Why do album mixers use limiters to crush dynamics?

[fpitas]

Could work nowadays no physical media needed and there are sites selling HiRez versions, this could be the HiRez version
Next problem the sites that sells so called HiRez does not really care either :/

Yeah, if they have to wonder whether it will make any money, it's off the table.

 

[xaviescacs]

There are accessible technical means to compress music on demand. So we could do that when needed (shopping mall, phone speakers...) and let everyone else enjoy better sound.

In many server-client relationships, the client indicates what it expects and the server acts accordingly, or the client just identifies itself and the server decides what's better for it.

 

[oleg87]

the music is a business.
the Mastering operator (no the mixing operator) do what the producer ask: loud, loud and more loud.

you are the product, do not forget .

the loudnesswar start with Metallica in the 90's with Bob Ludwig , where was you since ?

Nah, the tools may have become more sophisticated but this is nothing that new. There was a period in the 70s and 80s when dynamic range was more fashionable but popular music recordings often being a bit “overcooked” is as old as any music I listen to. All the Beatles stuff is notably compressed/saturated; I was reading some interview with the guy who recorded all those 70s Queen records where he was bragging about how he has everything in the red so it would “explode from the radio”. And the reasons remain the same - punching through on noisy/low fidelity/frequency limited systems.

 

[tallbeardedone]

Because for every person listening to piece of popular music on a quality system in a quiet environment, you have 10 people listening to music in cars, on tiny phone and computer speakers, on bottom-of-the-barrel headphones, in stores, restaurants, parties, clubs, etc. They don't care about dynamic range, they want to hear the music.

But surely there’s enough money out there willing to pay for a non-ear-bleed version. I mean audiophooles are willing to pay $1000’s for a power cord that’s completely inaudible, surely they (and in this case I) would pay extra for a non-crushed “audiophile version” of the master. Wtf? It makes no sense to me that they would destroy the mix like this.

 

[tallbeardedone]

Nah, the tools may have become more sophisticated but this is nothing that new. There was a period in the 70s and 80s when dynamic range was more fashionable but popular music recordings often being a bit “overcooked” is as old as any music I listen to. All the Beatles stuff is notably compressed/saturated; I was reading some interview with the guy who recorded all those 70s Queen records where he was bragging about how he has everything in the red so it would “explode from the radio”. And the reasons remain the same - punching through on noisy/low fidelity/frequency limited systems.

They need to release a “radio edit” and an “ear edit” and let us choose. If I were Adele I’d re-release all my old stuff un-crushed under my own label like Taylor Swift and make a mint. (Not that she needs it)

 

[tallbeardedone]

Unfortunately, no. Most people either don't know or care enough to "vote with their wallet" and boycott bad sounding releases. If a musician is famous enough, the record is going to sell well, regardless of the sound quality.

And people who listen critically on hi-fi systems are more likely to play genres like classical, acoustic etc. Those tend to have much higher dynamic range. Whereas top40 pop music is more likely to be played in a shopping mall or on built-in phone speakers... where the priorities are different.

So I'm pessimistic about consumers fixing this mess through market dynamics. At least not until enough people get educated on this issue.
But you can always contact the people involved in production (the artists, the business guys and the technical staff) and let them know what you think.



Not always. The infamous Death Magnetic was crushed in the mix and IIRC the decision was made by the producer and the band.



I don't want people to get the wrong idea, that a "hirez" format is needed for high dynamic range. 16bit is plenty.
There are accessible technical means to compress music on demand. So we could do that when needed (shopping mall, phone speakers...) and let everyone else enjoy better sound.

All great points. What a shame. I can’t believe the artists don’t care that their art is being so badly distorted. The Metallica case is even worse as they CHOSE to crush it. Horrible. At least i know now which albums to avoid using the DR website, but it’s a shame that so much decent music is unlistenable on a good stereo.

 

[blueone]

Unfortunately, no. Most people either don't know or care enough to "vote with their wallet" and boycott bad sounding releases. If a musician is famous enough, the record is going to sell well, regardless of the sound quality.

I agree, but, even those of us who do care often don't know an album is mixed and mastered poorly until after we've purchased it. I own Adele 21, and it does indeed suck, but I didn't know that when I bought it.

 

[fpitas]

They need to release a “radio edit” and an “ear edit” and let us choose. If I were Adele I’d re-release all my old stuff un-crushed under my own label like Taylor Swift and make a mint. (Not that she needs it)

I've seen artists do just that, re-release things with their own spin on mastering etc. Generally that takes (lots of) money and they have to own the rights.

 

[tallbeardedone]

I agree, but, even those of us who do care often don't know an album is mixed and mastered poorly until after we've purchased it. I own Adele 21, and it does indeed suck, but I didn't know that when I bought it.

Now you know, my friend:

Album list - Dynamic Range DB

 

[Blumlein 88]

Unfortunately, no. Most people either don't know or care enough to "vote with their wallet" and boycott bad sounding releases. If a musician is famous enough, the record is going to sell well, regardless of the sound quality.

And people who listen critically on hi-fi systems are more likely to play genres like classical, acoustic etc. Those tend to have much higher dynamic range. Whereas top40 pop music is more likely to be played in a shopping mall or on built-in phone speakers... where the priorities are different.

So I'm pessimistic about consumers fixing this mess through market dynamics. At least not until enough people get educated on this issue.
But you can always contact the people involved in production (the artists, the business guys and the technical staff) and let them know what you think.



Not always. The infamous Death Magnetic was crushed in the mix and IIRC the decision was made by the producer and the band.



I don't want people to get the wrong idea, that a "hirez" format is needed for high dynamic range. 16bit is plenty.
There are accessible technical means to compress music on demand. So we could do that when needed (shopping mall, phone speakers...) and let everyone else enjoy better sound.

Not so sure about that. Death Magnetic was also released in a Guitar Hero version for that game. It sounds better because it didn't get the full crush mastering. It still isn't a paragon of dynamic range.

Some friends in a part time musical group recorded an acapella Christmas song. It came back with a DR of 6 while the infamous Death Magnetic is mostly a 7. This with everyone telling the bozo they didn't want it crushed. It took three additional attempts before we got it thru to the guy not to totally crush it. Whether the small time studios are just trying to give you that big time sound (crushed and limited) or something else, the disease pervades much of the industry.

Big time commercial musicians will have an A&R guy calling shots I suppose. Do you think even that guy with someone like Adele would cross her if she didn't agree with the sound? Sterling Sound is anything but. Yet when your client list is full of gold and platinum albums with a long list of awards whose is going to argue.

On the DR list btw, Adele 21 averages a 6 with a max of 8. 25 averages a 5. 30 actually is listed as 12 so maybe there is progress. Remember Death Magnetic averaged a 7.

 

[lokkerman]

Well funnily enough this has been going on a while; 461 Ocean Boulevard was released HR (HD tracks) and was well received in circa 2014 @24-192. It was DR 11. Just took it through my process and got another 2dB and a far, far, better sound. It is not the sound of the limiting that is at fault, in fact it adds to the sound; it is where the limiting takes place and how close it is to peak.

 

[dfuller]

A few things:

1. It became a thing during the CD era when there was no loudness normalization - so a lower crest factor record did indeed sound louder!
2. In less than ideal environments, extra compression improves intelligibility.
3. Because people generally want it louder because louder = better (to a point).

Death Magnetic was also released in a Guitar Hero version for that game. It sounds better because it didn't get the full crush mastering. It still isn't a paragon of dynamic range.

Why would anybody expect it to be? It's a freaking metal record. It's not high dynamic range music.

Not always. The infamous Death Magnetic was crushed in the mix and IIRC the decision was made by the producer and the band.

It was mostly Rick Rubin - Metallica were out on tour while it was being mixed.

 

[Frgirard]

Nah, the tools may have become more sophisticated but this is nothing that new. There was a period in the 70s and 80s when dynamic range was more fashionable but popular music recordings often being a bit “overcooked” is as old as any music I listen to. All the Beatles stuff is notably compressed/saturated; I was reading some interview with the guy who recorded all those 70s Queen records where he was bragging about how he has everything in the red so it would “explode from the radio”. And the reasons remain the same - punching through on noisy/low fidelity/frequency limited systems.

Nah, the tools may have become more sophisticated but this is nothing that new. There was a period in the 70s and 80s when dynamic range was more fashionable but popular music recordings often being a bit “overcooked” is as old as any music I listen to. All the Beatles stuff is notably compressed/saturated; I was reading some interview with the guy who recorded all those 70s Queen records where he was bragging about how he has everything in the red so it would “explode from the radio”. And the reasons remain the same - punching through on noisy/low fidelity/frequency limited systems.

the beattle used compressor, but no the brickwall.
the loudnesswar is not only the compression. it's a way to produce a track.
it changes everything.

 

[Don Hills]

Why would anybody expect it to be? It's a freaking metal record. It's not high dynamic range music.

There's about the same proportion of metalheads that appreciate high fidelity in their chosen genre as there are in other genres.

You know something's wrong when a heavy metal album ends up less compressed than a semi-acoustic soul/blues album. (Iron Maiden, "The Final Frontier" versus Tom Jones, "Praise And Blame". Both mastered by Bob Ludwig in 2010.)

 

[oleg87]

Why would anybody expect it to be? It's a freaking metal record. It's not high dynamic range music.

It might not be (as a general rule) high dynamic range music but its constituent instruments can still benefit from a dynamic mix. Metal drums can sound like actual acoustic drums or saturated, clipped mush. Though of course with metal, saturation is used for aesthetic effect moreso than most genres.

 

[dfuller]

There's about the same proportion of metalheads that appreciate high fidelity in their chosen genre as there are in other genres.

You know something's wrong when a heavy metal album ends up less compressed than a semi-acoustic soul/blues album. (Iron Maiden, "The Final Frontier" versus Tom Jones, "Praise And Blame". Both mastered by Bob Ludwig in 2010.)

Sure, and I'm one of them... but expecting a metal mix to have a lot of dynamic range is just silly. I say this as someone who has mixed a few metal records. There just isn't that much dynamic range present in the material.

It might not be (as a general rule) high dynamic range music but its constituent instruments can still benefit from a dynamic mix. Metal drums can sound like actual acoustic drums or saturated, clipped mush. Though of course with metal, saturation is used for aesthetic effect moreso than most genres.

Yes, this is true, and DM is not singularly bad. But expecting it to not be fairly low dynamic range program material is asking a lot.

 

[Juhazi]

Unfortunately, no. Most people either don't know or care enough to "vote with their wallet" and boycott bad sounding releases. If a musician is famous enough, the record is going to sell well, regardless of the sound quality.

And people who listen critically on hi-fi systems are more likely to play genres like classical, acoustic etc. Those tend to have much higher dynamic range. Whereas top40 pop music is more likely to be played in a shopping mall or on built-in phone speakers... where the priorities are different.

So I'm pessimistic about consumers fixing this mess through market dynamics. At least not until enough people get educated on this issue.
But you can always contact the people involved in production (the artists, the business guys and the technical staff) and let them know what you think.



Not always. The infamous Death Magnetic was crushed in the mix and IIRC the decision was made by the producer and the band.



I don't want people to get the wrong idea, that a "hirez" format is needed for high dynamic range. 16bit is plenty.
There are accessible technical means to compress music on demand. So we could do that when needed (shopping mall, phone speakers...) and let everyone else enjoy better sound.

So true. In early 90s CD was hifi, but mobile and pad popularity killed pop-music as hifi. Classical and mot of jazz are still ok.
My first experience with limitig was a 30-song compilation vinyl LP, all on one disc! I did't even wat to listen to B-side.
Another bad memory was Aretha Franklin's last. Autotune, compression and limiting totally destroyed her voice

 

[dorakeg]

Does anyone know why they overuse the limiter to crush the dynamics and raise the perceived loudness of certain recordings?

Adele 21 comes to mind. On a good stereo the mix of that album is unlistenable. It’s strident and there’s no separation between Adele’s voice, the instruments, and the backing vocals. When you turn it up to find her voice it only gets worse. It’s just a horrible wall of sound that I want to turn down.

This is due to the mix. The mixer has used a limiter to raise the perceived loudness of the track by increasing the volume of quietest sounds while the peaks are compressed. It sounds flat awful and it’s such a shame because Adele has such a wonderful voice.

Why do they do this? I want a great recording of Adele that brings her to life in my listening room. Not this strident mess.

And why don’t they at least release a un-crushed version? Surely that would be a huge money maker?

What am I missing?

Most people now listen to music on the move. High dynamic range is actually a hassle and something unwanted in such situations.

Due to environmental noise, if low volumes are too soft, users have to turn up the volume, then, It gets too loud at times and have to lower it. So, it's preferred to have a reduced dynamic range where there is no need to reach for the volume control.

 

[solderdude]

In the old days most people listened to radio. FM used the 'Orban optimod' which reduced the dynamic range and made music about equally loud and crushed loud dynamics as one of its main functions.
This was often audible and you could hear a difference between a song on the radio and from the turntable.
You could hear the limiter 'pumping' now and then.
On radio one (in NL) there were sometimes special programs that switched off optimod and had no DJs talking through the intro on purpose. Mostly classical music though.

In those days the advert guys found out that with the DR reduced heavily and people not touching the volume control you could get the advertisements to sound a lot louder than the music. It annoyed the hell out of me even in those days already.

 

[tallbeardedone]

So true. In early 90s CD was hifi, but mobile and pad popularity killed pop-music as hifi. Classical and mot of jazz are still ok.
My first experience with limitig was a 30-song compilation vinyl LP, all on one disc! I did't even wat to listen to B-side.
Another bad memory was Aretha Franklin's last. Autotune, compression and limiting totally destroyed her voice
Most people now listen to music on the move. High dynamic range is actually a hassle and something unwanted in such situations.

Due to environmental noise, if low volumes are too soft, users have to turn up the volume, then, It gets too loud at times and have to lower it. So, it's preferred to have a reduced dynamic range where there is no need to reach for the volume control.

yeah they should release two versions, a "radio" version for the masses and a "non-ear bleed" version for people who want a good "live" recording experience.