Quote Originally Posted by Thomas_A
I don't agree that CDs have to be compressed, limited etc just because to fit the radio (as Wmax said in the beginning of this thread). If it needs to be compressed there is something wrong with the information given between artist/producer and various recording engineers and broadcast engineers. See e.g. this citation from George Graham:
George has his opinion(and they are not in short supply in this industry) the artist, producer, and other engineers have theirs. George Graham opinion is just another one. Sorry, but the name means nothing to me. Everyone has their opinion based on THEIR experience. What proof has George offered you to support his claims, a personal demo?

"In the audio business, there is something of a chasm between broadcast audio engineers and recording engineers. Folks from one camp don't seem to know a lot about the practices and mindset of the other. I guess I'm lucky to work on both sides of the fence -- making music recordings for broadcast and then hearing just how they sound on the air. Every broadcast station already uses compression on the air. There is a legal limit, as regulated and monitored by the FCC, to the loudness of sound on the air. So to keep a signal loud enough not to be lost in fading, and static, compression, which varies by station and format, is inevitably used.
His site was last updated in 1999. So this information is quite dated. Does he know that the title(and job) of broadcast audio engineer is a dying breed replaced by almost total automation? Does he understand that compressors and limiters found in radio stations all over the world very in quality, and some are not even regulated by the FCC? Don't you understand that if I compress my CD to match the loudness limits of the FCC in post production, it does not have to be processed quite so heavily by a processor of unknown quality? Nobody masters CD's for release in this country only. The music industry is world wide. The FCC only regulates here in America, what happens if my CD goes number one in a country NOT regulated by the FCC. Why don't you and Chris have this kind of forethought?

The fallacy that seems to have become pervasive among many people in the pop music recording field, especially among record companies, is that if a CD is pushing the absolute digital max it will somehow be louder or better on the air and presumably win more airplay, and thus sell more copies to the public. This is not true at all. Compressing a CD will contribute to on-air loudness almost unnoticeably. Radio people have the brains to turn up a CD that's recorded at a normal level, and broadcast stations' existing compressors will even everything out anyway. The only thing that is accomplished is messing up the dynamic range for those who pay their good money for CDs, "squashing" the life out of any acoustic instruments in the mix, and increasing listener fatigue.
For the record I do not approve of pushing my mixes to digital max or even close to clipping, even the ones destined for radio. I have my own personal way of mixing and mastering that get's the necessary loudness without the clipping that is so common in many CD mixes, especially pop. However, I have heard uncompressed and unlimited CD's on the radio, and the distortion, timbre altering, overly squashed sound of the radio's compressors made it sound absolutely horrible. This would horrify and piss off many a studio executive or producer who has invested many hundreds of thousand dollars on a product that is played over the air with that quality. The reality of todays world is, if you want the best mix, get SACD or DVD-A. The CD is joe six packs format now(you know the guys that like the sound of MP3), and that is just the way it is. Live with it, or not period.

Lately, this has been made worse by the increasing availablity of "desktop audio," which puts powerful compression tools in the realm of the home studio, by using a computer to perform the mastering function. Increasing numbers of CDs are being released that have come from home and "project" studios, with generally less-experienced people doing the mixing and mastering in these settings. So some serious damage is being done by people impressed by how much louder they can make their recording sound by crushing the dynamic range with relatively inexpensive software.
This is not even close to the norm these days. Mostly all of the product bound for the corporate controlled radio(which has severly limited the choice of music played) comes from master facilities of great quality. Rarely if never does the garage produced CD ever reach the airwaves. The corporatization of broadcast radio has contributed greatly to this end. To use this(somebody elses words I might add) to further your arguement just shows you are reaching for straws, and just trying to find something to latch on to, to legitimitize your arguement. Not buying it at all.

Further, there is the phenomenon of "cascaded compression." When an already-compressed signal (e.g. a CD) is itself compressed (e.g. when played on a radio station), the compressors can actually "fight" each other, one bringing down the signal, followed by another one with different characteristics that might want to bring it back up at a slightly different rate. The result can border on distortion, and gives an especially annoying "pumping" sound, that ruins what is left of the dynamics of the music and can leave the artist and producer's sonic intent in shambles. And this is exactly the situation when a compressed CD is run on a radio station with its own compression."
I am VERY familar with this phenomena. However, in the year 2004(as opposed to 1999 when this was originally written) most compressors in radio just don't automatically work the same way for every mix. The less the mix has been compressed, the harder the radio station compressor works. The more compressed the mix(up to FCC standards) the less the radio station compressors has to work.(at least this was the explaination given to me, I cannot attest to it's accuracy, but it was given to me by a very reliable and accurate source). This is largely a moot arguement because just like broadcast television, over the air analog is losing listeners to satellite digital radio by the thousands. It won't be long before mixers won't need to use compressors at all, because they won't be mixing for broadcast analog as a primary listener medium.

At

http://www.georgegraham.com/compress.html

More at:

http://www.geocities.com/mjareviews/rant7.html
Horribly outdated information. Pertinent pre 1999, irrelevant post 1999.



And last,

those who have not heard how CD can sound when transferred from an analogue source, listen to this record, found at Amazon (its an assortment of Christmas choir songs, a true reference for quality):

Cantate Domino
Oscars Motettkor, Torsten Nilsson, Alf Linder, Marianne Mellnas
Label: Proprius Records
Catalog: #7762
ASIN: B000002480

Bertil Alving made the recording 1976 and the mastering, 1993.
Great info. However good it sounds, how does it stack up to the original master when compared? How was it recorded(how many channels) Was it mixed and mastered for radio play?

The bottom line is this, the CD has outlived its usefulness as the primary medium for high end playback. In these days with between 30-50 channels being used for a typical high production product, mixing it for CD is like having a hoover dams worth of water going through a typically used kitchen funnel. So much eq, limiting, and compression has to be used to make all of these channels heard over each other after mixdown hardly makes anything pristine anymore. Recording in high rez, and downsampling to redbook is not a transparent process.

CD can sound very good to the end user. But the real test is how well it stands up to the master tape itself. IMO on more occasions than so, it does not. Some differences are slight, some VERY audible. Regardless, the bottom line is we are moving away from redbook and the primary high quality delivery of audio. You can argue this until the moon turns blue, but you cannot prohibit change because it's coming whether you like it or not.

Lastly, it is not in good form to quote someone elses words, and represent them as your own. To say you don't agree with something, and then use someone elses experiences to bolster your argument is disengenous and VERY uncool. If you have some personal experiences, or situations you have participated in, then that is one thing. But you are quoting people as if they are the foremost expert on all subject matter regarding audio, and that is just not the case. Opinions are abundant in this field, and so are counter opposing white papers. You must be very careful where you gravitate towards when you don't work in this industry.

Now ask GG would he turn a client down if the client wanted HIS cd to sound as loud as the artist's competitors? I seriously doubt it.