What’s Up with Modern Audio Releases?

[Anton S]

When I listen to older productions, for example straight ahead jazz releases from the 60’s and 70’s, they sound natural and I get a wonderful sense that I am there at an actual performance. Not so much with releases produced in the past couple decades. A few, but not many. The majority sound artificial and contrived. And many of those sound objectionably harsh, as if they contain an abundance of odd-order harmonics or IMD.

What’s up with that? The specifications of modern recording and playback equipment have certainly improved greatly over the past half century, so why am I not enjoying an improved listening experience with most recent releases? Is this due to an over-reliance on electronic instruments, drum machines, etc? Poor/overzealous post-production processing? What?

 

[TurtlePaul]

Most modern production uses limiters and compressors to achieve a certain sound and (low) dynamic ratio. Also, most modern music is not recorded in one take. It is tracks overlaid with each other, run through processors and cut and spliced together to make performances that aren't possible in real life. Since the 1990s, a lot of guitarists have had to learn the solos which were spliced together on their albums. On top of this is auto-tune which makes those vocals that you can tell aren't coming straight from the performers mouth.

Youtube has a ton of videos on audio production which discuss auto-tune, limiters, compressors and mastering to meet a certain dynamic range. I am sure you can find them.

 

[WideEyedToad]

I dont think audio quality is a priority with the younger crowd.
99% of the people I know, simply do not care. Sad.

 

[MarkS]

The majority sound artificial and contrived. And many of those sound objectionably harsh, as if they contain an abundance of odd-order harmonics or IMD.

Can you give some specific examples?

 

[Arindal]

straight ahead jazz releases from the 60’s and 70’s, they sound natural and I get a wonderful sense that I am there at an actual performance. Not so much with releases produced in the past couple decades.

I am not an expert for mixing aesthetics of jazz, but my assumption would be that the general philosophy of a sound ideal in this genre has changed rather away from your taste. As you write ´natural´ and ´I am there at an actual performance´, well that is indeed not what the vast majority of jazz records are aiming for, in my understanding.

To come somewhat closer to the ´feeling of being there´ with two channel stereo, the mixing engineer would have to add a lot of reverb or place main microphones much further away from musicians towards the diffuse field in the studio, which is heavily compromising the feeling of rhythm, drum kicks, directness, clean, tight, low bass and groove, if that makes sense.

I would assume that the inevitable compromise of stereo recordings and different philosophies how to deal with it, might be the main reason for your observation.

When it comes to ´natural´ sound aesthetics, I would rather see such at play with classical recordings, and in this field sound quality has vastly improved the years after proper recording equipment was made widely available. Would say in the laste 30 years the majority of recordings is very good or excellent.

And many of those sound objectionably harsh, as if they contain an abundance of odd-order harmonics or IMD.

Have never heard of many jazz recordings sounding harsh. Tbh I don't know any examples of technically flawless recordings of natural instruments which I would file under ´harsh´. This sounds to me like a very strong indication something is wrong with your listening equipment, either loudspeakers, headphones or the room in which you are listening.

Could you give an example for a harsh modern jazz recordings please?

Is this due to an over-reliance on electronic instruments, drum machines, etc? Poor/overzealous post-production processing?

Are you talking about electronic music and popular music? Well, aesthetics in this field have changed over time. Maybe you simply don't like what the majority of listeners likes. It is also very much depending on the actual genre. Some have moved into a more artificial sound idea (like Hiphop, R´n´B and some subgenera of rock), some not.

There was a period when many popular genres were obviously aiming to sound more aggressive, dense and not clean, involving over-compression, distortion and effects like exciters being used extensively. I am talking about the mid-1990s to maybe around 2010, a period from which some recordings don't meet my expectations. In the last 15 years, things got better, and a lot of pop, electronic and rock recordings sound surprisingly enjoyable even if involving a lot of effects. My explanation would be that with the dominance of in-ear monitors, people walked away from this dense, aggressive ideal.

 

[TTT15]

I understand there was a period where recording quality was lower due to firstly the so called loudness war where they found louder recordings were more popular so compressed the dynamic range until streaming introduced loudness control and eliminated the benefit. Secondly recordings were recorded to sound good on MP3. The recordings just seem flat to me.

However, recent 24 bit recordings sound more dynamic to me. 24 bit seems to be the new standard for distribution of recent recordings. There are still many popular recordings which are understandably recoded to sound better or more popular less transparent transducers. However, well recorded recent recordings have never sounded better to me.

I don’t think young people don’t care so much as don’t know. It’s just driven by changes in technology.

I don’t pretend to understand but when I listen to Apple Musics‘s weekly new playlist it seems to be nearly all 24 bit with a mix of 44, 48 and 96khz. Just seems to me that they care more about recording quality recently.

 

[Chr1]

I think most modern music production is far more complex than jazz era music production.

Whether you like it or not is a completely different matter.

 

[Arindal]

I understand there was a period where recording quality was lower due to firstly the so called loudness war where they found louder recordings were more popular so compressed the dynamic range

My personal understanding is the use of compressors during that ´loudness war´ period is vastly overblown. There indeed was a race who reaches the maximum of subjective loudness among radio stations and some pop/rock producers in the late 1990s and early 2000s. But this coincided with a sound ideal of present/direct mixes, dense mastering, aggressive drum/guitar sounds, artificial overtones added (we all know the Aural Exciter, don't we?) and the intentional use of (digital) distortion, mainly in harder rock derivatives as well as R´n´B/hiphop.

My hypothesis would be people mainly did not like the latter and blamed it on compression. Which has nothing to do with it, there are pretty clean and enjoyable mixes with a lot of compression, if it is done right.

recent 24 bit recordings sound more dynamic to me. 24 bit seems to be the new standard for distribution of recent recordings.

24 Bit is a standard in recording for a very long time. As almost all popular music including rock, jazz and folk, does not offer a vast dynamic range by nature, it always has been completely reproducible on a 16 Bit system, if mastered and normalized properly. The introduction of 24 Bit distribution does not explain any additional subjective dynamic in this case.

Things are different with some classical compositions which are very very dynamic by nature, but we are really talking about stuff by Mahler, Prokofiev or R. Strauss here.

I don’t pretend to understand but when I listen to Apple Musics‘s weekly new playlist it seems to be nearly all 24 bit with a mix of 44, 48 and 96khz. Just seems to me that they care more about recording quality recently.

I don't think it has to do with 24 Bit distribution technically, but rather with the record companies and copyright owners feeling the urge to upload the highest quality they have, if it is distributed as 24 Bit, and not some batch-converted MP3 stuff.

 

[Waxx]

Modern music in general is not a band playing that is recorded. It's recorded in takes, often each instrument seperate and heacy processed. Or it's a synthesiser/sampler based composition where all is sequenced in a sequencer (more than you think). Even in metal (which should be live music), the drums are almost all programmed, not live played on the album. The time that the recording is an exact reproduction of a live performance are gone since long (at least the late 70's) so it does not sound like it anymore neighter.

In the mix and mainly in the mastering, the tracks are compressed (and otherwise processed) hard to reduce the dynamics and get a coherent louder sounding record. Very often there is no dynamics anymore in the track. They say it's modern production style and it better fits the radio, but i don't like that neighter.

 

[TTT15]

My personal understanding is the use of compressors during that ´loudness war´ period is vastly overblown. There indeed was a race who reaches the maximum of subjective loudness among radio stations and some pop/rock producers in the late 1990s and early 2000s. But this coincided with a sound ideal of present/direct mixes, dense mastering, aggressive drum/guitar sounds, artificial overtones added (we all know the Aural Exciter, don't we?) and the intentional use of (digital) distortion, mainly in harder rock derivatives as well as R´n´B/hiphop.

My hypothesis would be people mainly did not like the latter and blamed it on compression. Which has nothing to do with it, there are pretty clean and enjoyable mixes with a lot of compression, if it is done right.



24 Bit is a standard in recording for a very long time. As almost all popular music including rock, jazz and folk, does not offer a vast dynamic range by nature, it always has been completely reproducible on a 16 Bit system, if mastered and normalized properly. The introduction of 24 Bit distribution does not explain any additional subjective dynamic in this case.

Things are different with some classical compositions which are very very dynamic by nature, but we are really talking about stuff by Mahler, Prokofiev or R. Strauss here.



I don't think it has to do with 24 Bit distribution technically, but rather with the record companies and copyright owners feeling the urge to upload the highest quality they have, if it is distributed as 24 Bit, and not some batch-converted MP3 stuff.

It seems to me not the recording bit depth or sampling rate as understand been recording in 24 bit for a while just that 24 bit rate seems the main standard for distribution now.. More that they are producing better quality original recordings more often recently for some reason which coincides with the trend to 24 bit distribution.

Someone like Radiohead always cared about recording quality whereas Oasis was recorded to sound good on the radio but sounds flat on transparent transducers. Just seems recent recordings tend to be better for some reason. ChatGPT suggests it could be with 24 bit stream you could be getting a better version of the master.

 

[olieb]

My personal understanding is the use of compressors during that ´loudness war´ period is vastly overblown. There indeed was a race who reaches the maximum of subjective loudness among radio stations and some pop/rock producers in the late 1990s and early 2000s. But this coincided with a sound ideal of present/direct mixes, dense mastering, aggressive drum/guitar sounds, artificial overtones added (we all know the Aural Exciter, don't we?) and the intentional use of (digital) distortion, mainly in harder rock derivatives as well as R´n´B/hiphop.

I am not into this kind of popular music, but as there was (and is) a lot of talk about this loudness war, I got curious and interested.
I checked with Apple Music Hit List from 2024 and as I am not at all acquainted with these "hits", I just chose the names that I heard before.
First I thought you were right, as there was no obvious compression going on in the streams. But at "Texas Hold'em" (Lady Gaga) it was different and I found out that until then I was streaming and checking Atmos mixes. After switching to stereo it became clear that compression and clipping is still a VERY frequent thing.
Just some examples that are not exactly in the camp of "aggressive sound".
These are plots of the (stereo) streams (recorded with -6dB) - Atmos down mixes look VERY different!
How it is with jazz recordings I do not know.

I Can Do It With a Broken Heart (Taylor Swift)

TEXAS HOLD 'EM (Beyoncé)

Die With A Smile (Lady Gaga & Bruno Mars)

APT. (ROSÉ & Bruno Mars)

Out of these only the third does not show obvious compression/clipping.

 

[Multicore]

What’s up with that?

Idk. In order to debug what you're experiencing we'll need examples. I do not share your experience so I wouldn't want to guess.

 

[TTT15]

I am not into this kind of popular music, but as there was (and is) a lot of talk about this loudness war, I got curious and interested.
I checked with Apple Music Hit List from 2024 and as I am not at all acquainted with these "hits", I just chose the names that I heard before.
First I thought you were right, as there was no obvious compression going on in the streams. But at "Texas Hold'em" (Lady Gaga) it was different and I found out that until then I was streaming and checking Atmos mixes. After switching to stereo it became clear that compression and clipping is still a VERY frequent thing.
Just some examples that are not exactly in the camp of "aggressive sound".
These are plots of the (stereo) streams (recorded with -6dB) - Atmos down mixes look VERY different!
How it is with jazz recordings I do not know.

I Can Do It With a Broken Heart (Taylor Swift)
View attachment 478532

TEXAS HOLD 'EM (Beyoncé)
View attachment 478533

Die With A Smile (Lady Gaga & Bruno Mars)
View attachment 478534

APT. (ROSÉ & Bruno Mars)
View attachment 478535

Out of these only the third does not show obvious compression/clipping.

Yes some recent pop recordings still sound recorded for lower quality transducers but recent 24 bit streams of alternative music tend to sound like better quality recordings for some reason.

 

[Mart68]

Someone like Radiohead always cared about recording quality whereas Oasis was recorded to sound good on the radio but sounds flat on transparent transducers. .

Oasis wasn't recorded to sound good on the radio. Recorded like anything else. I think you're confusing recording with mastering?

They had a lot of problems with the first album as they felt the recording sounded too clean and 'hi-fi'. Like a Dire Straits recording.

They then spent a long time in post production 'roughing it up'. The intention was to emulate their 'live' sound.

The first album doesn't sound flat to me.

 

[Mart68]

Yes some recent pop recordings still sound recorded for lower quality transducers but recent 24 bit streams of alternative music tend to sound like better quality recordings for some reason.

24 bit recording has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[Arindal]

just that 24 bit rate seems the main standard for distribution now.

It increasingly is becoming the standard, with Spotify lately joining the club. For music with limited or normal dynamic range, such as pop, rock, (chamber) jazz, folk, electronic, even with any potential consequence of headroom, footroom and normalization taken into account, 24Bit does not offer any audible advantage over properly mastered 16Bit, because the dynamic of such music fits mostly into 12 Bit.

I doubt that introduction of 24 Bit streaming is the reason for improved quality, if we are not talking about specifically ultra-dynamic music (classical with huge orchestras, choirs, opera, big bands).

First I thought you were right, as there was no obvious compression going on in the streams.

You misrendered my statement. I did not say there was no obviously audible compression anymore. In contrary, such is very common in contemporary popular music.

After switching to stereo it became clear that compression and clipping is still a VERY frequent thing.

Compression has nothing to do with clipping. Compression is used to prevent clipping. And you would not see clipping in a coarse waveform graph at all. Even a plateau in the latter is no indication of clipping.

While compression is very common (maybe being used in a more tasteful manner compared to 20 years ago), I don't really recall many examples of audible clipping being used in music dealing with sounds of natural origin (such as vocals, guitars, drums, piano). In hiphop or music with electronically created sounds, that might differ.

Atmos down mixes look VERY different!

That is to be expected. I find it more interesting how it sounds. Waveform graphs or dynamic range calculations say basically nothing about sound. Never understood why people introduced them as evidence for dynamic of any kind, would consider this as being hi-fi astrology.

They then spent a long time in post production 'roughing it up'. The intention was to emulate their 'live' sound.

That was a common conception in the 1990s and early 2000s which coincided with overly heavy compression, but was not caused by the latter.

 

[TTT15]

24 bit recording has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Yes agreed I understand that 24 bit recording has been around for a while so can’t be the reason so I’m just curious why there is a tendency for recent 24 bit streams to sound more dynamic.

 

[Mart68]

Yes agreed I understand that 24 bit recording has been around for a while so can’t be the reason so I’m just curious why there is a tendency for recent 24 bit streams to sound more dynamic.

Possibly there's a trend to mastering with less limiting and compression than has been common in the past 30 years?

I rarely listen to any contemporary music, the very occasional rock album that I have bought in the past few years have had little dynamic range. All recorded in 24/96.

Also I don't know about 'sounds more dynamic'. Usually when people say that it has no relation to the dynamic range of the recording but means something far more subjective. Specific examples would help.

 

[Mart68]

That was a common conception in the 1990s and early 2000s which coincided with overly heavy compression, but was not caused by the latter.

Agree the two things are totally unconnected.

 

[TTT15]

Oasis wasn't recorded to sound good on the radio. Recorded like anything else. I think you're confusing recording with mastering?

They had a lot of problems with the first album as they felt the recording sounded too clean and 'hi-fi'. Like a Dire Straits recording.

They then spent a long time in post production 'roughing it up'. The intention was to emulate their 'live' sound.

The first album doesn't sound flat to me.

You are absolutely right of course. Recording is the same. Mastering is different. Just that it came up on my Apple Music station playlist. Checked and it was an old 16 bit stream master. The 24 bit stream remaster version on Apple Music does sound better to me at least by Oasis standards . So I’m guessing from that recording hasn’t changed but better mastering does have an impact and there is a tendency for more recent mastering which tends to show up as 24 bit streams are better masters which I tend to perceive as livelier, clearer and more natural. Certainly not all the time but if I feel it is a good master and I check then usually but not always it is a 24 bit stream and a bad master is usually 16 bit stream .

I understand that 24 bit has been around a while and just gives more mastering headroom and doesn’t have a noticeable playback effect so don’t understand why 24 bit streams tend to sound better to me. Can only think that mastering choices are changing recently. Wolf Alice recent 24 bit stream albums sound better to me than the older 16 bit streams. I’m certainly not making any claims as I really don’t know. They don’t seem that bothered about sample rates but pretty consistently switched to 24 bit streams. Just curious to understand the switch to 24 bit streams and why if at all they might tend to sound like better masters.