Crystallize me

Well I´ll be darned.
I´ve had many gripes about compression in music, and I´ve written about it before, but here we go again: I´m talking abobut compression as in audio-compression -the reduction of dynamic range, the distance in loudness between the highest and lowest sound, not in data-reduction as employed in mp3 and so on.

This is common practise in mastering, and is a creative effect in mixing(at least, can be), or something to tighten up a lil´ bit here.

In mastering once a process employed to make sure that the higher dynamic range of magnetic tape would fit comfortably on the disc, and not causing the needle to skip. With digital sound this reason is somewhat... not here.
But compression is still applied, and more often than not, way to much of it. This makes the overall level of the song louder, and as we all know, "louder is better"(the only thing the typical record company exec. knows(think he knows) about music). However, it also induces distortion and generally makes the sound ugly. I can rant on for months so I´ll cut to the chase:

The newest soundcard from Creative comes with an anti-compressor. It tries and according to reviewers succeeds in putting lost dynamic range back. Cool. It is somewhat ironic that consumers are being given tools to undo the mastering process. I´ve long wanted record companies to release un-mastered versions of albums, I´m sure there would be a market, perhaps larger than anyone thought. The reviewers at Toms Hardware seemed so happy, writing stuff like "wow" and so on. And maybe it´s true, maybe getting rid of an archaic process is what is needed to reinvigaorate peoples interests in original CDs, or stuff with even better fidelity, like DVD-audio. Most records today are made in 24 bits, many with higher than CD sample-rates, such as 96khz. This must cut down anyway to fit into the 20 year old paradigm of 16 bits 44.1k as we´re all so used to hearing.

I remember buying the latest Madonna CD and playing it on my monitor system. Stupid me, I should have played it on the ghetto. It sounds pretty awful when played on a decent to good sound system, almost makes you understand why people with high-end systems insist on playing some Sting record to demonstrate how great it is, most pop records sound really bad on really good stereos. Broken in mastering, they ought to print it on the cover.

I remember listening to Kraftwerks Radioactivity on vinyl. A friend of mine has a decent stereo and a vast collection of pop records on vinyl, thank god he hasn´t sold ´em. It sound so good, so sweet and musical. So far away from the current sound which is harsh and ugly. And it´s not nostalgia, music did sound better before. It´s a plain fact. While I was in the US I heard alot of lo-fi. While I do not think this is the way to go(bad sound on purpose), they had a point. Their sound wasn´t broken in mastering, it was fixed, pampered with all the tools of the trade. At the time I reacted rather violently(you can read about it here), after years of ever deteriorating sound quality we had now reached rock bottom, records recorded over the telephone; then fixed. It is the polar opposite to big name pop records, recorded with all the best stuff in all the best rooms with all the best people; then broken.

There must be a middle ground somewhere.

Or maybe there isn´t, maybe in this world where the problems of two little people don´t amount to a hill of beans... sorry, got carried away.

Or maybe there isn´t, maybe in this world of polar opposites this is simply a subliminal expression of the status quo. Politics expressed through sound quality.
(That´s a bit far-fetched innit? -Ed.)

Well, yes -and no. But as the first anti-mastering device just hit the mass market(I hope the defualt setting is "on") I rejoice. And the irony of it all...

b