Red Mosquito

Compression:

Imagine if everything in your field of view were squished together into a smaller distorted box. The separation between things would be lost, you’d have to squint to make things out, and it would strain your eyes. This is what’s happening with our ears during particular parts of a very compressed album. It’s different than volume, but high volume makes it worse.

I adore the everloving fuck out of this album but it’s a real shame that it is relatively unprecedented in its level of compression.

is this something you hear or something you look at on a graph while you have a song playing?

warehouse wrote:is this something you hear or something you look at on a graph while you have a song playing?

It is both audible and visible in a waveform

If it wasn't audible this wouldn't be a problem!

Jorge wrote:If it wasn't audible this wouldn't be a problem!

Truth! And again, for me it’s only really a problem in the car where my spotify quality is at its lowest. On wifi high quality it’s more of a volume issue which makes it much more manageable (you notice it when you have to turn the volume down after the previous artist that played).

Eddie Vedder was right you guys are potatoes.

Kevin Davis wrote:

stip wrote:it is somewhat surprising to me that none /few of the reviews for dark matter mentioned this as an issue, for how much it seemed to impact some people’s experience

That isn’t surprising — record reviews rarely discuss these kinds of engineering details at all, the same way they rarely discuss what kinds of gear the band uses, what time signatures or keys certain songs are in, etc. Most mainstream publications that review records simply don’t cater to an audience interested in that level of technical detail. I’m not saying all those reviewers are secretly seething about compression, dynamics, etc., and just holding back; I’m just saying that isn’t the space where I’d expect to find that kind of criticism.

not at this level of detail, sure, but the production actively harming the experience of the song seems like an easy thing to latch onto

Jorge wrote:If it wasn't audible this wouldn't be a problem!

i think that's debatable.

warehouse wrote:

Jorge wrote:If it wasn't audible this wouldn't be a problem!

i think that's debatable.

If it wasn't a problem this wouldn't be debatable!

warehouse wrote:

Jorge wrote:If it wasn't audible this wouldn't be a problem!

i think that's debatable.

What would the counterargument be? That applying compression to an audio file has no impact on the way it sounds, that brickwalled waveforms just randomly look the way they do for no reason whatsoever, and that certain people have arbitrarily chosen this completely irrelevant thing as a reason for disliking the music itself?

Compression is audible. "Scared of Fear" begins with Stone playing a riff unaccompanied. After two bars, the rest of the band comes in. When the full band kicks in on that third bar, the sound should explode from the speakers, but it doesn't; I noticed this on my very first listen to the album, and I suspect others who've cited compression as an obstacle did as well. I could tell that, despite the fact that four additional instruments were entering into the mix (one of them being a drumkit), the overall track volume didn't get any louder. I wasn't looking at a screenshot of a waveform; I was listening to the CD in my car, just my ears and the speakers.

But sure enough, the visual evidence supports it; if you do look at the waveform, you see that the master track volume is the same during both the "Stone by himself" part and the "entire band comes in" part. How is this possible? Unless Stone consciously alters the volume of his own playing when the rest of the band comes in (not likely), there is no way that adding four instruments to one instrument wouldn't naturally make the sound noticeably louder. No way, that is, but for the use of compression (and limiting, and other artificial tools that adjust dynamics). It is audible to the ear, and also discernible on a visualizer whose job it is to detect the characteristics of things which are audible to the ear.

For what it's worth, "Scared of Fear" is one of my favorite tracks on the album, and probably my favorite PJ album opener since "Can't Keep." Compression isn't stopping me from loving the song. I can simultaneously understand praise for the song and criticism of the way it was recorded. I can also understand that different ears weigh things differently, and that just because someone is repetitive in their critique of something doesn't mean they're delusional.

stip wrote:not at this level of detail, sure, but the production actively harming the experience of the song seems like an easy thing to latch onto

I think it's very common to read criticism/praise of production choices in record reviews (the additon of novel sounds, whether a record feels increasingly commercial compared to previous work, etc.); it is much rarer to read commentary on technical choices relative to mixing, mastering, etc., which is where a lot of this compression/limiting/loudness stuff belongs. Most of the first-week "professional reviews" that make up Metacritic scores and the "criticial reception" sections of Wikipedia articles hone in on (a) the band's place in culture at the time of the record's release, (b) the record's place in the catalog of the band, (c) some superficial descriptions of how the songs sound, (d) some quotes from the lyrics, and (e) an overall score or rating of the record. What any given writer's level of familiarity with anything -- from the trajectory of the band's career to their awareness of concepts like compression and mastering dynamics -- is going into that review is an absolute crapshoot. It's also possible that a person reviewing music in 2024 is a product of his or her time, and simply hears records that sound like this as par for the course. Not to say a writer couldn't comment on the mastering, compression, etc., in a mainstream review, but the reality is that few if any of them ever do or have.

i'm kinda getting what you guys are talking about. I can see how that could be an issue for people.

I think I just have poor hearing when it comes to audio discernment. I can see where you are noticing the differences, and I might catch it from time to time, but in the end I guess it doesn't bother me.

It didn’t bother me for a long time. As I’ve gotten older I’ve found myself increasingly sensitive to stimulus overload (in a variety of settings, not just music), so I am a lot more naturally attuned to it than I used to be.

Music is sound, and the quality of that sound is gonna matter more or less to folks. It's similar to how many dismiss cinematography as a frivolous concern while others see the visual component of a film as just as important as plot or dialogue. Different people are gonna prioritize different things and that's totally valid.

It's not a dealbreaker for me. It's not the sole reason I don't connect with Dark Matter. But I get it.

Jorge wrote:It's similar to how many dismiss cinematography as a frivolous concern while others see the visual component of a film as just as important as plot or dialogue.

The visual presentation of a film is factually a part of its creative content, though. Some people might not give a shit about it, but it is a part of the inherent artistry (or lack thereof) in a project in a way that compression is not.

Compression is more like, “can you still appreciate an exceptionally well-made film with good dialog, powerful performances, and interesting visuals if you are watching it on your iPhone?”

I'd counter that everything done to the music in the studio is part of its creative content, including mixing and mastering

Kevin Davis wrote:

warehouse wrote:

Jorge wrote:If it wasn't audible this wouldn't be a problem!

i think that's debatable.

What would the counterargument be? That applying compression to an audio file has no impact on the way it sounds, that brickwalled waveforms just randomly look the way they do for no reason whatsoever, and that certain people have arbitrarily chosen this completely irrelevant thing as a reason for disliking the music itself?

Compression is audible. "Scared of Fear" begins with Stone playing a riff unaccompanied. After two bars, the rest of the band comes in. When the full band kicks in on that third bar, the sound should explode from the speakers, but it doesn't; I noticed this on my very first listen to the album, and I suspect others who've cited compression as an obstacle did as well. I could tell that, despite the fact that four additional instruments were entering into the mix (one of them being a drumkit), the overall track volume didn't get any louder. I wasn't looking at a screenshot of a waveform; I was listening to the CD in my car, just my ears and the speakers.

But sure enough, the visual evidence supports it; if you do look at the waveform, you see that the master track volume is the same during both the "Stone by himself" part and the "entire band comes in" part. How is this possible? Unless Stone consciously alters the volume of his own playing when the rest of the band comes in (not likely), there is no way that adding four instruments to one instrument wouldn't naturally make the sound noticeably louder. No way, that is, but for the use of compression (and limiting, and other artificial tools that adjust dynamics). It is audible to the ear, and also discernible on a visualizer whose job it is to detect the characteristics of things which are audible to the ear.

For what it's worth, "Scared of Fear" is one of my favorite tracks on the album, and probably my favorite PJ album opener since "Can't Keep." Compression isn't stopping me from loving the song. I can simultaneously understand praise for the song and criticism of the way it was recorded. I can also understand that different ears weigh things differently, and that just because someone is repetitive in their critique of something doesn't mean they're delusional.

im not saying its not a real effect on the sound. im saying the complaint are amplified by the visuals. if you couldn't see it, it wouldn't be as big of a complaint. Jorge makes a good point about how people value different things in art, though.

I've never looked at a waveform for a song, not knowingly. And certainly not at all for anything on Dark Matter. And it's still my only real big complaint about the album. *shrugs*

This is the first time it's really gotten to me, too. I was able to look (or I guess hear) past it with Avocado and LB.

I think KD's insight about age applies to me too. I think the older I get the more it effects me.

epilogue wrote:I've never looked at a waveform for a song, not knowingly. And certainly not at all for anything on Dark Matter. And it's still my only real big complaint about the album. *shrugs*

This is the first time it's really gotten to me, too. I was able to look (or I guess hear) past it with Avocado and LB.

I think KD's insight about age applies to me too. I think the older I get the more it effects me.

is it the whole album? does it stick out more in certain songs?

warehouse wrote:

epilogue wrote:I've never looked at a waveform for a song, not knowingly. And certainly not at all for anything on Dark Matter. And it's still my only real big complaint about the album. *shrugs*

This is the first time it's really gotten to me, too. I was able to look (or I guess hear) past it with Avocado and LB.

I think KD's insight about age applies to me too. I think the older I get the more it effects me.

is it the whole album? does it stick out more in certain songs?

It's the whole album overall but it only really bothers me on SoF and Wreckage. Wreckage, especially. I can't listen to it in headphones.

epilogue wrote:

warehouse wrote:

epilogue wrote:I've never looked at a waveform for a song, not knowingly. And certainly not at all for anything on Dark Matter. And it's still my only real big complaint about the album. *shrugs*

This is the first time it's really gotten to me, too. I was able to look (or I guess hear) past it with Avocado and LB.

I think KD's insight about age applies to me too. I think the older I get the more it effects me.

is it the whole album? does it stick out more in certain songs?

It's the whole album overall but it only really bothers me on SoF and Wreckage. Wreckage, especially. I can't listen to it in headphones.

Can this be fixed using those stems (is that what they are called?) that people seemed to have access to a few months back?