I honestly don't think its a rule of thumb that a "hot" master is inferior to a more dynamic one. It's more about the mastering engineer's taste and aesthetics I think.
I have a couple of examples here, where I have both masters.
The original CD here is quite hot. Mastering engineer unknown (?). The Audio Fidelity SACD is more dynamic, and was mastered by Steve Hoffman.
From a pure listening perspective I prefer the original CD over the Hoffman remaster. It has better balance between each track, and sounds warmer.
I also have the 5.1 multichannel mix on DVD. This was mastered by Bob Ludwig. It's subjectively quite hot, but superior to any 2-channel edition of this album.
An other one with Eric Clapton. The difference in DR is quite large, but I still prefer the less dynamic mastering... because it sounds nicer. It was mastered by the great Bob Ludwig. The Audio Fidelity SACD sounds like crap in comparison.
I have a couple of examples here, where I have both masters.
The original CD here is quite hot. Mastering engineer unknown (?). The Audio Fidelity SACD is more dynamic, and was mastered by Steve Hoffman.
From a pure listening perspective I prefer the original CD over the Hoffman remaster. It has better balance between each track, and sounds warmer.
I also have the 5.1 multichannel mix on DVD. This was mastered by Bob Ludwig. It's subjectively quite hot, but superior to any 2-channel edition of this album.
An other one with Eric Clapton. The difference in DR is quite large, but I still prefer the less dynamic mastering... because it sounds nicer. It was mastered by the great Bob Ludwig. The Audio Fidelity SACD sounds like crap in comparison.
Thank you putting back pragmatism StigErik: use your ears to judge results before trying analysis things and reject things.
I have a lot of respect for Cask05 but thoughts i would had an heart attack when i read he select music based on crest factor / dynamic range.
With the precision he gave on latest post i can understand 'why' though.
Anyway, in the last decade there was 'improvements' ( in fact much better understanding of the issue caused by 'traditional' tools used - limiters- and how they interact with consumer dacs) in how to reach high RMS levels without too much harm to the audio. So there can be surprise.
And if you want to make meaningful comparison: calibrate your system spl to something between 77/83db spl @ listening point with a -20dbfs pink noise and compensate for difference in rms level of tracks you compare with volume knob to have a constant comparison level (eg: for 2 masters of the same track bring down the loudest one to the value of the quietest one based on RMS difference).
This is the only way to make meaningful comparison. Not different from what Bob Katz purposed to stop 'Loudness war' and how M.E. ( and some mixing engineers) works.
I have a lot of respect for Cask05 but thoughts i would had an heart attack when i read he select music based on crest factor / dynamic range.
With the precision he gave on latest post i can understand 'why' though.
Anyway, in the last decade there was 'improvements' ( in fact much better understanding of the issue caused by 'traditional' tools used - limiters- and how they interact with consumer dacs) in how to reach high RMS levels without too much harm to the audio. So there can be surprise.
And if you want to make meaningful comparison: calibrate your system spl to something between 77/83db spl @ listening point with a -20dbfs pink noise and compensate for difference in rms level of tracks you compare with volume knob to have a constant comparison level (eg: for 2 masters of the same track bring down the loudest one to the value of the quietest one based on RMS difference).
This is the only way to make meaningful comparison. Not different from what Bob Katz purposed to stop 'Loudness war' and how M.E. ( and some mixing engineers) works.
One thing occurs to me is that for portable devices like Sony Walkman CD player, etc. when playing a CD that's not compressed, the volume knob doesn’t go high enough to appreciate the full dynamic range because the level of the CD is too low. Making the level higher and the dynamic range lower would make listening more enjoyable in many cases. the full dynamic range CD would sound wimpy and bland by comparison. This situation could apply to home systems, too, it all depends.
Last edited:
Well, I suppose what we're saying here is that it's a personal taste thing, and the sound engineers are aiming to please, so if they have to apply dynamics compression to make a smooth sounding listening experience, then of course they will do that. I don't mind losing a few dB of dynamic range for a smoother sounding final product. I've done that myself (I used to mix and master live original recordings for a music college).
What I object to is smashing down the dynamic range to the point where you hear obvious pumping and breathing like in many of the last few years' Smoke Sessions releases and some Blue Note reissues. It's a shame too, because some of these are recordings of really valuable music. Two examples (in my opinion) are Peter Bernstein - Signs Live! (Smoke Sessions) and Joe Chambers - Dance Kobina (Blue Note). I love the music, but I can hear the pumping and breathing, especially on drum solos and loud crescendos, and these are on 24-bit 'hi-def' downloads. I was listening to a Blue Note remaster of a Grant Green album from the 1960s and heard the same problem, but I can't find which one it was right now.
An example of a jazz recording with really wide dynamic range is McCoy Tyner - New York Reunion on Chesky Records, which was mixed and mastered by Bob Katz. It sounds shouty and thin on a wimpy playback system, but in a good pair of headphones or through a really good home stereo it sounds like "you are there". The drums (played by Al Foster) really pop. Another example of a wide dynamic range jazz CD is Timeless All Stars - Essence on Delos Records.
What I object to is smashing down the dynamic range to the point where you hear obvious pumping and breathing like in many of the last few years' Smoke Sessions releases and some Blue Note reissues. It's a shame too, because some of these are recordings of really valuable music. Two examples (in my opinion) are Peter Bernstein - Signs Live! (Smoke Sessions) and Joe Chambers - Dance Kobina (Blue Note). I love the music, but I can hear the pumping and breathing, especially on drum solos and loud crescendos, and these are on 24-bit 'hi-def' downloads. I was listening to a Blue Note remaster of a Grant Green album from the 1960s and heard the same problem, but I can't find which one it was right now.
An example of a jazz recording with really wide dynamic range is McCoy Tyner - New York Reunion on Chesky Records, which was mixed and mastered by Bob Katz. It sounds shouty and thin on a wimpy playback system, but in a good pair of headphones or through a really good home stereo it sounds like "you are there". The drums (played by Al Foster) really pop. Another example of a wide dynamic range jazz CD is Timeless All Stars - Essence on Delos Records.
Thanks. Believe it or not, I have a lot of respect for you. I didn't know your profession (or perhaps presently your former profession) before this thread due to your different viewpoints from the other mastering people that I have met or conversed with. I think some of the problems I have run into with those that perform mastering services may be related to local professional culture (popular music--not classical) in the geographic region where I live--which seems much more heavy-handed with its mastering practices here and non-apologetic about the results.
Since many of the older CDs (now I'm talking versions typically made before 1991) with higher crest average factors have little or no mastering processing compared to the present state of affairs, they are much more like downmix tracks (without additional stem processing) than much more recent versions of the same album. That allows me to re-EQ them to achieve a much more enjoyable result locally than any later versions that I've heard with lower DR ratings. YMMV.
In the particular case of Riding with the King, I have since learned of one more necessary ingredient for more pleasing reproduction in-room (that you might not yet have discovered): flat phase response. Once this factor is added to the mix on a setup with full-range directivity control and in-room control of early reflections (side walls, front wall, floor bounce, etc.), the more dynamic recordings simply sound more natural and alive (greater presence). As such, the higher DR version after demastering EQ sound much better to my ears, and that is the version that I have retained and listen to. In other words, what you are listening to (the loudspeakers and their setup) may affect which version of the CD album you prefer, with direct radiating loudspeakers having much more trouble producing a good result with more dynamic recordings.
Understand that I don't like taking on the role of a change agent or revolutionary politician when it comes to the subject of the Loudness Wars, but agreeing with someone that a reduced dynamic range result that is louder has merit--is something that perpetuates the practices that I candidly hate. If the record companies are going to squash their music tracks so badly, why don't they offer the non-mastered versions (commonly called down-mixes) to those that don't appreciate what they are doing to the music presently?
Comparatively, in this age of download music sales, the cost of offering those relatively unaffected mixdown tracks is zero--by comparison. Then let the different customer segments provide direct feedback on which versions actually sound better--and sell better. I think those doing the present music production practices (popular music genres) would be surprised about what happens.
Chris
As for me I’m not saying the compressed CDs are “smoother.” I’m saying they are blander, less interesting, less engaging. “Words mean different things to different people.“ - Bob Dylan The trade off is between loudness and dynamic range, not smoothness and dynamic range. I prefer the words bland, uninteresting and wimpy to smooth describing the sound of overly compressed music.
I couldn't find much information about how the RMS values are being determined on that website.
But if that is just a general RMS value over de whole track, I can see why these one number values can be debatable.
Because you only need a few high peaks on the lower or higher region, to bump up that RMS number.
Or in other words, if those are frequencies that are not really noticeable for the general sound of the song, you might as well "get rid" of them all together.
Plus like you said, there are ways to master a song in such a way, that they could sound better or at least very similar, while having a bit of extra headroom available (= less dynamic range).
In the end, it's true what has been said before.
The very vast majority of people don't have the right setup to listen to music properly.
Even for the amount audio enthousiast and audiophiles, that number is surprisingly low.
Hack, if you look what some high-end mixing studios use as monitors, that just makes you sad in general.
In the end it's all about compromises.
If that means that most people will enjoy a more compressed song (mostly for practical reasons), that is unfortunately what it is.
For live audio there has been a similar trend going on unfortunately.
Just "to sound louder" while being still happy with (local) rules and noise regulations.
Last edited:
Rongon, try to replay McCoy Tyner's with same calibrating as Bob Katz ( which is 83db spl @ listening spot): it should sound very nice as is.
Bob Katz works at relatively high level. He have good explanation about it but nevertheless it is already highish level imo.
This is a real issue and why there is differences in how we perceive the different results: if it was produced/ mastered at too loud level outcome will be thin sounding played back softer... if mastered too low spl, it'll most of the time end being up too bass/high heavy ( 'smiley' eq) AND overcompressed*.
* the 83dbspl reference come from movie: in 70's Dolby choosed this reference for theater mixing. It allow for high enough level ( at that period it changed with THX) and for music it gives 6db headroom in case the material needs it: iow the reference level at which B.Katz works is 83dbspl MAX output level and his settings on volume knob is -6db when working on audio. It makes sense in case of a mastering facility as you can encounter high dynamic range material but for home listening it can be relaxed to 77dbspl @ listening spot with level maxed up ( 0db). If you listen to classical or 'purist' recording ( true stereo recording technique with only a pair of mic and no compression applied) then rather have the 6db headroom and so using 83db spl/-6db setting on volume knob as it will allow for additional headroom and possible gain if material is outside of the 20db crest factor usually seen ( however it's rare to encounter such recordings) for high dynamic range material. For pop it's usually 14db crest factor, broadcast 12db.
If you listen to EDM or Metal you could lessen spl requirements even more than 77dbspl... but headroom is still a positive attribute of reproduction chain.
Bob Katz works at relatively high level. He have good explanation about it but nevertheless it is already highish level imo.
This is a real issue and why there is differences in how we perceive the different results: if it was produced/ mastered at too loud level outcome will be thin sounding played back softer... if mastered too low spl, it'll most of the time end being up too bass/high heavy ( 'smiley' eq) AND overcompressed*.
* the 83dbspl reference come from movie: in 70's Dolby choosed this reference for theater mixing. It allow for high enough level ( at that period it changed with THX) and for music it gives 6db headroom in case the material needs it: iow the reference level at which B.Katz works is 83dbspl MAX output level and his settings on volume knob is -6db when working on audio. It makes sense in case of a mastering facility as you can encounter high dynamic range material but for home listening it can be relaxed to 77dbspl @ listening spot with level maxed up ( 0db). If you listen to classical or 'purist' recording ( true stereo recording technique with only a pair of mic and no compression applied) then rather have the 6db headroom and so using 83db spl/-6db setting on volume knob as it will allow for additional headroom and possible gain if material is outside of the 20db crest factor usually seen ( however it's rare to encounter such recordings) for high dynamic range material. For pop it's usually 14db crest factor, broadcast 12db.
If you listen to EDM or Metal you could lessen spl requirements even more than 77dbspl... but headroom is still a positive attribute of reproduction chain.
Last edited:
@krivium
Never thought about it, but yeah, from the human loudness curve this make a lot of sense of course! 🙂
Technically speaking, these days a lot can be compensated with dynamic EQ's.
But almost no one uses these (except bluetooth solutions).
In practice it's WAY to cumbersome and complicated to setup well.
(I've tried it in some designs with various succes rates)
Also only to some extend, because that only fixes the EQ, not other things like compression etc.
It starts to go back to the chicken-egg story at this point again lol.
Never thought about it, but yeah, from the human loudness curve this make a lot of sense of course! 🙂
Technically speaking, these days a lot can be compensated with dynamic EQ's.
But almost no one uses these (except bluetooth solutions).
In practice it's WAY to cumbersome and complicated to setup well.
(I've tried it in some designs with various succes rates)
Also only to some extend, because that only fixes the EQ, not other things like compression etc.
It starts to go back to the chicken-egg story at this point again lol.
Thank you krivium, that does clarify things.
Yes, "New York Reunion" definitely sounds better the louder you play it, and it does sound thin played at low levels in-room. Then again, it's not 'background listening' kind of music, is it?
Perhaps what's happening is that these current remasters/rereleases are being targeted at lower listening levels, so when I turn them up or listen in headphones I hear the pumping and breathing side effects (which really annoy the heck out of me). That begs a question: Is the present state of affairs that producers want the final release to 'sound loud even when played quietly'?
Yes, "New York Reunion" definitely sounds better the louder you play it, and it does sound thin played at low levels in-room. Then again, it's not 'background listening' kind of music, is it?
Perhaps what's happening is that these current remasters/rereleases are being targeted at lower listening levels, so when I turn them up or listen in headphones I hear the pumping and breathing side effects (which really annoy the heck out of me). That begs a question: Is the present state of affairs that producers want the final release to 'sound loud even when played quietly'?
Oh yes, you hit the nail on the head. I think that could be the motivation behind why the answer to my question is a likely 'yes':
I like the phrase 'Words mean different things to different people'. Not all compression is bad, especially when part of the original artist's intent. Of course, human controlled mastering is yet another artform. It just seems like there has been a lot of both 'automatic' and poor mastering choices in recent years, including partially in the middle 1980s and beyond (poor in my opinion.) DR numbers are way way too coarse grained to be a 'general' guideline as I have found that the dynamics of a recording are not just 'loudness and softness', but also have an 'intersyllable' (short term) aspect. Some measures like 'DR' ignore certain fine details.
Historically, I have found only slight correlation between realistic dynamics vs DR number. Very low DR numbers, of course, are very unlikely being very dynamic.
Yes, this is generally true if the bass player uses a sustained bass playing style. If the playing style is more "thumb hammered" or dynamic double-bass style--like Brian Bromberg, etc., then higher DR ratings are generally achieved.
Ian Shepherd I think did an article on that subject. IIRC, he made the comment that the vinyl numbers usually come out 2-3 points (dB) higher with vinyl rips than the equivalent CD master tracks, no doubt in part due to the much more impulsively noisier environment of this format.
Yes, this is the direct effect of the equal loudness curves getting much closer together at lower frequencies:
Small changes of SPL below 75 or 100 Hz produce a much more dynamic psychoacoustic result than at higher frequencies. That is why there used to be a "loudness" button on most receivers and other preamplifiers, etc. Some even had a rotary dial to control the loudness compensation contour a little better than "on" or "off".
Additionally, the older "EQ to make to the mixes louder" techniques before 1991 (i.e., attenuating the bass mostly) make it a lot more difficult to undo bass-attenuation mastering EQ than higher frequencies, because perceived bass below ~100 Hz is so sensitive to small changes in relative EQ levels (but you probably already knew that if you master tracks).
The idea that tracks can be played at high and low loudness levels and still sound the same (those tracks having bass in them, that is) is a fiction.
Chris
Last edited:
You are onto the point. This is why most recordings needs compression ( and please note i'm not talking limiting).
I would like to emphasize another post you made about cassettes: tape is one of the best limiter/compressor one kind find. It doesn't have time constant to set up and gives distortions which are pleasing to our brain as in most case they brings something in the midrange which sounds more detailed and at the same time more dense.
I grown with tape ( walkman generation). Recently had a millenial friend i do music with at home and played back some old mixes i've done and stored on cassette. He was blown away by the quality. The recordings had artefacts it's sure ( noise mainly) but he couldn't believe what he heard and how crappy low bit rate mp3 are. 😉
Chris i believe you and feel honored. Be sure about the reciprocity.
I try to be stealth about my investissment into the industry as i found it brought me more disagreements than good things in forum and overall in the internet. I fear there is too much a gap between hobbyist and what we face in our work, we don't explain things as they should and sometime face people blinded by wrong beliefs and misconceptions refusing to change their point of view. As some of my colleague can be too ( and i can be from time to time)... it doesn't help communication.
Anyway, world is vast and there is so much cultures... it always depend of who you interact with... so yes there is differences. I leaved the pro field for many reasons but one of them being i do not want to feel obliged to work on projects i don't care. So i understand what people told you. But i have friends which are perfectly fine with that. And which take pleasure in their work too. 😉
Loudness war is a plague we mostly all agree on this. But as i pointed too some genres require it, and as i was/am involved in them i think i can speak freely about it.
I'm a (part time) dj into ( old school) Drum & Bass music genre, bassist and keyboardist ( more sampling/sound design than a keyboard player) into metal, have same role into Dub project, my girlfriend is into classical ( flute player), have some family member's which are former rock stars in my country...
From a genre perspective i listen to almost everything and as a technician was in contact with almost every style. It help in having step back on things. 😉
I've read your demastering papers some years ago and understand what you do. If it please you that is fine with me. But as i already stated it feels to me like i was changing colors of classic painting and as a ( bad) artist it bother my philosphy about it. But it's me and as you stated ymmv, no value judgement about it.
I won't go into the technical discussion about loudspeaker design goal/acoustic as i share most of your view on things ( and thank you to have made this public, i learned a lot from your writings).
I would like to come back about dynamic treatment to make things clear: you cannot go back once applied, even with expanders or other treatments.
Once transients have been modified it is definitive. The issue being that a lot of informations about instruments are incorporated in them. It is especially true for natural instruments ( not synthetic's ones).
Compression is not this an issue as long as it is used for esthetical reasons or to 'beef up' a bit the rms level.
The real issue comes from limiting as time constants are so fast ( attack). As long as we worked into analog world it wasn't really an issue ( as tape was used as final media and it 'helped' a lot to sound good and deal with the occasional peaks passing by) but once we introduced digital nasty's appeared: intersample peak.
With limiters (and even more with first gen digital with low bits) we run into issues as we didn't managed what happened when signal is being reconstructed by DAC. The 'cold thin, digital sound mainly come from that as it didn't 'clip' the waveform and reconstructed peaks which the dac could not perform reconstruction... hence digital clip and over. And the metering implemented on players won't always reacts to such things by an over/red flag.
That's why you seen some practice such as 'shredding' applied ( use of intentional clipping of analog gear stage) to kill those intersample peak. It work great and made some nicer sounding digital masters.
It led to the use of same principle into digital with what is now known as 'clippers' which is slowly taking over limiting.
All in all it is a compromise as it allow to sound louder and better if used wisely. But it also means you just destructed transients and once applied there is no possibility to return back.
And why you could not demaster heavily dynamic treated source: you could never recover the initials transients. Even with expanders as the peaks have been squared.
Sounds like butchery but if carefully implemented it's not.
Here is an example in analog:
He use the Ear eq's tube makeup gain stage ( T.De Paranavici was a genious) to perform shredding before going into G.Massenburg's 9500 eq where he perform tonal correction. Then it is compressed through tube compression into varimu to 'glue things' together.
It's interesting as you can here things untreated then global treatments and by steps... and he is a talented, skilled and sensible mastering engineer.
Apologize for the long technical message but... it's technical and not as easy as it seems at first.
I think it's also quite obvious from the discussions earlier, that it's also not JUST one simple solution.
That's why I mentioned the chicken-egg-story before.
I mean, it's obvious what not to do, especially when this is being abused.
But it's definitely also not straightforward and clear what the "right" thing to do is either.
The rabbit hole is deep and the can of worms is big.
Rick Beato very recently had a interesting discussion about this with John Petrucci during a more general talk.
For technical reasons, even what a (guitar) player wants, is not always what ends up working in a song.
But I don't think I have to explain that to you 😀 😉
This is true enough. That's why I no longer bother trying to undo crushed tracks. I instead look for recordings that are more dynamic, then EQ to taste.
I do understand that it's easy to sit back and take "pot shots" at mastering folks, and much more difficult to work within that environment/culture. Trust me, I think I understand about organizational culture and its effect on the engineered product. The organizational culture always pushes back--hard.
<rant>
I used to teach a graduate-level engineering course in systems architecting (i.e., not just specific to IT systems--but all engineering domains), and I had many lectures on the effects of organizational culture and how it limits the latitude of the system architect to achieve the stated requirements for the system under development.
Culture is, in fact, the most restrictive constraint that exists on producing a better engineered systems. It's easy to show this using linear programming (LP) techniques (i.e., the solution to the knapsack problem) to show how much culture determines outcomes even though the system architect is trying to produce a superior system design. This subject will make you question human decisionmaking in general when you see the real constraints of culture (i.e., the constraints that shouldn't be there because the reason for having the constraints have been forgotten and are no longer valid).
In a way, I sort of welcome AI, since it can be used to propose solutions that humans would be unwilling to propose--due to "cultural norms" preventing those humans from proposing new ways of doing things.
I also know that not saying anything about these (presently negative) effects of culture is not really an option, either. My admonition to the class was to always be ready to push back against organizational culture whenever the benefits significantly outweighed the perceived reasons for the cultural restraint(s), and to develop these personal traits as much as possible. In fact, I believe that the reason why older organizations die and new ones take their place is precisely because the newer orgs do not have a solidified organizational culture that pushes back, and the engineers/workers are able to do things that a more "established" organization would smother.
</rant>
Chris
I think i've read a comment about the uselessness of M.E. previously.
Ok let's say it's because people doesn't understand the place in the production chain: M.E. are primilarly there as quality control and the one who order tracks and present them to pressing plant ( conformation).
The esthetical part was a secondary step initially but it became the first one with digital age.
QC because mixing/recording room are clustered place where there might be issue with acoustic ( room mode mainly) and mastering facility usually have better rooms with less equipment ( big mixing desks can be an acoustic killer too).
And it's the last step where you can make editing choice too: gap between songs, how they are ordered... can change the feel of a whole album.
And small details... in the next video they ( B.Katz, assistant and producer) spend 10 minutes ( from 4"20) to bring a breathe in beginning of a track because it felt unatural without it...
Do you think the average end user would go to this level of detail? I don't, it require experience to be aware of such things and how to solve them. It's a job.
Subliminal level for sure but it changes things imho.
Ok let's say it's because people doesn't understand the place in the production chain: M.E. are primilarly there as quality control and the one who order tracks and present them to pressing plant ( conformation).
The esthetical part was a secondary step initially but it became the first one with digital age.
QC because mixing/recording room are clustered place where there might be issue with acoustic ( room mode mainly) and mastering facility usually have better rooms with less equipment ( big mixing desks can be an acoustic killer too).
And it's the last step where you can make editing choice too: gap between songs, how they are ordered... can change the feel of a whole album.
And small details... in the next video they ( B.Katz, assistant and producer) spend 10 minutes ( from 4"20) to bring a breathe in beginning of a track because it felt unatural without it...
Do you think the average end user would go to this level of detail? I don't, it require experience to be aware of such things and how to solve them. It's a job.
Subliminal level for sure but it changes things imho.
Last edited:
That's a great video! Thanks for sharing that.
It's funny, but all my life I've preferred the sound of more space and a less 'congealed' sound in mixes or the final mastered product. In the demonstration of the bypassed vs. processed result, I actually prefer the original, unprocessed mix because it's so 'bouncy' and has so much space in it. But I can see why the majority of listeners would prefer the fatter (and on average louder) processed master. It's more robust sounding, fatter. But it also begins to sound a tiny bit claustrophobic to me (I feel I can hear that just beginning to come into play). Pharrell does a great job of walking that fine line between 'just right' and 'too much'. I mean, there's a very good reason why he's a first-call guy at this!
I understand that I'm not listening to the video on a mastering studio quality playback setup. I wish I could have a pair of M2s and accompanying dedicated amps/EQ in my home.
Now, I've worked with mix engineers who don't leave that much dynamic range in their mixes, trying to make their mixes as 'final' as they can. Imagine that same amount of mastering sweetening/'connecting' applied to a more fully compressed mix. The sound of the final result could be 'overripe' to the point of sounding bloated and claustrophobic (sorry for trying to describe sounds in words here).
Now imagine that much sweetening applied to acoustic instruments. I feel that's what's happening in a lot of current jazz recordings, and it bothers me. All the air gets smashed out of it, in an attempt to get things to sound full, consistent, 'smooth'. But jazz music is extremely dynamic. The difference in average SPLs between a skilled jazz drummer playing brushes and a full-on swinging climax is usually HUGE in that music. Too much smoothing takes the 'surprise' of those dynamic swings away -- and I'm talking about what many have called 'the sound of surprise'. Oh well. It bugs me.
But thanks for sharing that great video. That's a really good one. Very informative, and also reinforces a lot of what I've been hearing and thinking these past 20 years or so.
Last edited:
Not to go off track, but everyone who has contributed to this thread owes it to yourself to read Neil Young's book "To Feel the Music". Young has the same concerns most everyone is voicing here. I'm not a big fan of Young's music, but his outlook on the artists creating music and the industry that records it I truly enjoyed.