Here is a post I've been meaning to write for a while. Since I first saw this article, which covers the rather dry and (to some) utterly uninteresting subject of dynamic range compression in audio recording.
Let me walk you through the headlines, starting, as our writer Sean Curnyn does, with a disavowal of audiophilia:
At the outset, I should say that I am no extreme hi-fi buff, in my own estimation; perhaps not even a moderate hi-fi buff... I don’t spend thousands on speakers or other audio components. I own very basic equipment that works. I care about hearing music properly and I make an effort to do so, but there’s a red line of expense that I’d never personally cross in the pursuit of audio perfection, and that red line figure is quite low.
Additionally, I am no vinyl fetishist. I do not contend that the audio reproduction of a vinyl long-playing record is inherently better than that of a compact disc. Others may claim such; I remain agnostic on the subject.
The italics are mine, to emphasize that I do care pretty deeply about music, but I think it's important to distance ourselves (for the sake of this discussion) from the type of people who spend, say, $15,000 for a mono-specific
phono cartridge. That being said, it has become clear that current recording and mastering practices are depriving us of the depth of recorded music in a profound and significant way.
Curnyn later writes:
My first conscious perception of a problem with the sound of Bob Dylan’s recent albums came with Modern Times (my CD copy being purchased in the U.S. at the time of release). What it amounted to was this: The album had some great songs. The musicians’ performances appeared to be excellent. Bob’s voice was great, and he was obviously putting a whole lot of focus and art into his singing. Yet, after the initial excitement of hearing the album faded, I found myself oddly less and less inclined to listen to it.
I had been well-hooked by his article before we got to this section, but it really grabbed my attention here, as it so accurately described my reaction to some of Dylan's most recent releases: these are great songs played by
really first rate musicians - why don't I like this record more than I do?
Turns out that it has a lot to do with that aforementioned dry and uninteresting topic. Uninteresting unless and until you happen care about music, and have an interest in hearing it the way that an artist you appreciate intends it to be heard.
More from the article:
Intrigued now, I read up further on the so-called “loudness wars”. The more I read, the more that what I read spoke to me regarding the very problems I seemed to be having listening to the latest Bob Dylan albums. Dynamic range compression reduces the distinction between the quiet parts of a recording and the loudest parts, making every part of the recording sound louder. In some ways, this might seem a good thing, because it means you won’t miss the quiet parts.
A recording so compressed might even sound better and brighter to your ears on first listen. But, especially when abused and taken to extremes, what the process does is flatten out the entire recording, removing all nuance both at the upper and lower levels. What you’re left with is a recording that is stripped of its natural variation and complexity. It is, if you like, static, in the sense of being relatively unchanging, all the way through. It is as if every aspect of the recording is just blaring out at you with equal force.
Interested yet? Starting to see how this matters?
Here's Sean's account of what happened when he got the LP version in the mail:
Now, I do not want to risk overstating it, but, in all honesty, when I put the needle down on Modern Times, and heard 'Thunder On The Mountain,' a chill went up my spine. It went on and on, and into the delicate 'Spirit On The Water,' and in no small way I felt as if I was hearing the album for the very first time.
Mr. Curnyn does us the favor of sharing some graphic illustration of the effect.
This is the CD version of
Spirit on the Water
And this is the LP version of the same song.
Let's be clear: we're not talking about an inherent superiority of vinyl over cd, or analog music over digital. Such a superiority may exist (I don't know), but that's not the issue at hand. Digital music is more than capable of handling wide dynamic ranges, and plenty of CDs demonstrate this. But if, as it seems, there is a widespread movement to flatten out dynamics to boost sales by grabbing people's attention with volume, the recording industry is selling us one thing (music created by an artist) and delivering something else (a smooshed-in, i.e.
damaged, version of that music). This leads Sean to an interesting conclusion:
I think that there’s a heckuva class-action lawsuit waiting to be brought against the music industry on this issue. Realizing what is going on here makes me lose all sympathy for executives who complain about declining sales and what
online file-sharing is costing them.
And of course he makes the point that had hit me like a ton of bricks back near the beginning of the article, at the instant I realized that record companies are intentionally sabotaging the sound qualities of their own releases:
The most infuriating potential scenario is that, some years down the road, when this issue is more widely understood and accepted, and the era of the “loudness wars” is universally scorned, the record company will actually issue “remastered” versions with great fanfare, so inviting fans to buy the albums all over again. As if they’re doing us all a favor!
I'd say that's a virtual certainty, unless there's some widespread reaction (along the lines of that class-action suit: you can sign me up for that, by the way.)
One other possible conclusion is that all this is simply a sign that perhaps we should not bemoan the imminent death of the record companies after all: they have outlived their usefulness anyway.
I don't think I like that conclusion, but it's tough to deny that it's a possibility.
Posts
