Why do album mixers use limiters to crush dynamics?

[tallbeardedone]

Does anyone know why they overuse the limiter to crush the dynamics and raise the perceived loudness of certain recordings?

Adele 21 comes to mind. On a good stereo the mix of that album is unlistenable. It’s strident and there’s no separation between Adele’s voice, the instruments, and the backing vocals. When you turn it up to find her voice it only gets worse. It’s just a horrible wall of sound that I want to turn down.

This is due to the mix. The mixer has used a limiter to raise the perceived loudness of the track by increasing the volume of quietest sounds while the peaks are compressed. It sounds flat awful and it’s such a shame because Adele has such a wonderful voice.

Why do they do this? I want a great recording of Adele that brings her to life in my listening room. Not this strident mess.

And why don’t they at least release a un-crushed version? Surely that would be a huge money maker?

What am I missing?

 

[JSmith]

raise the perceived loudness

Likely;

What's the loudness war?

Ever wondered why some songs are so much louder than others? Let's dig into the Loudness War: how it started, and how it ended.

www.soundguys.com

Album list - Dynamic Range DB

JSmith

 

[oleg87]

Because for every person listening to piece of popular music on a quality system in a quiet environment, you have 10 people listening to music in cars, on tiny phone and computer speakers, on bottom-of-the-barrel headphones, in stores, restaurants, parties, clubs, etc. They don't care about dynamic range, they want to hear the music.

 

[Newman]

I want a great recording of Adele that brings her to life in my listening room

19 is your best bet.

 

[charleski]

All the above, but also ... sheer laziness. Adele's 21 is a classic example of an album that sounds awful because the mastering engineer (Name and Shame: Tom Coyne of Sterling Sound) simply dumped a hard limiter on the mix and clipped the peaks, resulting in grotesque clipping distortion that is particularly obnoxious on this sort of music. There are ways to increase the loudness of a track without clipping, but they require a bit more work than Mr Coyne was willing to put into it.

 

[Newman]

Why do they do this?

To make every note completely audible on every system in every environment. When the audience is that big, 99% of buyers will have no interest in sound quality.

 

[oleg87]

All the above, but also ... sheer laziness. Adele's 21 is a classic example of an album that sounds awful because the mastering engineer (Name and Shame: Tom Coyne of Sterling Sound) simply dumped a hard limiter on the mix and clipped the peaks, resulting in grotesque clipping distortion that is particularly obnoxious on this sort of music. There are ways to increase the loudness of a track without clipping, but they require a bit more work than Mr Coyne was willing to put into it.

Not that I care much for this practice, but a bit of distorted harmonic sizzle may be desirable for making a mix sound "punchier" and cut through a little better. I suspect the mastering engineers are competent professionals who are perfectly capable of making the record sound clean and dynamic, but I doubt that's what they're being paid to deliver.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Not being pedantic, but the mastering guy is who decides the level of crush. Worse 21 garnered a bunch of awards including 2 Grammy awards. Disgraceful.

I fully agree with your description of it. What is worse is the later albums by her are even worse (yes it is possible).

I don't get it. You can do enough compression to listen in cars, on the phone etc without this being the result. It is some sort of sickness that pervades the industry. Some mastering people will try and tell you that you are wrong not to prefer it because the result represents superior mastering beyond just the loudness.

 

[charleski]

Not that I care much for this practice, but a bit of distorted harmonic sizzle may be desirable for making a mix sound "punchier" and cut through a little better. I suspect the mastering engineers are competent professionals who are perfectly capable of making the record sound clean and dynamic, but I doubt that's what they're being paid to deliver.

No. There are no excuses for this. The 'punchy' distorted sound isn't present on the vinyl version. Maybe he could have done a better job, but the fact is he didn't.

 

[xaviescacs]

10

let it be 1000...

 

[DJNX]

Well, the loudness war is a race to the bottom, so the competency of the mastering engineer is not indicative of anything in particular.
However, you have to keep in mind two things:

1. For a loud master you need to begin the process at the mixing stage (no prior coordination or agreement between mixing and mastering engineer needed).
2. Getting a loud master like the one OP mentions is actually difficult for an inexperienced audio engineer. Crushing a song like this is a craft of knowing where and how you can transform headroom into loudness.

 

[lokkerman]

The demon of the piece is the look ahead limiter/compressor, a standard plug-in, it appears in most mastering engineers toolbox.

There are a bunch of us in other circles that have learnt how to technically remove this aberration and boy don't they (the demastered versions) sound better.

 

[Pluto]

the mastering guy is who decides the level of crush

It ain't necessarily so…

and it isn't nearly that simple. Sometimes, the record company (i.e. the A&R department funding the production) will demand a certain loudness (”I want it louder than…”). Sometimes they will use a particular recording/mastering engineer because of that individual's ability or reputation for a particular style.

Most of the engineers I know will simply say “OK” to whatever the client asks. It's a very brave (and rare) specimen who will resist the client's demands, advising against what the client (thinks) he wants.

It's largely a matter of experience and hierarchies. If the individual calling the shots (i.e. the keeper of the wallet) accepts that the people making the record have good things to bring to the party, their view will be accepted. But there is no underestimating the arrogance of an A&R man with a few big hits under his belt, especially if that individual is a frustrated creative who is determined to make a ‘contribution’ to the process.

 

[Rja4000]

In the old years of FM, frequency modulation width was strictly regulated (and, in most countries, by law).
So peak levels had to remain under strict limits.

Still, when seeking for music, the average listener was attracted by a louder, clearer sound. So the louder the sound appeared, the more audience the radio (and the music) was likely to attract.

So the only way to sound louder was to compress, shrinking the crest factor: the average level is raised while the peak remains. And the average level is what actually gives this loudness feeling.

Today, there are more clever regulations in place, and more clever instruments to measure this as well.

But, still, the trend remains (for now).
Also because cheap streaming "sounds" better if the sound is more compressed upper in the process.

Hopefully, the streaming constraints diminishing and the laws becoming more in favor or more reasonable compression, this trend will change sooner or later...

 

[Waxx]

Pluto is right, it's the A&R manager who decide this, and the mastering engineer needs to follow or he will lose the job. The story goes that Bob Ludwig was fist asked to do the mastering but he refused to crush it so hard, so they went to Sterling sound, who do all you ask (which is also why Bob Ludwig left it long ago while he was one of the seniors in that company).

It's not the mastering engineer who does that out of free will, it's the A&R manager who pushes it with financial means to get the loudest.

 

[RayDunzl]

Somebody should show the A&R guys where the volume knob is, and provide detailed instruction about how to operate it.

 

[fpitas]

And why don’t they at least release a un-crushed version? Surely that would be a huge money maker?

What am I missing?

They might make a few bucks, but maybe not even recoup the costs of making and distributing an "audiophile" version. Got to keep in mind, we're in a strange little bubble of high-fidelity here.

 

[Frgirard]

Does anyone know why they overuse the limiter to crush the dynamics and raise the perceived loudness of certain recordings?

Adele 21 comes to mind. On a good stereo the mix of that album is unlistenable. It’s strident and there’s no separation between Adele’s voice, the instruments, and the backing vocals. When you turn it up to find her voice it only gets worse. It’s just a horrible wall of sound that I want to turn down.

This is due to the mix. The mixer has used a limiter to raise the perceived loudness of the track by increasing the volume of quietest sounds while the peaks are compressed. It sounds flat awful and it’s such a shame because Adele has such a wonderful voice.

Why do they do this? I want a great recording of Adele that brings her to life in my listening room. Not this strident mess.

And why don’t they at least release a un-crushed version? Surely that would be a huge money maker?

What am I missing?

the music is a business.
the Mastering operator (no the mixing operator) do what the producer ask: loud, loud and more loud.

you are the product, do not forget .

the loudnesswar start with Metallica in the 90's with Bob Ludwig , where was you since ?

 

[Mnyb]

They might make a few bucks, but maybe not even recoup the costs of making and distributing an "audiophile" version. Got to keep in mind, we're in a strange little bubble of high-fidelity here.

Could work nowadays no physical media needed and there are sites selling HiRez versions, this could be the HiRez version
Next problem the sites that sells so called HiRez does not really care either :/

 

[BeerBear]

And why don’t they at least release a un-crushed version? Surely that would be a huge money maker?

Unfortunately, no. Most people either don't know or care enough to "vote with their wallet" and boycott bad sounding releases. If a musician is famous enough, the record is going to sell well, regardless of the sound quality.

And people who listen critically on hi-fi systems are more likely to play genres like classical, acoustic etc. Those tend to have much higher dynamic range. Whereas top40 pop music is more likely to be played in a shopping mall or on built-in phone speakers... where the priorities are different.

So I'm pessimistic about consumers fixing this mess through market dynamics. At least not until enough people get educated on this issue.
But you can always contact the people involved in production (the artists, the business guys and the technical staff) and let them know what you think.

Not being pedantic, but the mastering guy is who decides the level of crush.

Not always. The infamous Death Magnetic was crushed in the mix and IIRC the decision was made by the producer and the band.

Could work nowadays no physical media needed and there are sites selling HiRez versions, this could be the HiRez version

I don't want people to get the wrong idea, that a "hirez" format is needed for high dynamic range. 16bit is plenty.
There are accessible technical means to compress music on demand. So we could do that when needed (shopping mall, phone speakers...) and let everyone else enjoy better sound.