I've never bought much music CDs, not because I download a lot of music, but because there's so little music that I actually like.
Most of my favorite bands have broken up, changed styles or only release crap recently.
Now after a few years of hearing it here and there, I finally decided to buy "Californication" by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and I've immediately noticed how awful it sounds. Clipping (clicks) all over the place.
I loaded it in my PC, and sure enough, almost all tracks look similar to this:
(http://www.mindspring.com/~mrichter/dynamics/i10.gif)
(This picture is taken from this site (http://www.mindspring.com/~mrichter/dynamics/dynamics.htm) explaining the whole thing.)
I've read about this phenomenon before, but I've never really noticed it until now.
At first I thought my copy or my CD drive had a defect, but I checked the net, and many people noticed the same thing. It seems the CD was mastered this way intentionally, just to be insanely loud (resulting in audible clipping).
I checked a few of my other CDs and have noticed similar effects.
Is anyone else appalled at paying money and getting such a technically flawed product in return? >:(
I have Californication, and I haven't noticed that defect...
Listen to the beginning of track 4, when he starts to sing. Better yet, rip it and look at it in your audio editor. I have headphones, maybe it's more noticeable there.
Maybe there's a corrected version out there? When did you buy it?
Every single CD that exists commerically is mastered to be just under or peaking on 0dB, check any other cd you've got in a wave editing program and you'll find it's the same story - every track will mostly be a big retangular chunk with hardly any dynamics. It's unfortuantly one of the many industrial standards that came about when the CD became the main recording format.
Edit: It's not necessarily a terrible crime against humanity as that website seems to be making out though. I do exactly the same thing regarding mastering/compressing/limiting to the music I make... so whatever....
I don't get it... does this mean the music is less quality... or just louder. What's the big deal?
Exactly (to Stalkey).
I'm just amazed at the blatant disregard for audio quality on this particular CD...
QuoteI don't get it... does this mean the music is less quality... or just louder. What's the big deal?
Yes, as loud as possible, therefore less dynamic range, but I don't know what that sounds like, since I have nothing to compare it with.
QuoteI do exactly the same thing regarding mastering/compressing/limiting to the music I make... so whatever....
Sure, tweaking a peak here and there, but you don't try to "squeeze the music into a rectangle", do you?
That guy is wrong, actually. They don't let the songs clip. They compress them, which is still annoying and IMO sounds terrible, but they aren't clipping it.
When you compress a waveform it takes the extra loud parts and adjusts the volume on just them, leaving the rest of the waveform the way it was. When they repeatedly amplify and compress the waveform, you end up with the uber-compressed songs you hear on the radio today. They look just like that, compressed to a nearly flat line and amplified to peak.
You will hear this, rather than clipping in the songs when you hear an exceptionally loud part that you *know* doesn't sound just right. In the Chili Peppers songs it'll be the bass you can notice the most, when he hits higher or especially loud slapped notes. Think about it, because I don't hear distortion.
I have Californication too and I haven't noticed any of the problems you're describing (being a music tech student has turned me into a bit of an annoying audiophile too)... perhaps you have got a duff copy of the CD, it's not uncommon for the media to get fucked up during the duplication process (a recent example of this would be the latest Radiohead EP in which one of the tracks got buggered when an error was introduced during it's production run).
Is it my headphones? (http://www.strazer.net/ags/rhcp4.ogg)
Right when he says "long".
That's how it's supposed to sound, and I don't hear anything odd...
If you're talking to me Stalkey, I don't have the CD, just heard it on the radio. If you can't hear the compression on the CD, it could just be the radio. I do have CD's for similar bands that you can definately hear compression in though, it is a trend. The idea is to make them sound good in your car, since that's when most people listen to music (in the US).
QuoteThat's how it's supposed to sound, and I don't hear anything odd...
Just because that's how they all sound doesn't mean that's how it's "supposed to" sound. I like music much better with the dynamics left in, there's a big difference in home audio.
Edit: These posts are all directed to Strazer incidently. Radio does do extra mad compression to the sound due to the limited bandwith it has to broadcast, regarding your above point, shbaz.
Yes, I hear it too... hm, I've never noticed this before, i'll have to compare it with the cd I have tomorrow...
If it is, then whoever mastered the CD did a slightly sloppy job, as digital clipping is the most henious of crimes in the engineering world.
QuoteSure, tweaking a peak here and there, but you don't try to "squeeze the music into a rectangle", do you?
Not squeeze it into a rectangle, no, but that's what it'll look like if you zoom out far enough :)
If the mix is well balanced with a smooth spectral curve then when it's amplified to just below 0dB it'll look like a big rectangle of sound when the whole thing is squished to fit the monitor's resolution. If you zoom in then you'll start to see all the dynamics still in tact. (Well, for the most part anyway. I'd go into this more but it's 2:10 and I need to go to bed)
A large percent of new CDs are mastered to clip. A little bit of digital clipping on the final master can be kinda fashionable, I've intentionally done it myself sometimes. But I hear stuff that's just overdoing it. Like when it's clipping so hard the vocals start cracking up (like in the RHCP example there). I think the worst clipping I've heard was "Zwan - Mary Star of the Sea" CD. The mastering on that sounds so shitty I have trouble even listening to it.
I wouldn't worry so much about what the waveform looks like. It's what it sounds like that matters. There's lots of digital "ultramaximizer look ahead" compressors that can push your music up into a something that looks like a big meaningless rectangle without nescessarily destroying the music. That big rectangle your looking at is probably the work of several 100 thousand dollars worth of gear. Still, I think music is definitely over-compressed these days. There's something about CDs released 10 or so years ago that's missing today, to my ears at least.
Anyway, I have a lot of thoughts on these issues but I won't go into them here. If you're interested check out some of Bob Katz articles here: http://www.digido.com
You're still using "clipping" instead of "compressing." Totally different things.. clipping loses information.
The terminology for "clipping" and "compressing" are pretty much interchangeable unless you want to get really technical. The main difference is that "compression" is not just setting a maximum amplitude for the waveform and leveling everything above that limit, which is "clipping". When "compressing" sounds, you can set a smoother limit and therefore avoid the harsh sound that clipping is known for.
Using compression you can also do the reverse effect, which would be to make all the quiet noises just as loud as the loud noises (known as a "gate" effect) -- thus obtaining that great distorted beatbox kind of sound. Dig it.
Quote from: shbazjinkens on Wed 26/05/2004 04:03:13
You're still using "clipping" instead of "compressing." Totally different things.. clipping loses information.
What is your point? Who are you talking to?
I think these days they like to fill as much sound into the gaps to make the music seem more full. eg. when you look at the EQ the little lights bounce up and down at more frequencies.
Have you ever recorded on a simple 4 track and notice how much sound seems to be missing when compared to a better recording system. (eg. for a band with drums, bass & guitar, it seems as if something is missing, really empty & if you look at the EQ there aren't many levels active) It does also come down to the quality of the recording instruments and the way everything is mic'd. but these days they seem to fill the gaps when mixing to keep it full.
When compressing a WAV to an MP3 you'll notice the WAV doesn't clip, but when converted to MP3 it will. not sure of the specific reason but I'm sure one of you musos knows.
This is all just general stuff as it doesn't occur in all cases.
(I'm not a musician, but I've got a little bit of experience in recording)
Sorry, Geoffkhan, but I have to tell you you've failed the audio engineering exam. :)
Compression and clipping differ in a quite different way than you describe. Clipping basically takes the signal's waveform and cuts off the bits that go outside a certain range. Compression is a very different beast. Here (http://www.harmony-central.com/Effects/Articles/Compression/) is a decent explanation, with images and so on. Better than I could do in this post.
Your idea of gating is also incorrect. Gating means making the quiet sounds quieter, not louder, giving a "choppy" sound in extreme cases.
Right, I missed that 'gate' thing. Not quite sure why I wrote that it was making the quiet noises louder, but then again, I don't understand why I write many other things.
Clipping is basically just a flat compression curve. Usually people use the term "clipping" to refer to sound that goes beyond the maximum volume limit, and thus gets cut off.
The reason they make the song's volume so loud and compressed is simply because of this: they want their song the loudest song in comparison with others played on the radio or in a restaurant, and that way it will stand out the most. It is simply just LOUDER. In order to get their songs that loud, they resort to compression.
(And I didn't just make up that explaination myself)
Quote from: Geoffkhan on Wed 26/05/2004 22:34:32
Clipping is basically just a flat compression curve. Usually people use the term "clipping" to refer to sound that goes beyond the maximum volume limit, and thus gets cut off.
Clipping is not a flat compression curve.. if it was, then no information would be lost, the sound would merely be reduced in volume along a flat curve. Clipping isn't anything like compression. When you clip, you have amplified beyond the range of the maximum limit and information is lost. This is how a guitar amp distorts, the waveform is repeatedly amplified and chopped until you get distortion. So much information is gone that you just get crackly stuff that isn't anything like the clean sound, except for the notes. If you compressed a guitar signal, you'd make the quiet and loud parts sound about the same volume, for the reason that has been repeated throughout this thread: Compressing simply reduces the volume of the peaks to a set volume, usually about level with the song's average volume, or in the last decade, much lower (after which it is amplified to max, and looks like it has been clipped).
Bottom line, the two words are not interchangable and are totally different processes.
If anyone is still confused about this, download a copy of Goldwave and try compression out on your voice or something. Then amplify it until it goes beyond the range, and you'll get clipping.
Quote from: modgeulator on Wed 26/05/2004 07:14:32
Quote from: shbazjinkens on Wed 26/05/2004 04:03:13
You're still using "clipping" instead of "compressing." Totally different things.. clipping loses information.
What is your point? Who are you talking to?
You, since your post is right above mine and you used clipping and compressing interchangebly.
EDIT:
Imagine you've built a model of a GI Joe or whatever out of play-dough. If you were to compress it, squishing it from the top, you'd have the same model, only in a smaller space. If you were to clip it, you'd cut the top of it off and he'd no longer have a head.
I didn't realize I'd confused you. I never said clipping and compression where the same thing at all. Distortion in a guitar amp and digital clipping are two completely different things as well, I'm sure you realize.
Quote from: modgeulator on Wed 26/05/2004 23:20:19
I didn't realize I'd confused you. I never said clipping and compression where the same thing at all. Distortion in a guitar amp and digital clipping are two completely different things as well, I'm sure you realize.
Not really, some digital apps will by default compress instead of clipping. Otherwise the only difference is the perfection that is only possible in digital form. A digitally clipped wave will have a perfectly sharp edge and flat top, while analog clips will be a little rounded, depending on the circuitry. The imperfection that tubes produce is what makes them so desirable in guitar amps. In any case except for auto-compression, the clipping is still the same in concept, though the means to implement it perfectly aren't available in analog circuitry.
Whatever. It sounds completely different, so nothing else really matters.
Quote from: Geoffkhan on Wed 26/05/2004 22:34:32
The reason they make the song's volume so loud and compressed is simply because of this: they want their song the loudest song in comparison with others played on the radio or in a restaurant, and that way it will stand out the most. It is simply just LOUDER. In order to get their songs that loud, they resort to compression.
They also do this with TV comercials, "apparently" the dB is the same but it just seems louder. Have you noticed when watching tv with the sound fairly low, whenever the ads come on the volume seems to increase dramatically. They say it's not louder, just more compressed. which still doesn't mean shit cause it's still friggin louder.