Leo
Well-known member
i know we've touched on this topic before, but an interesting piece from today's wsj on how music production/compression is changing what we hear:
Are Technology Limits
In MP3s and iPods
Ruining Pop Music?
If it seems like you are listening to music more but enjoying it less,
some people in the recording industry say they know why. They blame that
iPod that you can't live without, along with all the compressed MP3 music
files you've loaded on it.
Those who work behind-the-mic in the music industry -- producers,
engineers, mixers and the like -- say they increasingly assume their
recordings will be heard as MP3s on an iPod music player. That combination
is thus becoming the "reference platform" used as a test of how a track
should sound. (Movie makers make much the same complaint when they see
their filmed images in low-quality digital form.)
Audio lovers often complain about what happens to sound quality when you
"rip" a CD into a compressed MP3 file. Stereophile magazine's Michael
Fremer tells Portals columnist Lee Gomes that anyone can hear the
difference. Can you? Compare two different versions of the same tracks.
The MP3 version of Ella Fitzgerald's "Clap Hands, Here Comes Charlie!"
loses some of its three dimensionality, compared with the full-resolution
file.
The MP3 file of "Come to Find," by Doug MacLeod, is a "shallow, flat,
harsh version" of the uncompressed file, according to Mr. Fremer.
In Elvis Costello's "No Action," the digitized analog copy includes
clatter, drums and cymbals that "sound hard and annoying" in the MP3
file.
But because both compressed music and the iPod's relatively low-quality
earbuds have many limitations, music producers fret that they are
engineering music to a technical lowest common denominator. The result,
many say, is music that is loud but harsh and flat, and thus not enjoyable
for long periods of time.
"Right now, when you are done recording a track, the first thing the band
does is to load it onto an iPod and give it a listen," said Alan Douches,
who has worked with Fleetwood Mac and others. "Years ago, we might have
checked the sound of a track on a Walkman, but no one believed that was
the best it could sound. Today, young artists think MP3s are a
high-quality medium and the iPod is state-of-the-art sound."
It isn't. Producers and engineers say there are many ways they might
change a track to accommodate an iPod MP3. Sometimes, the changes are for
the worse.
For example, says veteran Los Angeles studio owner Skip Saylor, high
frequencies that might seem splendid on a CD might not sound as good as an
MP3 file and so will get taken out of the mix. "The result might make you
happy on an MP3, but it wouldn't make you happy on a CD," he says. "Am I
glad I am doing this? No. But it's the real world and so you make
adjustments."
This shift to compressed music heard via an iPod is occurring at the same
time as another music trend that bothers audiophiles: Music today is
released at higher volume levels than ever before, on the assumption that
louder music sells better. The process of boosting volume, though, tends
to eliminate a track's distinct highs and lows.
As a result, contemporary pop music has a characteristic sound, says
veteran L.A. engineer Jack Joseph Puig, whose credits include the Rolling
Stones and Eric Clapton. "Ten years ago, music was warmer; it was rich and
thick, with more tones and more 'real power.' But newer records are more
brittle and bright. They have what I call 'implied power.' It's all done
with delays and reverbs and compression to fool your brain."
All these engineers tend to be audiophiles, the sort who would fuss over a
track to make it perfect. But they're beginning to wonder if they should
bother.
"I care about quality, even though the kid on the street might like what
he hears on MySpace, which is even worse than an MP3," said Stuart
Brawley, an L.A. engineer who has recorded Cher and Michael Jackson. "We
try to make the best quality sound we can, but we increasingly have to be
realistic about how much time we can spend doing it."
Howard Benson, who has done work for Santana and Chris Daughtry, says
members of a studio recording crew will sometimes complain after a
session, "I just spent all this time getting the greatest guitar and drums
solo, and it ends up as an MP3."
Even those who complain about MP3s say they own and enjoy iPods, and
appreciate how they have made music so widely available. They just wish,
they say, the device wasn't setting the technical standard for how music
gets made.
Of course, not all music producers agree that MP3s and iPods are affecting
music in quite so bad a way. Larry Klein, noted for his work with Joni
Mitchell, said, "If something sounds really good on an average pair of
speakers, it will sound great on earbuds. I can't imagine mixing a record
so that it sounds better on earbuds."
And Clif Magness, who has recorded with Kelly Clarkson and Clay Aiken,
says music recorded by young artists in living rooms via MP3s, while
technically crude, can sometimes have an urgency and immediacy that might
be missing from slick studio projects.
When CDs were first introduced, they were regarded as cold and flat,
compared with vinyl. But their sound improved as engineers learned the
medium, a process many hope will happen again with MP3s and portable music
players.
Michael Bradford, who has produced Kid Rock, notes that as storage and
bandwidth capabilities grow, music won't need to be as compressed. Even
now, some audio buffs, such as Stereophile magazine columnist Michael
Fremer, insist on a best-of-both-worlds approach to digital music. He uses
$500 earbuds with his iPod to listen to digital, but uncompressed, music
he captures from vinyl LPs.
Still, engineers experience some nostalgia about earlier technologies.
Says Mr. Saylor, "What we've lost with this new era of massive compression
and low fidelity are the records that sounds so good that you get lost in
them. "Dark Side of the Moon" -- records like that just aren't being made
today."
* * *
Are Technology Limits
In MP3s and iPods
Ruining Pop Music?
If it seems like you are listening to music more but enjoying it less,
some people in the recording industry say they know why. They blame that
iPod that you can't live without, along with all the compressed MP3 music
files you've loaded on it.
Those who work behind-the-mic in the music industry -- producers,
engineers, mixers and the like -- say they increasingly assume their
recordings will be heard as MP3s on an iPod music player. That combination
is thus becoming the "reference platform" used as a test of how a track
should sound. (Movie makers make much the same complaint when they see
their filmed images in low-quality digital form.)
Audio lovers often complain about what happens to sound quality when you
"rip" a CD into a compressed MP3 file. Stereophile magazine's Michael
Fremer tells Portals columnist Lee Gomes that anyone can hear the
difference. Can you? Compare two different versions of the same tracks.
The MP3 version of Ella Fitzgerald's "Clap Hands, Here Comes Charlie!"
loses some of its three dimensionality, compared with the full-resolution
file.
The MP3 file of "Come to Find," by Doug MacLeod, is a "shallow, flat,
harsh version" of the uncompressed file, according to Mr. Fremer.
In Elvis Costello's "No Action," the digitized analog copy includes
clatter, drums and cymbals that "sound hard and annoying" in the MP3
file.
But because both compressed music and the iPod's relatively low-quality
earbuds have many limitations, music producers fret that they are
engineering music to a technical lowest common denominator. The result,
many say, is music that is loud but harsh and flat, and thus not enjoyable
for long periods of time.
"Right now, when you are done recording a track, the first thing the band
does is to load it onto an iPod and give it a listen," said Alan Douches,
who has worked with Fleetwood Mac and others. "Years ago, we might have
checked the sound of a track on a Walkman, but no one believed that was
the best it could sound. Today, young artists think MP3s are a
high-quality medium and the iPod is state-of-the-art sound."
It isn't. Producers and engineers say there are many ways they might
change a track to accommodate an iPod MP3. Sometimes, the changes are for
the worse.
For example, says veteran Los Angeles studio owner Skip Saylor, high
frequencies that might seem splendid on a CD might not sound as good as an
MP3 file and so will get taken out of the mix. "The result might make you
happy on an MP3, but it wouldn't make you happy on a CD," he says. "Am I
glad I am doing this? No. But it's the real world and so you make
adjustments."
This shift to compressed music heard via an iPod is occurring at the same
time as another music trend that bothers audiophiles: Music today is
released at higher volume levels than ever before, on the assumption that
louder music sells better. The process of boosting volume, though, tends
to eliminate a track's distinct highs and lows.
As a result, contemporary pop music has a characteristic sound, says
veteran L.A. engineer Jack Joseph Puig, whose credits include the Rolling
Stones and Eric Clapton. "Ten years ago, music was warmer; it was rich and
thick, with more tones and more 'real power.' But newer records are more
brittle and bright. They have what I call 'implied power.' It's all done
with delays and reverbs and compression to fool your brain."
All these engineers tend to be audiophiles, the sort who would fuss over a
track to make it perfect. But they're beginning to wonder if they should
bother.
"I care about quality, even though the kid on the street might like what
he hears on MySpace, which is even worse than an MP3," said Stuart
Brawley, an L.A. engineer who has recorded Cher and Michael Jackson. "We
try to make the best quality sound we can, but we increasingly have to be
realistic about how much time we can spend doing it."
Howard Benson, who has done work for Santana and Chris Daughtry, says
members of a studio recording crew will sometimes complain after a
session, "I just spent all this time getting the greatest guitar and drums
solo, and it ends up as an MP3."
Even those who complain about MP3s say they own and enjoy iPods, and
appreciate how they have made music so widely available. They just wish,
they say, the device wasn't setting the technical standard for how music
gets made.
Of course, not all music producers agree that MP3s and iPods are affecting
music in quite so bad a way. Larry Klein, noted for his work with Joni
Mitchell, said, "If something sounds really good on an average pair of
speakers, it will sound great on earbuds. I can't imagine mixing a record
so that it sounds better on earbuds."
And Clif Magness, who has recorded with Kelly Clarkson and Clay Aiken,
says music recorded by young artists in living rooms via MP3s, while
technically crude, can sometimes have an urgency and immediacy that might
be missing from slick studio projects.
When CDs were first introduced, they were regarded as cold and flat,
compared with vinyl. But their sound improved as engineers learned the
medium, a process many hope will happen again with MP3s and portable music
players.
Michael Bradford, who has produced Kid Rock, notes that as storage and
bandwidth capabilities grow, music won't need to be as compressed. Even
now, some audio buffs, such as Stereophile magazine columnist Michael
Fremer, insist on a best-of-both-worlds approach to digital music. He uses
$500 earbuds with his iPod to listen to digital, but uncompressed, music
he captures from vinyl LPs.
Still, engineers experience some nostalgia about earlier technologies.
Says Mr. Saylor, "What we've lost with this new era of massive compression
and low fidelity are the records that sounds so good that you get lost in
them. "Dark Side of the Moon" -- records like that just aren't being made
today."
* * *
