"Clip City" [mp3 removed] (reposted). Been massaging this tune, which was a crackly mess when it first appeared. I love the analog drum machine sound, but discovered the kicks and toms are so full-bodied digital audio won't capture them unless the gain is turned way down for the recording input. Sometimes you can raise it again in the mix but that's not working here. Nothing's lost in the final version, it just means the .mp3 is quieter and you'd have to bump the volume on your player to hear it at its best. I think some versions of iTunes adjust volume so all loaded tracks sound the same.
All the sequencing in this song I did, in other words, no found or cut-and-pasted MIDI. I know the lead line is ridiculous but sometimes I just rebel at doing a lot of musician-like variations in the melody. Octave jumps, that's all you get. The filtering is also all analog. It's kind of a prototype. I have this idea of doing a suite of 10 songs for the drum machine and Sidstation, which could be performed pretty easily live. I'm kind of bummed I can't get louder recording, though. Also, after I finished the tune I realized it sounds like Antonelli Electr. Oh well, if you're going to imitate people it might as well be your gods.
With signals that exceeds amplitude limits, digital circuits clip, whereas analog circuits do a soft clip. This may be the source of your crackles. Percussion tends to have big attacks. A
dynamic range compressor might give you the phat sound without the crackles.
Just because things sound louder doesn't mean they sound better. Unbeknownst to most of us, there has been a "loudness war" going on in mastering studios across the world for the last 15 years or so. Take a CD from 1985 and play a track or two; now do the same with a CD from 2005. The 2005 CD will probably sound twice as loud (if not more), yet the 1985 CD was mastered by seasoned professionals taking full advantage of the 96dB dynamic range afforded by the CD format. So what gives? Basically, some industry types noticed that, given two tracks of equal quality, people will pay more attention to the louder one. This is probably hard-wired into our brains from the days when a loud sound might mean a predator, enemy, or falling rock nearby. Thus began the battle to make every song louder than the one that came before. Of course CDs still only have a 96dB dynamic range limit, so the mastering engineers are forced to resort to ever-more exotic forms of multi-band compression, equalization, limiting, maximizing, exciting, and all sorts of other sonic destruction to try and grab your attention. The results are always louder but seldom more musical and often wreak havoc with the underlying source material. Unfortunately, our ears are becoming trained to accept this as normal, and now those great records from 1985 sound weak and old-fashioned in comparison. Of course the older recordings probably have a larger dynamic range as well as better sound quality, but who cares about that in this age of 128Kbit mp3 files?
This phenomenon is not limited to the music industry either; go to the cinema and watch the trailers for the upcoming films. Even if your local theater is equipped with the latest in DTS or THX technology, the trailer audio often sounds as though it's being blasted through a giant cardboard tube at just under the OSHA decibel limit for workplace safety; compressed almost beyond recognition, it makes little use of the wide dynamic range of the DTS and THX formats. "LOOK AT THIS!" it screams at you, "THE ROCK WILL BE BLOWING SHIT UP IN THIS VERY THEATER NEXT SUMMER!" "DON'T FUCKING MISS IT!!! LOOK AT THIS FUCKING ALIEN WITH TENTACLES COMING OUT OF IT'S FUCKING HEAD!!!! DON'T WATCH THAT MOVIE WITH PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN IN IT!!! ONLY A PUSSY WOULD WATCH THAT!!! KABOOM!!" It's one of the big reasons I don't go to the movies anymore.
If you want people to listen to your recordings, you'll probably have to reduce their dynamic range a bit; it's unfortunate, but there's not really any way around it. The iPod and iTunes both have a "sound check" feature which does this for you on playback, but it can sometimes sound a little funky. Of course a big reason we all threw our cassette tapes and LPs away (well, most of us anyway) was because of their inferior dynamic range (~48dB for cassette and ~72 for LP). The effective dynamic range of a lot of pop music now is probably not much about 70dB or so, and for that we can thank "the loudness war".
Thanks. I'm not averse to compressing this, I just haven't been able to figure out how. Without having tried the Boss pedal, my preference would be to record the drum machine as it sounds and then compress the signal digitally for the mix, as opposed to stepping it down first in an effects box. That's possible, right? I have a wav editor that compresses and that usually works but not on these drum hits. A nice full boom becomes a horrid scratch. I'm thinking I need better mixing/mastering software to tweak the drums. Any suggestions?
I actually kept all my vinyl, but one of the things I discovered on DJ'ing live a few years ago is the newer discs really cut through the crowd noise (people's damn conversations). No one was listening when I played 80s records--meaning the good ones, such as YMO--but those new, punchy 2-step garage discs from the UK (or whatever) had heads nodding and toes tapping all over the room.
I, too, hate the obscene volumes in theatres (but I still go). I recognize the distinction between fine stuff I listen to at home and the stuff that pops about of computer speakers and to some extent I'm composing for the latter degraded medium. It's easy with samples that are already massaged and EQ'd but recording this analog gear has turned out to be an unexpected and unwanted challenge.
I usually like to record things dry and then process them later, so I would record the drum machine and then try to compress it afterwards. When you record it, try to get the signal as high as possible without clipping. To reduce the dynamic range, you will need either a better software compressor (like one that mimics an analog compressor) or you'll have to run the whole mix out to an analog compressor and back in again. Software plugins for this sort of thing are available but they might be expensive. I sometimes use rather crude methods for this sort of problem, like putting the drum machine through a guitar amp or amp simulator. That dirties the sound up a bit, but it also makes for a nice compressor.
Yeah, classic vinyl from the 80s and early 90s just won't cut it in the clubs anymore. Of course it was very different back in 1987! People danced, nodded their heads, and took ecstacy while listening to those very same records; our ears have just gotten used to the new louder sounds and now everything else sounds passe. There's not much to be done, although I enjoy complaining about it!
G.K., your comments have been helpful and have gotten me thinking differently about this work. Rather than chase down ways to compress these drum sounds, I think I'm going to work on a "quiet series" that revels in the wider dynamic range, sort of burbling along ambiently at low volume but becoming more dramatic if some makes it to the :20 mark & decides to the raise the volume. I know that's a big if. I guess my thinking is if I'm going to start altering the drum sounds via compression I might as well use sample kits.
Yes! That's a great idea. This would also be interesting to explore in a gallery environment. For example, a quiet ambient sound is occassionally punctuated with loud dramatic bits at random intervals. If it were synchronized with a visual display it might be even better.
Whenever I listen to classical music (almost never these days), I am often struck by its tremendous dynamic range. Sometimes there is just a flute or violin playing and then, a minute later, the whole orchestra is going at maximum volume. Very dramatic.
One of the worst examples of dynamic range compression is commercials on TV. A movie may have a low average programs level (APL) for the audio, and a high peak (PPL). With commercials, they seem to strive for APL = PPL.
|
"Clip City" [mp3 removed] (reposted). Been massaging this tune, which was a crackly mess when it first appeared. I love the analog drum machine sound, but discovered the kicks and toms are so full-bodied digital audio won't capture them unless the gain is turned way down for the recording input. Sometimes you can raise it again in the mix but that's not working here. Nothing's lost in the final version, it just means the .mp3 is quieter and you'd have to bump the volume on your player to hear it at its best. I think some versions of iTunes adjust volume so all loaded tracks sound the same.
All the sequencing in this song I did, in other words, no found or cut-and-pasted MIDI. I know the lead line is ridiculous but sometimes I just rebel at doing a lot of musician-like variations in the melody. Octave jumps, that's all you get. The filtering is also all analog. It's kind of a prototype. I have this idea of doing a suite of 10 songs for the drum machine and Sidstation, which could be performed pretty easily live. I'm kind of bummed I can't get louder recording, though. Also, after I finished the tune I realized it sounds like Antonelli Electr. Oh well, if you're going to imitate people it might as well be your gods.
- tom moody 10-26-2005 2:50 am
With signals that exceeds amplitude limits, digital circuits clip, whereas analog circuits do a soft clip. This may be the source of your crackles. Percussion tends to have big attacks. A
dynamic range compressor might give you the phat sound without the crackles.
- mark 10-26-2005 3:18 am
Just because things sound louder doesn't mean they sound better. Unbeknownst to most of us, there has been a "loudness war" going on in mastering studios across the world for the last 15 years or so. Take a CD from 1985 and play a track or two; now do the same with a CD from 2005. The 2005 CD will probably sound twice as loud (if not more), yet the 1985 CD was mastered by seasoned professionals taking full advantage of the 96dB dynamic range afforded by the CD format. So what gives? Basically, some industry types noticed that, given two tracks of equal quality, people will pay more attention to the louder one. This is probably hard-wired into our brains from the days when a loud sound might mean a predator, enemy, or falling rock nearby. Thus began the battle to make every song louder than the one that came before. Of course CDs still only have a 96dB dynamic range limit, so the mastering engineers are forced to resort to ever-more exotic forms of multi-band compression, equalization, limiting, maximizing, exciting, and all sorts of other sonic destruction to try and grab your attention. The results are always louder but seldom more musical and often wreak havoc with the underlying source material. Unfortunately, our ears are becoming trained to accept this as normal, and now those great records from 1985 sound weak and old-fashioned in comparison. Of course the older recordings probably have a larger dynamic range as well as better sound quality, but who cares about that in this age of 128Kbit mp3 files?
This phenomenon is not limited to the music industry either; go to the cinema and watch the trailers for the upcoming films. Even if your local theater is equipped with the latest in DTS or THX technology, the trailer audio often sounds as though it's being blasted through a giant cardboard tube at just under the OSHA decibel limit for workplace safety; compressed almost beyond recognition, it makes little use of the wide dynamic range of the DTS and THX formats. "LOOK AT THIS!" it screams at you, "THE ROCK WILL BE BLOWING SHIT UP IN THIS VERY THEATER NEXT SUMMER!" "DON'T FUCKING MISS IT!!! LOOK AT THIS FUCKING ALIEN WITH TENTACLES COMING OUT OF IT'S FUCKING HEAD!!!! DON'T WATCH THAT MOVIE WITH PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN IN IT!!! ONLY A PUSSY WOULD WATCH THAT!!! KABOOM!!" It's one of the big reasons I don't go to the movies anymore.
If you want people to listen to your recordings, you'll probably have to reduce their dynamic range a bit; it's unfortunate, but there's not really any way around it. The iPod and iTunes both have a "sound check" feature which does this for you on playback, but it can sometimes sound a little funky. Of course a big reason we all threw our cassette tapes and LPs away (well, most of us anyway) was because of their inferior dynamic range (~48dB for cassette and ~72 for LP). The effective dynamic range of a lot of pop music now is probably not much about 70dB or so, and for that we can thank "the loudness war".
- G.K. Wicker (guest) 10-26-2005 4:14 am
Thanks. I'm not averse to compressing this, I just haven't been able to figure out how. Without having tried the Boss pedal, my preference would be to record the drum machine as it sounds and then compress the signal digitally for the mix, as opposed to stepping it down first in an effects box. That's possible, right? I have a wav editor that compresses and that usually works but not on these drum hits. A nice full boom becomes a horrid scratch. I'm thinking I need better mixing/mastering software to tweak the drums. Any suggestions?
I actually kept all my vinyl, but one of the things I discovered on DJ'ing live a few years ago is the newer discs really cut through the crowd noise (people's damn conversations). No one was listening when I played 80s records--meaning the good ones, such as YMO--but those new, punchy 2-step garage discs from the UK (or whatever) had heads nodding and toes tapping all over the room.
I, too, hate the obscene volumes in theatres (but I still go). I recognize the distinction between fine stuff I listen to at home and the stuff that pops about of computer speakers and to some extent I'm composing for the latter degraded medium. It's easy with samples that are already massaged and EQ'd but recording this analog gear has turned out to be an unexpected and unwanted challenge.
- tom moody 10-26-2005 4:41 am
I usually like to record things dry and then process them later, so I would record the drum machine and then try to compress it afterwards. When you record it, try to get the signal as high as possible without clipping. To reduce the dynamic range, you will need either a better software compressor (like one that mimics an analog compressor) or you'll have to run the whole mix out to an analog compressor and back in again. Software plugins for this sort of thing are available but they might be expensive. I sometimes use rather crude methods for this sort of problem, like putting the drum machine through a guitar amp or amp simulator. That dirties the sound up a bit, but it also makes for a nice compressor.
Yeah, classic vinyl from the 80s and early 90s just won't cut it in the clubs anymore. Of course it was very different back in 1987! People danced, nodded their heads, and took ecstacy while listening to those very same records; our ears have just gotten used to the new louder sounds and now everything else sounds passe. There's not much to be done, although I enjoy complaining about it!
- G.K. Wicker (guest) 10-26-2005 4:59 am
G.K., your comments have been helpful and have gotten me thinking differently about this work. Rather than chase down ways to compress these drum sounds, I think I'm going to work on a "quiet series" that revels in the wider dynamic range, sort of burbling along ambiently at low volume but becoming more dramatic if some makes it to the :20 mark & decides to the raise the volume. I know that's a big if. I guess my thinking is if I'm going to start altering the drum sounds via compression I might as well use sample kits.
- tom moody 10-26-2005 7:56 pm
Yes! That's a great idea. This would also be interesting to explore in a gallery environment. For example, a quiet ambient sound is occassionally punctuated with loud dramatic bits at random intervals. If it were synchronized with a visual display it might be even better.
Whenever I listen to classical music (almost never these days), I am often struck by its tremendous dynamic range. Sometimes there is just a flute or violin playing and then, a minute later, the whole orchestra is going at maximum volume. Very dramatic.
- G.K. Wicker (guest) 10-26-2005 10:51 pm
One of the worst examples of dynamic range compression is commercials on TV. A movie may have a low average programs level (APL) for the audio, and a high peak (PPL). With commercials, they seem to strive for APL = PPL.
- mark 10-27-2005 3:11 am