Stumbled on these Audio "articles"

[Tom22]

Articles.. well I suppose I mean videos as well as a transcript

I think we had this subject was linked within another thread I didn't stumble across it looking. These below might be different anyway. I also want to take the idea and show more specifically (in another post) where I hear differences.

If you don't have the patience to listen to it all .. listen to the last 30 seconds or so, not the first part. Link to that last part: http://youtu.be/3Gmex_4hreQ

Full link:


And below, a National Public Radio show with more discusion

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer...=122125083

I've cut and paste the transcript of the full interview for those that prefer to read (but you'll miss some audio demonstrations). I have bolded the points I find most interesting:

As we come to the end of the decade, we turn to one of the more dramatic changes we've heard in music over those 10 years: It seems to have gotten louder.

We're talking about compression here, the dynamic compression that's used a lot in popular music. There's actually another kind of compression going on today — one that allows us to carry hundreds of songs in our iPods. More on that in a minute.

But first, host Robert Siegel talked to Bob Ludwig, a record mastering engineer. For more than 40 years, he's been the final ear in the audio chain for albums running from Jimi Hendrix to Radiohead, from Tony Bennett to Kronos Quartet.

Bob pointed to a YouTube video titled The Loudness War. The video uses Paul McCartney's 1989 song "Figure of Eight" as an example, comparing its original recording with what a modern engineer might do with it.

"It really no longer sounds like a snare drum with a very sharp attack," Ludwig says. "It sounds more like somebody padding on a piece of leather or something like that," Ludwig says. He's referring to the practice of using compressors to squash the music, making the quiet parts louder and the loud parts a little quieter, so it jumps out of your radio or iPod.

Ludwig says the "Loudness War" came to a head last year with the release of Metallica's album Death Magnetic.

"It came out simultaneously to the fans as [a version on] Guitar Hero and the final CD," Ludwig says. "And the Guitar Hero doesn't have all the digital domain compression that the CD had. So the fans were able to hear what it could have been before this compression."

According to Ludwig, 10,000 or more fans signed an online petition to get the band to remix the record.

"That record is so loud that there is an outfit in Europe called ITU [International Telecommunication Union] that now has standardization measurements for long-term loudness," he says. "And that Metallica record is one of the loudest records ever produced."

Old News

"The 'Loudness Wars' have gone back to the days of 45s," Ludwig says. "When I first got into the business and was doing a lot of vinyl disc cutting, one producer after another just wanted to have his 45 sound louder than the next guy's so that when the program director at the Top 40 radio station was going through his stack of 45s to decide which two or three he was going to add that week, that the record would kind of jump out to the program director, aurally at least."

That's still a motivation for some producers. If their record jumps out of your iPod compared with the song that preceded it, then they've accomplished their goal.

Bob Ludwig thinks that's an unfortunate development.

"People talk about downloads hurting record sales," Ludwig says. "I and some other people would submit that another thing that is hurting record sales these days is the fact that they are so compressed that the ear just gets tired of it. When you're through listening to a whole album of this highly compressed music, your ear is fatigued. You may have enjoyed the music but you don't really feel like going back and listening to it again."

Ludwig's final assessment of the decade in music?

"It's been really rough, folks," he says. "But it can get better and I think it will get better. I'm glad it's going to be over."

Digital Compression

Digital compression is the process that allows a song to go from being a very big sound file in its natural state to a very small file in your iPod — so you can carry your entire record library in your pocket. But at what cost?

Dr. Andrew Oxenham is a professor in the psychology department at the University of Minnesota. His specialty is auditory perception — how our brains and ears interact. He also started out as a recording engineer.

Robert Siegel asked him to explain digital compression.

"Really, the challenge is to maintain the quality of a CD, but to stuff it into a much smaller space," Oxenham says. "Let's think about how digital recording works. You start out with a very smooth sound wave and we're trying to store that in digital form. So we're really trying to reproduce a smooth curve [with] these square blocks, which are the digital numbers [the 1s and 0s that are used to encode sound digitally].

"Now, the only way you can make square blocks look like a smooth curve is by using very, very small blocks so it ends up looking as if it's smooth. Now using lots and lots of blocks means lots of storage, so we end up using [fewer] bigger blocks. Which means we end up not representing that curve very smoothly at all."

Lost? Go back and re-read it — you'll get it.

"The difference between the smooth curve and the rough edges you end up with in the digital recording, you can think of as noise because that is perceived as noise," Oxenham says. "It's perceived as an error, something that wasn't there in the original recording. The trick is to take the noise — which is the loss of fidelity — and just make it so you can't hear it anymore."

In Hiding

It's called "masking." Think of it this way: You're having a conversation in a quiet room, and you can hear every word, every mouth noise, every stomach rumble. But if you were having that same conversation outside on a busy street, you'd get the gist of what was said, but you'd probably miss a few words. The traffic noise would mask them.

So let's say you're listening to a Brahms symphony.

"[The loud parts of the music are] giving the coding system a lot of leeway to code things not quite as accurately as it would have to," Oxenham says, "because the ear is being stimulated so much by the loud sound it won't pick up very small variations produced by the coding errors."

In other words, the loud parts of a recording are used to "mask," or hide that noise produced by the rough-edged squares of those digital 1s and 0s.

But are we missing something?

"There are really different levels of MP3 coding," Oxenham says. "You can go from much less data — which people can hear the difference — to higher levels of coding which take up more space on your MP3 player but sound better and are basically indistinguishable from a CD. And I would argue that under proper listening conditions — if it's really indistinguishable from the CD as far as your ear is concerned — then you really haven't lost anything perceptually."

Oxenham likes the convenience of portable MP3 players. But ultimately, he says, he prefers going to concerts.

I bring this up again for a reason.

I think software inadvertently changes the sound of Haley's recordings.. recordings that many of you so generously did a great job capturing. The work is there and I think it is only software getting in the way that takes away a vital part of the artistry to some ears.. and regardless of what people prefer does not convey the techniques Haley and the other musicians actually employed.

Beyond the kick of a snare I also suspect that the sound dampening effects the sharp edges of a pitch warbling on a a specific note (I'll link more to that effect)

It doesn't only apply to the snare drum. I'm sure it applies also to the "wailing of a guitar" . (and I've commented on the guitar like techniques Haley uses, no doubt influenced by the sounds favored by her father)

To My ear this sound compression issues also apply to the chance to hear what Haley does with her voice: she really takes advantage of varying the volume within notes, and syllables of words, and "punching" entire words to put her own artistic effect on things.

It is Haley's technique of emphasizing variances that makes her special to me... and without it.. she really isn't nearly as special a musician. The thing is.. it is always there.. sometimes situations prevent us from hearing it and sometimes technology trys to help us without asking us first... software assumes something we don't want

[Tom22]

My thoughts below are not about the Videos(especially the picture part which I don't particularly care about - its all about the music)..My comments below they are about SOFTWARE automatically/inadvertently changing aspects of the performance They are of the exact same performance and with the same person recording both.

Tusk was generous to share both and we are extremely lucky that he caught and shared them !

Tusk, I hope that because you did both you don’t feel that I am judging your work but outlining how I think the software altered one of your recordings more than the other.

I appreciate and emphasize his own judgement to put what I also regard as the truer rendition in the Prime Position with the other tucked away for reference by others who might prefer it (I think that is great…different people have different ears)

I believe that one recording makes the performance a Haley “Grand Slam” and the other more of an extra base hit. Yeah, maybe I have high standards for Haley.. or a hyper critical ear.. but like I said.. I think she is a grand slam artist.
----------------

To try to show that I'm not being a crank but have some tangible method to my preference(madness?) I'll usetwo examples of Moanin’ on the idol red carpet 2013.

All of us fanatics have enjoyed the performance hundreds of times I’m sure so I’ll jump right into it.

Listen to the end of this first on this non hq sound recording(which I like better and I think is truer to the artistic attempts than the HQ one for reasons I point out:

http://youtu.be/oFaT0VDmPBU?t=2m8s

I start at 2:08 in the “lower quality” link and will start again further down in the “high Quality” (software influenced!) link farther down:

Haley’s incredible Hum at 2:22 is the first think that I want to point out. (tiny interpretations like that are elements that jumped out at me from the first time I heard it !)

Another: Notice how Haley uses her voice to sort of horns in and out(blare and soften?) at 2:38 . She has this knack of conveying more than just a simple rhythm or pitch but can make a sound actually Pulse like the distinct aspects of a heartbeat (and I think the sort of moved heart beat is part of the “heat”/passion of the “got me moanin”.. it is no accident .. that is for sure.
Simelar thing following 2:49 the Yeah Yeah, No NO is one of the parts that struck me as awesome and I wait for .

Another: at 2:57 the “spend” and particularly “pray” are “spa” –“end” “pra” “ay”with the “spa” and “pra” distinct in sound type than the landing/tail off note “end” and “ay” ….

Link below starts at the same place again to help see the times above:
http://youtu.be/oFaT0VDmPBU?t=2m8s

--------------
Below is the HQ “Software corrected” one. Again This is not about Tusk but about the software:
http://youtu.be/q0bqCPTiI54?t=1m32s

The start times are not the same so the same points in the performance on"high quality" recording
The “hum” is far less noticeable at 1:47 :. I don’t think anyone would really notice it hear and it.

At 2:01 the textured nuance I so admired as a heart like pulse is reduced to a far more “pedestrian” “oh oh oh oh” more like any musician might do and I don't think you'd particulary remember or notice the "yeah yeah, no no's I appreciated as sign of being "all in" to the song... playful and more

At 2:28 the “spend”s and the pray (with less “spa” –“end” “pra” “ay”) loose significant elements of the “punch” that we can hear was a purposeful accent Haley chose to use … the words aren’t “thrown” out as heard in the HQ recording.. more just sung.

Hear is the second one again:
http://youtu.be/q0bqCPTiI54?t=1m32s


Again:
- Though those points might seem small, every note she sings can be effected in the same way in terms of harmonic resonance and play that are not as easy to point out
- I blame the software
- And perhaps more provocatively - Regardless of what one personally prefers if the sound doesn’t show the emphasis the musician went out of their way to imbue, it doesn’t do the musician artistic justice

I guess that is a strong statement. I’m sorry but as I am obsessed with Haley’s singing. Some motivation is certainly a jealous desire to hear her at her best. Some of it is a hope that the most picky musical ears able to listen to scratchy old recording to hear unique aspects of old singers might also hear all that Haley _chooses_ to put in: especially demanding movie director types that love blues/ jazz (Cohen Brothers, Clint Eastwood, Woody Allen ? ) that I’ve speculated as being a likely Launchpad for her.
I’m also pretty sure that the pesky software can be reined in! I don’t think that it is something permanent or unyielding, especially if “drafts” we saved of the originals. I bet that much of the broadness of the sound can be teased(even if in a small degree) into many recordings already around ( experimenting with the equalizer in conjunction taking a pass over that with toying with the stereo effect settings, and settings that emphasize dynamic/acute rather than smooth etc)
As a statement in my first link on “the loudness” wars mentioned.. the overall effect might be initially more quiet… but the listener has control of the volume setting on their playback device. The end playback device(our phones ipods etc) has far less ability to change what has been compressed.

Yes, as this isn’t going to get broken up with other posts in between it is kind of incredibly long. It might be easier for people(those few who choose perhaps) to read with a break between posts Miguel ?

As promised, I didn’t want to put a “discussion” about recording software into a celebration thread about a wonderful event.