Is dynamic range compression destroying music?

Compression squeezes the life out of music!

Dynamic range compression isn't new, it's been used by recording, mixing, and mastering engineers for many decades. A little bit of compression is fine, but over-compression can sound downright ugly. Most of today's music, whether it's on LP, CD, the radio or iTunes is over-compressed. Most remastered CDs are over-compressed.

Before we go any further, I'm not referring to the lossy compression used in MP3s, or lossless compression used in Apple Lossless. They've got their own set of problems, but dynamic range compression is a very different predicament.

To the casual listener compression can sound "good," mostly because it makes the music seem louder and punchier, and once music's natural soft-loud dynamic shifts are squashed flat music is easier to hear in noisy environments like cars or over iPods. Compression reduces the need to adjust playback volume--because it's always nearly the same volume--loud.

Engineers worry that if they don't compress their recordings the music would seem too soft and low. That is, if a music listener went from really loud, compressed music to quieter, uncompressed music they probably wouldn't like uncompressed music--unless they turned it up! That way they would hear the music's natural soft-loud dynamics.

Unfortunately, that's not an acceptable scenario to most engineers or record labels. They're addicted to over-compression, it's a hard habit to break.

But the unnatural onslaught of compressed sound obliterates musical nuance, delicacy and emotional power. Compression's loud-all-the-time nature sucks the life out of music.

Here's a great video that demonstrates the evils of compression.

Well, it's one thing to describe the ill-effects of over compression in words; this excellent "Loudness War" YouTube video adds a visual perspective to make compression's destructive properties easier to understand. Like most things on YouTube there's a bunch of videos that explore the evils of compression, but "Loudness War" is one of the better ones.

[funkyboot]

Yes, the trend of over-compressing everything needs to change, but not necessarily stop. The whole it makes music "punchier" thing is not true of overcompressing an entire mix, because the first thing to suffer is transient response. All of a sudden a snare can go from producing a good "thwack" in your chest, to sounding like a drummer hitting a plastic bag with a stick. Then there are compression artifacts like songs getting qieter during the choruses (as the compressor ducks the mix) when they should actually be getting louder. That will just ruin a mix by completely eliminating the sense of excitement.

On the other hand, even extreme compression has it's place. Radio started the trend as they needed to compress and limit music to keep the volume consistent between songs from different LP's and to get the best out of their signals. People just got used to this sound and got to thinking that things "sound better" on the radio. So engineers started adding a bit, not for technical reasons, but just to make things sound a bit more like radio. That was a slippery slope...

But then there are poor listening environments, where compression can make an improvement. Listening to music in a car or on a train means there's a lot of background noise to overcome. Making everything in the track loud by heavily compressing/limiting a mix will actually yield a better listening experience in high noise environments.

I think the solution is to add software compressors/limiters to the playback devices themselves, while keeping the music uncompressed. This will allow the listener to adjust the level of compression based on a) their personal preference, and b) their listening environment.

[BlackSoultan]

Dope response! I'm a recording artist who has, well, a recording artist's idea of post production. Here's my question: wouldn't it therefore make sense to not compress a whole track in mastering, but instead compress certain tracks OF the mix? I had two engineers on my last project; the former would somehow mix the bass and kick more punchier than the other one, but the other one would compress the hell out of each channel, making it sound more "compressed" or "loud" on the parts that mattered most. Isn't there something to be said for compression therefore on certain things like snares, vocals, certain instruments, etc?

[churchrd]

"I think the solution is to add software compressors/limiters to the playback devices themselves, while keeping the music uncompressed. This will allow the listener to adjust the level of compression based on a) their personal preference, and b) their listening environment."

That's a great idea! We have the tech now, to make devices with their own mastering type eq section.
You better get on that!

Totally agree with the rest of what you said too. It's gotten way out of hand, but there is a place for compressing a mix.

[stockyjoe]

The music should sound the way it was recorded period. If people want to enhance the bass or punch get a damn EQ. Dont process the music itself.

[Evan360]

As an amateur producer myself, I rarely compress anything. Usually just the drums, and a very tiny bit at that. When I want a PUNCH out of a bass drum, I'll EQ it. No reason to destroy the artists work with compression.

[funkyboot]

BTW, the trend of over-compressing remasters of classic albums seems to have stopped as labels appear to be treating their back catalogs with some respect. The new remasters of R.E.M.'s IRS catalog sound great (kudos to Greg Calbi), the new remaster of The Stone Roses debut album isn't overcompressed, same for the Neil Young remasters, and there's been a lot of talk about how the dynamics have been preserved on the new Beatles remasters (particularly the mono mixes). So at least some labels/artists are getting their CD remasters right and putting out good products.

[soundman45]

Unfortunately the music industries realization that they have comprimised many classic recordings does not fix the problem. The sad fact is that due to the slow death of the compact disc, these recordings may never be remastered again or unless some new hi res, hi bit format is widely accepted, which I seriously doubt. As a consumer and a recording engineer it really pisses me off. The record companies took my money when CD's were originally released, often times with second generation masters and lousy 16 bit converters. Then they re-release them(probably from the first generation master tapes) with 20 or 24 bit resolution only to squash the living daylights out them with dynamic compression. It's a joke. As a technician, I hate the sound of overcompression. If it has some artistic purpose in the final mix of the tune and was intended by the artist so be it, but to overcompress something just so it can be as loud as the previous tune in a playlist with a totally different artist is really insane. The fact is there are processes in the back end of the playback medium that are in place to compensate for difference in volume, ie radios station compressors, mp3 compression. Once a song is overcompressed there is no way to reverse the effect. It's captured that way forever.

[stockyjoe]

The problem is that most of these music studio engineers doing this for mass production are mastering this music considering that everyone wants the compressions because they are on their Ipods listening to music on chincy earphones in traffic etc. They need to stop doing that, Master it clean and let the user decide how they wan to enhance it. Some of us actually listen to music on a nice sound system with nice speakers. Its good to know some artists actually put out good remasters but this unfortunately is not the norm.

[zyxxy]

Excellent link. Thanks. That is a great demonstration of a process technique that has bothered me for years.

[TheTurntableFactory]

Cool article. Over compressed and poorly engineered albums have become somewhat of a nuisance of late. I agree, that some medium like radio, LPs, cassette tapes, and iPods generally sound better with some compression. But I'm not always a fan of it, especially when over zealous sound engineers compress music so much, that it just sounds bad.

[TXinD76121]

I'm just guessing, but I think one of the reasons recorded music-product is over-compressed is similar to the reason most of what we used to call "AM" recordings have their lowest sounds around 300-500 hertz--in that case, it's because cheap car radios can't reproduce sounds below 300-500 hertz, so any information you put down there is lost. So why is music over-compressed? Because enough people (historically) listen in the car that music has to sound good in the car. And in the car there is no silence. The music has to rise to a certain consistent level to drown out road noise / wind noise / traffic noise etc. That's why classical music is so unsatisfying to listen to in the car--it depends on silences, the soft bits, and dynamic contrasts...which, in the car, just allows other noise to interfere. Better turn to heavily compressed oldie / rock / pop / hiphop that can create a wash of constant noise to overcome the ambient noise.

An interesting question: as more people listen on earbuds, will that trend change? I've never heard music on a pair of earbuds, so I don't know what conditions pertain...although I recall that with headphones, being surprised by sudden loud transients can be unsettling, or even painful, and hence undesirable. Maybe not everybody feels that way.

Blue Mikey

[wavjockey]

Blue,

About the earbud question:

Depending on the type of ear bud, the problem might get worse. The typical "at-ear" buds let too much sound in from the outside, thus requiring an increase in volume to hear music over extraneous noise. Over-compressed music will sound better in this situation.

"In-ear" buds, the ones that are really ear plugs with transducers, acoustically seal out noise (without electronic cancellation) allowing for listening at lower, safer volumes. With this type of ear bud, less-compressed music will shine.

Unfortunately, these type of buds tend to cost MORE than the player they're connected to.
If your not an audiophile, it's hard to justify buying a $200 set of buds for a $50 MP-3 player.

[minimalist]

Having nice earbuds makes for a very different experience. However, they also highlight the limitations of portable players. Listen to an iPod with Shure earbuds and you'll quickly hear the distortion introduced by a tiny amplifier trying to drive that extra deep bass.

[half_n_half17]

Steve, love it that you are putting this out for people to talk about! Perhaps you can mention to the engineer on the 404 podcast that they need to use MORE compression the next time you're on the show. The dynamic range between Wilson's whisper quiet talking voice and his jarringly loud kackle makes for a frustrating car listening experience.

[mavfan2]

Agree 100%. That can be a painful show to listen to, A little better now than it was earlier this year but still needs work. Indecent Exposure also has improved after having god-awful sound early on. One host almost whispering and the other speaking at a normal volume it really needed some compression. All the other shows seem fine except sometimes BOL will have a soft-talker.

[Vesicant]

"Loudness War"? Gee, Steve, been reading chapter 7 of "Perfecting Sound Forever" by Greg Milner, have we? How about a little credit where credit's due?

[deepcloud]

I don't care of something is overcompressed or not. Some of you are not music fans, I'm sure of that. Did you all have $10,000 hifi setups in your bedroom growing up? I certainly didn't. I was lucky to have a single speaker radio that was a hand me down. I have a huge music collection (over 5500 CDs, many that I obtained while working as a rep for Elektra many moons ago) that I listen to in the car, in my ipod, and on my home stereo. The first thing I do when I wake up or have guests over is reach for a CD or record (or even my ipod) that matches my mood. I do not say to myself "Gee, I would love to put [insert band here] but the mastering is just so compressed." Music fans have never really cared too much about quality, believe it or not. Half of my favorite songs I first fell in love with on an AM radio in my bedroom. Of course I'm reading about this on a computer webpage, so I really shouldn't be surprised. It is similar to what has happened to photography. Tech morons have invaded that artform as well...

[BlackSoultan]

As a fan, I agree. Only a prick would make that comparison. You really can't tell the difference between well mastered Phonograph or cd recordings versus so called overly compressed audio files unless you play them back to back. Seriously, what kind of a jerk would do that? Usually, your ears will adjust. You only notice a problem during the first few seconds of a song (within reason). After that, you're just diggin' the tunes! (yes, I said "diggin' the tunes").

However, as an artist, I am neurotic about sound quality, because I'm an underground rapper. I do not have access to the big time studios and engineers. Sometimes, I'm not in a real studio at all, but in my producer's apartment with less than optimal conditions. In such a scenario, I am a stickler for good mixing. If done all that I can to learn what I can about the engineering process. I feel it is important as an artist presenting his craft to be concerned about the sound quality one time at the source. Luckily, as a rap artist, compression's not a problem. We over compress EVERYTHING. Long as the frequency range is clear and "it bangs", we hood. (I'd post a link to my music, but I don't know if I can. Lemme try:) http://bit.ly/a_dpro <-- none of that is mastered, but some of that bangs harder than the rest because of the use of different engineers.

[TCrimson05]

I love music, And i'm not sure i'd consider myself an audiophile or not...but I could hear a difference. Good point.

[ohjoy]

All excellent points. I understand the reasoning behind compression and my guess is that the main reason compression came to be is more for radio. The problem being when played back on a hi-end audio system it truly distroys the sound quality of the music. The answer would have been to develop a compression integrated into the radios or have a button you could turn on or off on the radio that accomplished the same thing and we could then have the best of both worlds.

I truly beleive that its the radio stations are the ones that dictated to the recording industry that we need to use compression in the recordings. Its really a shame.

Kevin

[mike2100]

Can someone please post a resource that lists high quality, low compression albums? I'd like to buy a few to hear what I'm missing. Thanks!

[stockyjoe]

An easy way. Get a decent turntable on ebay hook it up to a halfway decent receiver and buy an LP at an old record store. Plug in some headphones or better yet some decent speakers. You'll be suprised even that will sound fuller and richer.

[funkyboot]

Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs makes audiophile masters of classic albums. They do CD and vinyl, but it seems they can only sell the albums until their supply runs out. Here's a link:

http://www.mofi.com/productcart/pc/home.asp

[Saltiva]

Is this why my old folks tell me all the time that the records sound so much better? Maybe Apple should invent a fashionably portable record player you can wear around your neck.

[disco-legend-zeke]

Bands that play live can suffer the same problem... They ramp up the volume untill its all one compressed stream at the legal limit.

But nothing sounds loud... As sound gets louder, the ear dials down, even levels that cause deafness don't SEEM loud to the listener.

OK Musicians here's the solution:

IF YOU WANT TO SOUND LOUD, LEARN TO PLAY SOFT.

The ear senses the difference in loudness, not the absolute SPL.

[lkrupp]

Classical music (orchestral, instrumental, vocal) can have a tremendous dynamic range. Dynamic range compression can iterally kill the effect of masterpieces like Debussy's "La Mer" for example. It's difficult to listen to recordings of such works on digital music players after having heard them live in a concert hall perfomred by an orchestra like the St. Louis Symphony.

[brumtech]

Literally kill? I think you mean figuratively.

[alegr]

On the other hand, live uncompressed performance can be very difficult to listen to in a uncompressed record, because you can not always get rid of ambient noise. For example, Mahler's 9th. You simply can't hear the softest places.

[joshdeboer]

Yes it is!

[SKITTLE_LA]

I think compression should stop completely. Post a explanation about it not being compressed or something-I don't know, but it seems to ruin the music somewhat. Cool video,

[rpvitiello]

I agree if you just want to sit down and enjoy music the compression messes it up.

I see no reason for it in a modern car anyway. most cars have automatic volume leveling built in that raises and lowers the volume of the music dynamically to compensate for engine and road noise. No reason to destroy the original recording when the stereo can do it on the fly.

I'm no "audiophile" and i am pretty young so most music i heard on CD is probably over compressed. I honestly just though it was the dynamic range limitation of CD's that always made them sound more "flat" than a live performance. I do have an auditory processing problem, where i have trouble separating out sounds and voices from one another. This "leveling" of the music actually makes some songs really hard for me to decipher or hear. The drums and vocals and everything else all just blend together. Uncompressed music seams MUCH easier to listen to.

[wmyinzer]

bravo...you're right on with all this.

[gunslinger02]

Wow, just want to say what a great article this was. I had heard about this, but the article and corresponding link really shed a light on it. Thank you for imparting this.

[Eurostar7]

Sorry im not an expert at music but why compress music at all? Unless you have trouble storing it in CDs/DVDs or Hard Drives i dont see why the need for compressing any piece of digital information. Am i missing something here? If so, please explain.

[stockyjoe]

I agree completely. The whole issue about file size is moot. Its just something people accept because most gen y people dont know any better.

[half_n_half17]

They're not talking about file size compression, the article is talking about the dynamic range of sound - the difference between the quiet parts of a song and the loud parts. So if you make the quiet parts loud by using compression, all you have is one compressed mess that doesn't resemble how real music sounds.