Fingernail on 10/2/2007 at 21:43

---

I'd be interested to know the opinions of you lot on compression. I've been playing around for a while recording little demos and I usually apply some compression "cos that's what you do" to make it sound more even, bigger and easily listenable compared with commercial (pop) recordings.

But obviously I listen to some classical music as well, where this isn't done because it destroys (to a certain degree, depending on how much is used) the dynamic range of a recording. So I tried removing the compression on some of my own recordings, and the result is basically quite nice; it's a lot more natural sounding and you can get some really huge and dramatic changes in volume, but compared to commercial pop and rock recordings of course it's hard to listen to at low volumes as the soft bits get lost, making it rather useless on the radio or in the car (have you ever tried listening to a proper classical recording with any other noise going on? It's fine in the loud bits).

I dunno what I wondered really. I can obviously understand the need to have an even volume to some degree to make it sound good on all systems at all volumes, but why aren't albums released with alternate tracks showcasing the full dynamic range? When you listen to it properly in a quiet room or on headphones the effect is far more powerful in my opinion, to go from truly quiet to really loud.

The answer is probably along the lines of "why spend the extra money and engineer hours to produce extra mixes that might appeal to the odd pseudo-audiophile when we can just churn out one version that goes well on earphones and in cars?"

Also I'm sure the answer is "compression should be used in moderation"

Paz on 10/2/2007 at 23:32

---

Here is a rather lengthy but excellent article about the nature, and contemporary abuse of, compression: (http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/imperfect-sound-forever.htm) Imperfect Sound Forever.

It is, as the title might suggest, imperfect - but it's also extremely interesting (at least I thought it was when I read it upon publication). Takes a short while to get to the guts, but then it really takes off.

(Apologies in advance for the ADVERT BLITZ, but they pay for the site and stuff)

User123abc on 11/2/2007 at 03:38

---

Oh shit!

Aja, that was really excellent! I liked the first song especially, very professional. Talking about guitar, I thought the various licks were really well-placed, sometimes complementing the song, sometimes providing an interesting contrast. You said Rush (and I wasn't so excited tbh), but I heard a lot of Porcupine Tree in the vocals, and a few Crimsonesque touches in the synth section of the first song (as well as the song overall), and the very very end of the second song (80's KC in this one). My own personal taste in rock music veers a bit more towards the exotic, but its still blatantly obvious someone in edmonton canada really knows their stuff.

Piglick, smoooooooth :) I really envy jazz guitarists. It was rock solid, and I can appreciate the subtleties of such a performance. If you're not in a band, seems you could easily get by even as a session musician. Really strong bass groove, too, I love that.

Fingernail, "all neoclassical is generally crap?" ;) I actually liked the second part as well, awesome sense of tension with the movement at the top of the arpeggios. In some ways, I'd actually say its the most creative of the bunch (and in other ways, the least). Overall very cool, especially impressive considering it's a one-take unaccompanied improv. I could definitely see a really interesting song coming out of this. By the way, the stacatto bass in the beginning works best to emphasize that 2.5/4 feel - I'd say that would make the best foundation for a song. Reminds me of Genesis, "In the Cage" or "Watcher of the Skies." On second listen, all the different little rhythmic figures really stand out well.

Hey look it's two cents...

Edit: Piglick: You know, I prefer Aja's clearer sound. I think dirty guitar sounds can potentially convey a sense of raw off-kilter sophistication, but will usually fail at this and just convey a sense of the juvenile. Obviously it's a matter of personal preference, but it's still pretty interesting to think about.

Fingernail on 11/2/2007 at 09:48

---

Thanks for the comments, 123abc. It's one of those things that's been floating around for a while and I'll do something with it eventually. Perhaps not in that form, but we'll see.

And thanks for the article, Paz, it was very interesting and pretty much confirmed what I'd thought already. When it mentioned, for instance, the Killers' album I instantly recalled "that sound" that I'd heard them make on TV. Quite horrible in many ways.

I think in terms of the music I listen to regularly, Radiohead albums always seem pretty loud at their peak but they don't sound too overcompressed. On the other hand, I often have to turn old Cat Stevens records up quite a bit to get their full impact. I think when I do some proper recordings with the band we'll try not to go too loud, although doubtless most masterers within our budget will be used to unsigned bands aiming for a big sound to try and compete, so it's good to know that we'll probably need to specify the sound we're after instead of rely on the seeming wisdom of the times.

Biohazard on 14/12/2007 at 18:31

---

It sounds really good!

What I like most about it is that the drum part was written with great care in regards to the melody. It doesn't sound like a track drum part repeated over and over again to keep a beat going. All the drum parts sound custom tailored to where the melody's going. That's the snare of today's electronic/synthesized music. Very nice job!