Turn me up

Hey that's handy. Everyone watch that!

For the record - no one knows what compression is. No one.

Ted Jenson mastered the new Metallica album which has been critised for the sound dynamics.

Quote :

I'm certainly sympathetic to your reaction, I get to slam my head against that brick wall every day, In this case the mixes were already brick-walled before they arrived at my place.

Suffice to say I would never be pushed to overdrive things as far as they are here. Believe me, I'm not proud to be associated with this one, and we can only hope that some good will come from this in some form of backlash against volume above all else.

More here.

Thanks for the video. It's explained very well!

Hi all,

I just wanted to say that for the record, we took off the intro to starlings after the intial press release because it didn't add anything to the song. It had nothing to do with the loudness wars, I mean why would it? If we felt a part of the album was too squashed then we would re-master it , not remove it.

Anyway, everyone seems to be getting a better idea of what TMU is about and I think it's great that Metallica have fucked up their album (just so it's louder than the next) as it's getting a lot more press now.

Even Metallica fans are noticing! The thing is that 'brick wall limiting' at the mastering stage doesn't only completley distroy the dynamics of a record but it also adds distortion, making the whole thing muddy and less clear. It seems that this is what some Metallica fans are noticing.

Craig x

Thanks for clarifying that Craig, If I get a chance todaay I might change the Wikipedia entry. Now we have it straight from the horses mouth, I can cite a source!

I agree that it's a good thing what Metallica have done here, albeit unintentionally. I've not heard it properly myself, because I'd rather set fire to my testes and have Dabamash put it out with a shovel, than listen to Metallica. It was on in a snowboard shop I was in, cos some snowboarders like that, and that's all I've heard. It sounded awful, but not merely because of the mastering.

Still, the more press that there is about this, the more likely it is that the war will end. TSSK proves that you don't need to brick wall the hell out of your music to be successful.

I like the new Metallica album a lot. But not as much as St Anger, yet. Yeah, that's right.

Don't get me wrong it sounds rather a appauling at times, but it's loud and it's Metallica.

Anyhoo, good to hear our versions of TSSK are all definitive versions.

Hmm someone beat me to the editing of the Wiki page at 01:23 last night...that you Mr Potter by any chance?

Yeah, I just read about the Metallica loudness thing in Rolling Stone. I felt so "in the know"...thanks to you, Craig Potter.

Cheers to Metallica for inadvertently getting the word out. And cheers to Metallica fans for being pissed.

Jonny wrote:

Hey that's handy. Everyone watch that!

For the record - no one knows what compression is. No one.

i do, u do

I'm in the middle of a module all about it at uni X_X

im in the middle of doing an essay about auxilliary effects and insert effects, so, compression is important

Hi Craig,

Fantastic gig Saturday night. I was an Elbow concert virgin and thoroughly enjoyed every moment and it was great to meet you afterwards, although only briefly.

I don't own a CD player and just listen to vinyl, so my experiences may be slightly different to most. I'm particularly struck by the difference when playing an LP from the 80s, 70s, 60s or even 50s having just listened to a modern compressed album. It is very obvious how much more open and tuneful (i.e. pitch accurate) the older LPs sound, no matter whether they are a digital or analogue recording. There is much more space and flow and its simply easier understand what's going on musically. I often feel a sense of relief when changing to an older peice of uncompressed music (Elbow and a few others excluded of course).

It's a real shame as I doubt many artists/listeners are even aware of what is happening until it's pointed out, but anything that gets in the way of the musical message is always to be avoided I think. I see no point in the benefits of compression if in the longer term you get tired of listening and experience less satisfaction from your music. Surely, it should be about conveying what the musicians are trying to express rather than impress the listener with a particular sound or effect?

Lastly, I hope I don't come across as an audiophile as they are predominently concerned with 'sound' which I am not. I'm simply interested in enjoying music and I think the Loudness War is ultimately a battle to better appreciate the music we all love, whether it's heavy rock, jazz or whatever.

That's my two pense worth anyway. Really glad that you guys care enough to take an interest in this and just love the music.

All the best, Simon.

simon wrote:

Hi Mark

Er, Craig started this thread, not Mark.

Do we even have a member called Mark?

The concept of listening to just vinyl with all the exceedingly high quality digital files now widely available is frankly... a bit odd. I guess I'm the audiophile you were hoping you wouldn't come across, Simon! So I won't rant.

At the risk of going off topic into the analogue vs digital debate, it's pretty much accepted within the Hi-Fi press that vinyl sounds better than CD (pound for pound), but that probably depends on your idea of 'better'. It's much easier for CD player to have a more focused sound with tighter bass etc., whereas it costs more in mechanical engineering to acheive the same result through vinyl, but vinyl has its own strenghts. And I did say I'm not an audiophile, so these things are not my priority (all though of course I can appreciate them). I think where vinyl leaves CD for dust is in terms of musicality, where the gap is much wider (although closing). Even the latest streaming players using high quality studio downloads are not as musical as vinyl, although I must admit they are extremely close now. I should also add that these are sweeping statements and it depends greatly on the equipment manufacturer.

Besides, I thought vinyl was 'cool' again! Why else would Elbow be releasing 45s and LPs?

It is cool, but not superior. I'm inclined to think that any advantage that might be found in vinyl is purely psychological. One possible scenario being that the sound of music on vinyl is pleasing to the ear as it takes one back to the time when they had their favourite albums only on vinyl.

Ah yes... if I'm gonna listen to Nirvana's Nevermind or Genesis's Duke, I want it to be on vinyl.

But for me to deny that the recent remaster of Duke sounds better than the vinyl would be foolhardy. It's simply not true.

Jonny wrote:

I'm inclined to think that any advantage that might be found in vinyl is purely psychological. One possible scenario being that the sound of music on vinyl is pleasing to the ear as it takes one back to the time when they had their favourite albums only on vinyl.

Hi Jonny, That is a reasonable argument and one which I wondered myself many years ago. However, it is possible to reliably measure the musicality of two products/mediums or even LP pressings. It is a repeatable method and people that often disagree about sound quality rarely disagree when using it - it's called the Tune Method and is used by one or two Hi-Fi manufacturers to evaluate the musical capabilities of their products during development (I won't explain how to perform it here.)

Basically, the more pitch accurate a product is, the easier it is for your brain to identify each note. This in turn makes the music easier to follow, understand and enjoy. The less tuneful product may (or may not) be capable of better 'sound', but it will be harder to follow the music - it might seem ponderous or lifeless by comparison, but certainly less engaging. Whereas the more tuneful product will be easier to follow musically and therefore better able to convey the musical message and emotional content - i.e. understand what the musicians are conveying.

I am not doubting that the CD reissue of Duke 'sounds' better to you, but is it 'musically' superior to your LP? Better sound does not necessarily mean better music. Just listen to most hi-end stereos and they are musically sterile, lifeless and un-engaging. Obviously it will depend on the turntable and CD player you use, but as a general rule, vinyl is musically superior to CD when applying the Tune Method. Unfortunately, its easier for most people to hear improvements in sound than notice changes in musicality, especially when you are already familiar with the music. Generally, it’s easier to use the Tune Method with music you are unfamiliar with because your brain has not already learnt the melody.

Hope I haven't bored you to death!

All the best, Simon.

I sort of agree with you...

Why have you written your post like a letter? (It doesn't bother me, i'm just curious)

Dabamash wrote:

Why have you written your post like a letter? (It doesn't bother me, i'm just curious)

At first I thought you mean't it was long like a letter (which is a fair point actally), but just realised you're referring to the 'Hi Jonny' and 'All the best' ! Sorry, I'm not familiar with the etiquette here and that's often how I write email or post on other forums. I'll keep it simple in future.

To be honest, there is a severe lack of etiquette here Generally, anything goes, so feel free to write posts however you want. As I say, I was just curious. Anyway, we are going off on a tangent here, so i'll steer us back on course.

My views on Turn Me Up are quite simple. I think the Turn Me Up has a point about how increasingly louder music sucks the life out of complex the melodies and such that are found in decent music, and I think that what they are doing is a good thing. I really notice how quiet notes are picked out in Elbows new album, especially in Stalings, where I think Turn Me Up really shines. The downside is that in songs like GFD, the quieter bits are too quiet. It's hard to hear the bit at the start without having my iPod/speakers on full volume. I'm sure all this has been said before, but I failed quite considerably in keeping up with this thread, and I can't be bothered to sift through 5 pages of it .

Interesting comment about GFD, and it makes me wonder if a major contributor to the Loudness war is the personal stereo (if anyone remembers that quaint term - incidentally my mother-in-law brought a CD walkman on holiday last year and referred to it as a "Music Centre").

Starting with the Sony Walkman and moving up to the iPod, music has gradually changed it's listening location, and more music is now listened to in an acoustically polluted environment, i.e. trains, cars, even walking down the street.

So could it be that in order for the quieter parts of songs to be heard in these places, compression had to be applied?

Just an early morning theory I came up with.

Dabamash wrote:

The downside is that in songs like GFD, the quieter bits are too quiet. It's hard to hear the bit at the start without having my iPod/speakers on full volume.

That too is a problem for me, but only when I'm using my MP3 player (and it's consequent compression). At home, with the CD in a decent player with amp and speakers the quality, nuances and sound shine through. This is where, IMO, TSSK was designed to be listened to and it's there that it shines. Nothing is ever as good on the street or in the car (or for that matter on an iPod as they are for convenience only and not for 'real' listening).

Does anybody (and I'm thinking Mr Potter here) know if BARB is Turn Me Up certified? I haven't got my copy yet, cos I live in the middle of bloody nowhere, delivery speaking.

There's nothing mentioned MT

Bit of thread necromancy here, but for those interested in this topic, there may be light at the end of the tunnel...

http://www.cepro.com/article/loudness_wars_coming_to_an_end