[tasteinmen]

I bought The Cure's new single yesterday (The Only One) and I made a Cure compilation featuring the song, anyway, one of the songs after the song was from the 2006 remastered Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me album and it sounded a bit quieter than the new song, which is quite annoying.
Does anybody know if the master volume level has changed recently?
And what is the point of remastering an album if they keep altering the mastering level?

[Rob Instigator]

recording engineers have, for the past 8 or so years, been mastering most new albums at a very high level, and doing so to re-issues as well. This is done to make the music sound "better" whne played through shit-ass ear buds or shitty MP3 players. Essentially, mastering everything at such a high level helps (they think) to maintain the "oomph" that is lost when songs are scrunched down into an MP3 format.

[Rob Instigator]

whatever software you use to burn cd comps should have a setting or a button where you can "normalize all levels" or something to taht effect. this sill try and match all the songs on your burn list so you do not have to keep raising and lowering the volume.

the same thing used to happen with mix tapes depending on the source.

[mangajunky]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

recording engineers have, for the past 8 or so years, been mastering most new albums at a very high level, and doing so to re-issues as well. This is done to make the music sound "better" whne played through shit-ass ear buds or shitty MP3 players. Essentially, mastering everything at such a high level helps (they think) to maintain the "oomph" that is lost when songs are scrunched down into an MP3 format.

It doesn't, though. It increases distortion (that's not supposed to be there - ha ha) The subtleties of the original recording are sometimes lost when they do that crap.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

recording engineers have, for the past 8 or so years, been mastering most new albums at a very high level, and doing so to re-issues as well. This is done to make the music sound "better" whne played through shit-ass ear buds or shitty MP3 players. Essentially, mastering everything at such a high level helps (they think) to maintain the "oomph" that is lost when songs are scrunched down into an MP3 format.

The mastering war started before the widespread advent of mp3s, but instantly-transferable digital formats have compounded the problem.

Wiki article

 

This (from this) illustrates perfectly how the dynamic range is lost in ridiculous mastering.

Article

I think Savage Clone knows a fair bit about this subject.

Personally, I have problems with records that substitute dynamic range for surface 'loudness'. My problem with metal, in my desire for 'loud' sounds (when I was at that naif-sociopath stage of teenhood where you want aggression in sound), was that once they peaked, that was it, just a drilling constant 'loud' that went no-where. I turned to noise, which quickly bored me. Nowadays, I'm of the opinion that if you want dynamic range (which is, on an acoustic level, more affecting than sheer 'loud') you'll have to look to the classical world. I have a recording of Babi Yar by Shostokovich which goes from unbelievably quiet to absurdly loud - pop/ rock/ noise [or whatever] artists don't seem to understand that dynamic range is much, much more aggressive than sheer volume. The whole of the musique concréte world, your Xenkises, Penderecki (of 'threnody...' fame) or even Beethoven or Tchiakovsky can be much, much more devastating than a record which is mastered to 'industry standard'.

[Rob Instigator]

dynamics are crucial in songwriting.
too many bands want to just pumel you but unless there is a contrast, an aural contrast, the "loud" pummeling seems flat.

[atsonicpark]

Sigh..

[Glice]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

Sigh..

You know this isn't the same argument as the mp3 one? I agree, in part, with your opinion on that. Some other sigh? Help a brother out, yeah?

[Rob Instigator]

yeah this is not about the MP3 suckitude. it is about mastering music to be listened to on SHIT EQUIPMENT

[atsonicpark]

I think this is only really an important issue in stuff where even the volume on the really really quiet stuff has been increased to fit the loud stuff. It's not so much a problem if the volume has been increased period, it's an issue if there is a total lack of dynamics -- that everything has been "normalized" in the mastering to be the same volume. But can anyone even list any specific examples of albums like that, where there is a complete lack of dynamics? I haven't really noticed it in any albums when listening to remastered stuff.

[Rob Instigator]

most remastered stuff cuts off the high end and the low end of whatever sounds it is boosting. the actual loudness to softness of the dynamics is not the issue . it is the inability to maintain the crisp high end and the rich low end when one re-masters something and pushes the levels all up to 11

[atsonicpark]

Oh okay.

[Rob Instigator]

plus MP3's suck! In yr face!!!!

[terminal pharmacy]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

most remastered stuff cuts off the high end and the low end of whatever sounds it is boosting. the actual loudness to softness of the dynamics is not the issue . it is the inability to maintain the crisp high end and the rich low end when one re-masters something and pushes the levels all up to 11

Remastering does not affect the frequency range, it is all the dynamic range that is affected, this however can give the appearance that the frequency range has been affected. Normalisation increases the whole level of a sound source until that sources loudest peak hits the normalisation threshold, this does not affect dynamics musically, it does however raise the noise floor. All the problems discussed in this thread are due to what is called brick wall limiting and this does affect the actual dynamics of the music and can and does on ocassions become incredibly destructive.

Hmmm let me think.... ok... say you have a hydrolic lift in a room with an incredibly solid roof 10 foot above this, and a series of different height plynths. You move the floor up two feet and the top of the highest plynth sits touching the ceiling. Now, move the floor up 2 feet again, that highest plynth is now being squashed, but what is happening to the lower plynths?, the tops of the lower plynths are now getting closer to the tops of the highest plynths making them look very similar in volume.

This is where brick wall limiting starts decreasing the dynamics of the music and the dynamics of the audio for sheer volume. i am with Glice, if you want good listening experiences you really need to find good classical recordings.

[Rob Instigator]

Itzhak Perlman and Yo Yo ma playing Beethoven is fucking DOPE

[pokkeherrie]

concrete example of the loudness war on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

[Everyneurotic]

miley cyrus/hannah montana shit is super loud, probably louder than most metal. it comes down to whatever is being marketed.

and that thing about dynamics being crucial to songwriting is complete bollocks; dynamics are arrangement tools and absolutely not "crucial" in the list. tell that to the ramones, the fall and neu! to name only three bands that do without much dynamism.

[atsonicpark]

Well, it's mainly important in stuff like jazz and classical music, not loud rock bands.

[Rob Instigator]

the ramones do not have much dynamism, and by virtue of that, their songs start to sound the same and get very very dull to hear for longer than 20 minutes at a time.

the same can be said for most hardcore punk too, it works best in short blasts like small 6 songs EP's

dynamism is CRUCIAL in music, and yes, even the ramones and the fall and Can have some levels of dynamism.

[Everyneurotic]

it's still about arrangements, not songwriting.