Maybe some of the elements of the original mix were distorted?

I don't know how we've got here. Well, I do, I've lived through it - but honestly, if you played these CDs to someone 25 years ago, they'd think you were playing them a cassette tape that had been recorded using a deck with manual recording level control, and that the recording level fader had been knocked to maximum by mistake. That's the only time you'd hear this sound 25 years ago.

btw, last year's top albums...
http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/t...s-of-2013-2708/
...I gave in and bought no.2 on that list for my wife at Christmas. Drag it up and listen to track 2 on Spotify or YouTube or where ever. I'd rather listen to Peggy Lee myself, but plenty of people apparently like Emeli Sande's voice - why would someone do that to it?!

Cheers,
David.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #3 –
I was once walking through a Best Buy and as I passed the car stereo department I heard some horrible sounding music with gross distortion, specifically the bass was "flapping"; the woofer had reached the ends of its excursion and the voice coil was smashing against the pole plate with each stroke, or some similar mechanical limitation was reached. I assumed some mischievous kid had maliciously pegged one or more bass control knobs, perhaps on the sub itself, as his own form of destructive, audible graffiti "tagging" as he passed by. I entered to turn it down and was shocked to discover that it occurred at ANY volume setting. That terrible bass distortion was in the recording itself!

What a scary age we live in where young people in the music industry dial this in intentionally, and it indeed "sells".

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #4 –
The music released today could also be released on an Edison wax cylinder and still sound 'well'. An exaggeration for sure (irony on) but isn´t it nice to have that sort of backwards compatability? (irony off)

I´ve also noticed that sonic tastes seem to have changed when it comes to frequency response which is more u-shaped than 20 years ago. More bass, more treble, less mids. Then the added aforementioned distortions. One can only hope that the pressure to produce such releases will be reduced when concepts like ReplayGain become mandatory for something like streaming services.
marlene-d.blogspot.com

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #5 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Is this sound the inevitable side effect of the loudness wars? Yes.

I've noted a similar effect in the past - albums that sound OK-ish on an iPod and sound bad on the main stereo. (Coldplay's X&Y springs to mind). I accepted that it was a consequence of the loudness wars. But Night Visions is in another league altogether - it's just SO horrible that surely nobody would seriously think it's acceptable had they bothered to check it on some decent monitors.

Quote from: 2Bdecided on
I listened to some tracks from Night Visions on Spotify. I'd say the distortion is intentional.

Crikey - if it's intentional, they must be smoking something seriously weird. The effect is most definitely NOT appropriate for the genre!

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #6 –
but how could it be accidental?

You say it sounds better on cheap equipment. The worst stereo I have is in my car. I'm sure it would sound awful even in my car. Emeli Sande certainly does.

I can't imagine that anyone working on any stage of these recordings was monitoring on equipment that hid these faults - unless they monitor exclusively via mobile phones - a 21st century equivalent of that cheap small speaker they had in 1970s recording studios (what was it called?) to check computability with car stereos and transistor radios.

Cheers,
David.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #7 –
^"Auratones".

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #8 –
Unless it gets into the public attention that this is neither a deficiency of technology, be it hardware or software, but a deficiency in the dedication and skill of actual people, nothing will change. The loudness war cannot be won by technological workarounds and small fixes like RG, but only by thoroughly replacing or educating the offending people in charge.

It's a human problem, not a technical one!
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #9 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
a 21st century equivalent of that cheap small speaker they had in 1970s recording studios (what was it called?)


I believe you mean "Auratones". Wikipedia's "studio monitor" page politely describes them as such:
"Most studios, however, also used more modest monitoring devices to check how recordings would sound through car speakers and cheap home systems. A favourite “grot-box” monitor employed in this way was the Auratone 5C, a crude single-driver device that gave a reasonable facsimile of typical lo-fi sound"

I had posted a link to a general Google image search for the benefit of people who might not be familiar with them, but it was deleted for some reason.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #10 –
i have a crappy stereo and wouldn't know quality sound if it bit on on the arse. i'm pretty much content with everything i have apart from one notable exception: anxiety by ladyhawke (2012). it really is thoroughly unpleasant to listen to.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #11 –
Quote from: mzil on
I had posted a link to a general Google image search for the benefit of people who might not be familiar with them, but it was deleted for some reason.
Because it looked like spam, with only a link to Google images. It's back now.
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #12 –
I think that it is due to the loudness wars. Sadly a lot of people around my age (22) care nothing about quality audio. A perfect example is how everyone is walking around with Beats headphones. Also, I don't remember who it was, but there was a pretty big release last year that the whole album was mixed on Apple earbuds. I completely understand wanting a mix to translate well, but mixing to earbuds is very sad. There's also so many people "mastering" there own tracks, which I'm not saying isn't possible, but in my opinion is not a good idea. Or you get people just running the mix through Ozone and just compressing the crap out of it, instead of understanding what mastering actually is. 

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: adupree on
Also, I don't remember who it was, but there was a pretty big release last year that the whole album was mixed on Apple earbuds. I completely understand wanting a mix to translate well, but mixing to earbuds is very sad.


If you know the flaws of the equipment you use for mastering, you can circumvent them. Sure, it´s more difficult compared to using balanced equipment but it´s possible.

Quote from: adupree on
There's also so many people "mastering" there own tracks, which I'm not saying isn't possible, but in my opinion is not a good idea. Or you get people just running the mix through Ozone and just compressing the crap out of it, instead of understanding what mastering actually is. 


So Ozone is bad? In my experience the tools you use don´t matter, far more important is how they are used. Ozone is a powerful tool, it just needs to be handled correctly. For that you´d need experience, technical knowledge and good taste.
marlene-d.blogspot.com

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #14 –
Quote from: mzil on
What a scary age we live in where young people in the music industry dial this in intentionally, and it indeed "sells".

So here I was playing my acoustic guitar in my bluegrass band, and guess what I heard? There were these "electric musicians" playing their guitar through an amplifier! And guess what, it was set at levels where the output stage was clipping and the poor speaker element was bumping against it mechanical limits. I hope this thing never catches on (how could it possibly??) :-)

People tend to acquire and listen the most to music when they are 15-25. That generation define their music (and their music define them). It is for that generation to define how they will set their mark in history (for quite some time this has included doing things in way that the earlier generation objects to).

-k

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #15 –
You are right knutinh, and at nearly 40 (heck!) I can't comment. As I've inferred in this and other threads, that "distorted" sound is "now", and people want it.

But as I sit on the porch in my rocking chair, moaning at those pesky kids  it does seem more than that though, because of the loudness wars. There are tracks where it makes no sense, yet still happens. To use your example, we haven't had distorted guitars on every single popular record released in a decade irrespective of sub-genre. There were always tracks and albums where it made no sense to include a distorted guitar, and guess what - in those cases, there was no distorted guitar! Whereas now you just find the entire mix distorted - even on the "quiet" tracks - just by default.

It kills the hi-fi industry too. If all the CDs/downloads you have are mastered like that, there's no point having a decent amp and speakers. Though again, people said that in previous generations when electronic music was all the rage. "Why would any of these people need a decent hi-fi - there's no real sound to reproduce - you don't need a decent hi-fi for artificial bleeps and clicks like you do to reproduce a real orchestra" is what people said. IMO they were wrong. For one thing, few people listen exclusively to music with absolutely no real sounds in them. For another, artificial sounds tend to exercise the frequency extremes far more than orchestral recordings, so in that respect they are more demanding. Far easier to build a hi-fi that can only cope with chamber music, than to build a hi-fi that can cope equally well with chamber music, orchestral dynamics, and drum+bass loudness and frequency extremes. Covering the full dynamic and frequency range in a natural way is quite a trick to pull off.


If you're 22, does a decent hi-fi make these loudness war recordings sound worse to you, just like it does to me? Or don't you notice?
(I know most people of any age won't notice - but I feel sure there are a minority of picky enthusiasts at 18, 22, 40, or any other age who want things to sound great)

Cheers,
David.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #16 –
(deleted duplicate post)

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #18 –
IMO it all boils down to today's 'more is betta' culture. Modesty and individuality seem to be seen as old-fashioned and unwelcome these days.

After all 'It doesn't really matter if it is crap or good stuff - 'as long as everyone else is turning it all the way up (and selling it/buying it/hiring that successful producer) why shouldn't I?'. 

It really makes me wonder what midlife crisis for today's younger generation is going to be like, in 15-20 years time. 

• Listen to the music, not the media it's on
• The older, the 'lossier'

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #19 –
Quote from: includemeout on
IMO it all boils down to today's 'more is betta' culture. Modesty and individuality seem to be seen as old-fashioned and unwelcome these days.


Your parents and grandparents said the same thing. It's not actually true.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #20 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
If you're 22, does a decent hi-fi make these loudness war recordings sound worse to you, just like it does to me? Or don't you notice?
I'm 31, but still: Since I have bought decent headphones, I can not listen to some of my dearly loved music anymore, because it simply sounds like crap. On the other hand I now can appreciate proper productions even more. So all in all it's a trade-off. The problem is that today you're more likely to get a poorly mastered record with obvious defects than a properly mastered one. I'm not even talking about a good production, but merely an acceptable one without artificial distortions.
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #22 –
Quote from: dhromed on
Quote from: includemeout on
IMO it all boils down to today's 'more is betta' culture. Modesty and individuality seem to be seen as old-fashioned and unwelcome these days.


Your parents and grandparents said the same thing. It's not actually true.


Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.
- Socrates, himself later charged with corrupting the minds of the young, and trialed and executed.


Quote from: includemeout on
It really makes me wonder what midlife crisis for today's younger generation is going to be like, in 15-20 years time. 


Well what can they do that has not already been done to death? (I used to counter my old folks by "I thought you were the ones who went to Woodstock and invented free sex on acid". And I wish I had known the most radical free jazz of their time, that should have shut their mouths on my noisy music.)

An all-time low for mastering quality?

Reply #24 –
I'm afraid you digress and that actually doesn't answer my question but I'll just have to go slightly OT to stand by my POV that, regardless of you implying my sounding just like my foreparents, if I apparently did, was because I'm a firm believer in previous generations' quality standards being totally different (though far from perfect) from today's: for once they didn't have access to as much wealth as we surely do today (in our case accessible technology but in theirs, sometimes even proper staple diets, soon after the post-war period) and regardless of the steady progress, many (generally younger) people today don't seem concerned with seizing this unique opportunity to improve their quality standards accordingly and keep - returning to our topic - recording and listening to rubbish out of equipment that is capable of much more than just that.
• Listen to the music, not the media it's on
• The older, the 'lossier'