Headphones + Mastering

[Flynny]

My phone is pretty handy for music, and if possible I really don't want to have to purchase a seperate MP3 player. The more it does the better, frankly. I find it incredibly annoying, though, very, in fact, that the makers of said phone seem not to have realised that people might want to listen to things mastered before, say, 1992, in an environment approximately as loud as, say, a city bus.

And I don't know whether to be more angry at modern dull mastering processes that make everything needlessly flat just in case its ever on the radio, or Nokia.

[Koke]

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Guest]

My phone is pretty handy for music, and if possible I really don't want to have to purchase a seperate MP3 player. The more it does the better, frankly. I find it incredibly annoying, though, very, in fact, that the makers of said phone seem not to have realised that people might want to listen to things mastered before, say, 1992, in an environment approximately as loud as, say, a city bus.

And I don't know whether to be more angry at modern dull mastering processes that make everything needlessly flat just in case its ever on the radio, or Nokia.

I'd be, and indeed am, more angry at the current tendency to squeeze the fecking life out of music even before it goes out on radio.

What would be handier is if mp3 players etc. had a compressor plug-in or something similar that we could use. The 'sound-check' function on ipods is arse, because again it comes back to how it was mixed/mastered as to how loud it sounds once it brings everything up to a peak

[The People's Hero]

I've got no idea what you're talking about.

I think I'm interested though - so could you explain this to me?

[Flynny]

I've got no idea what you're talking about.

I think I'm interested though - so could you explain this to me?

I'll do something with pictures when I'm not about to jump in the shower.

[The People's Hero]

Thanks!

Also, I had a 20 minute chat (or thereabouts) - (it was a one way chat really) with someone about bluetooth headphones for listening to music on an mp3 player.

I have an ipod and I use the bundled buds.

I'm an idiot aren't I?

I've always thought they were rubbish but I'm a bit scared of spending money on headphones as I don't know what I'm doing.

[shen]

Thanks!

Also, I had a 20 minute chat (or thereabouts) - (it was a one way chat really) with someone about bluetooth headphones for listening to music on an mp3 player.

I have an ipod and I use the bundled buds.

I'm an idiot aren't I?

I've always thought they were rubbish but I'm a bit scared of spending money on headphones as I don't know what I'm doing.

You can never go wrong with a pair of Sennheiser headphones, even the cheap ones

[Lillehamring]

My phone is pretty handy for music, and if possible I really don't want to have to purchase a seperate MP3 player. The more it does the better, frankly. I find it incredibly annoying, though, very, in fact, that the makers of said phone seem not to have realised that people might want to listen to things mastered before, say, 1992, in an environment approximately as loud as, say, a city bus.

And I don't know whether to be more angry at modern dull mastering processes that make everything needlessly flat just in case its ever on the radio, or Nokia.

read that back and have a think about what you're on about....

mp3.....mobile phone.....crap sound..... come on, lad, what do you expect - as soon as you drop to mp3 you lose masses, going to head phones you decrease frequency range (usually) and add in to this the inevitable drop in the size of your signal-noise ratio, and it's bound to sound crap especially if it's pre-digital recording/mastering where you will have lost some more sound in the analogue-digital transfer...

your average teenage phone owner probably only listens to justin timberlake and that annoying indian dance music they play out loud at 8bit on buses in leicester...most people who own a cell phone probably haven't listen to an analogue recording, at least not in the last 15 years anyway

such is the price we pay for convenience and handiness, same reason we all accept blotchy tv screens just to save a foot and and half of depth...

welcome to the digital age, modern man

[Dr The Singh]

Thanks!

Also, I had a 20 minute chat (or thereabouts) - (it was a one way chat really) with someone about bluetooth headphones for listening to music on an mp3 player.

I have an ipod and I use the bundled buds.

I'm an idiot aren't I?

I've always thought they were rubbish but I'm a bit scared of spending money on headphones as I don't know what I'm doing.

I bought some headphones from the 99p store, work a treat!!!

[Flynny]

I've got no idea what you're talking about.

I think I'm interested though - so could you explain this to me?

Basically, at some point in the early-mid 90's it became standard practice to master things as loudly as possible, epecially if they were going to be on the radio. Once one lot of people started doing this everyone followed suit for fear of their stuff sounding flat and quiet by comparison. (As I'm writing some mormons have just knocked at the door, incredible). Involved in this is a bit of clipping and a reduction in the variation of noise levels which is generally bad practice. So obviously everyone and their dog does it because they're dicks.

So you get something like this, which is the Pixies in 1989

To Muse in 1999

I admit my knowledge of this is a touch patchy to say the least, but I'm fairly certain I've said nothing wrong here.

read that back and have a think about what you're on about....

mp3.....mobile phone.....crap sound..... come on, lad, what do you expect - as soon as you drop to mp3 you lose masses, going to head phones you decrease frequency range (usually) and add in to this the inevitable drop in the size of your signal-noise ratio, and it's bound to sound crap especially if it's pre-digital recording/mastering where you will have lost some more sound in the analogue-digital transfer...

your average teenage phone owner probably only listens to justin timberlake and that annoying indian dance music they play out loud at 8bit on buses in leicester...most people who own a cell phone probably haven't listen to an analogue recording, at least not in the last 15 years anyway

such is the price we pay for convenience and handiness, same reason we all accept blotchy tv screens just to save a foot and and half of depth...

welcome to the digital age, modern man

My mobile is pretty good actually, it plays things properly and not at a reduced sample rate like my old one. MP3 isn't bad when you're talking about high-quality VBRs, either.

I just want manufacturers to take into account that some stuff isn't as loud as everything now.

I bought some headphones from the 99p store, work a treat!!!

£4.25 ones from argos have lovely bass on them, fit my ears perfectly, and are, most importantly, £4.25.

[The People's Hero]

I read Stuff and T4 and all that sh it.

They all recommend like £150 headphones.

If you've got that sort of money to spend on headphones... well, I'm jealous.

I'll go for the £4.25 ones.

Also - Muscle Museum. What a track.

[Flynny]

Headphones end up wrecked in my pocket after about 6 weeks anyway. If I'd paid more than about 20 quid for them I'd probably start having palpitations.

[Bellend Sebastian]

I read Stuff and T4 and all that sh it.

They all recommend like £150 headphones.

If you've got that sort of money to spend on headphones... well, I'm jealous.

I'll go for the £4.25 ones.

Also - Muscle Museum. What a track.

There's a whole thread on headphones. Consensus suggests that Sennheiser's CX300s (about £18 on Amazon) are where it's at. I love 'em.

I've been listening to the Housemartins a lot recently, and having recently acquired their two studio albums on CD for the first time, which as far as I know have never been remastered or mucked about with, I cannot believe how great they sound. They're not very loud compared with modern recordings, but they sound brilliant - really crisp and detailed sounding. The contrast with recent CDs is remarkable, and it's one of those things where you can genuinely say that things haven't changed for the better.

Why they feel the need to compress the fook out of things to make them louder I've know idea - you can always turn it up if you like it. Bizarre and pointless, although the popularity of mp3 does provide proof that most people aren't really that hung up on sound quality, unlike old saddoes like me

[The People's Hero]

Sennheiser CX300s.

Brilliant. I might get a pair when I'm back to being loaded.

[James.]

Sennheiser CX300s.

Brilliant. I might get a pair when I'm back to being loaded.

The 500's are, unsurprisingly, better.

[The People's Hero]

The 500's are, unsurprisingly, better.

Imagine how good the 2,000s must be!

[Dr The Singh]

Imagine how good the 2,000s must be!

I got 50000, all paid with my EMA cash!!!

[Lillehamring]

Basically, at some point in the early-mid 90's it became standard practice to master things as loudly as possible, epecially if they were going to be on the radio. Once one lot of people started doing this everyone followed suit for fear of their stuff sounding flat and quiet by comparison. (As I'm writing some mormons have just knocked at the door, incredible). Involved in this is a bit of clipping and a reduction in the variation of noise levels which is generally bad practice. So obviously everyone and their dog does it because they're dicks.

So you get something like this, which is the Pixies in 1989

To Muse in 1999

I admit my knowledge of this is a touch patchy to say the least, but I'm fairly certain I've said nothing wrong here.

excellent graphical illustration

at the risk of sounding very anal, the first time i really noticed this trend it was with oasis, their stuff always used to play way louder than anything else...

having said that, the pixies track could have gone a bit higher than that, to be honest, i would suspect that the reason for this is that the pixies was recorded on tape which has a lower SNR than a digital recording, so when they mastered it to CD they, decently i think you'll agree, didn't boost the gain so you get the same level as the original analogue equipment...

the muse track is shocking, so much compression it's effectively acting as a limiter...

[The People's Hero]

I'd love to see the wave pattern of Neil Diamond's - Sweet Caroline.

I've been convinced for years that it would have a secret evil message in (if viewed from a jaunty angle under a full moon whilst not quite drunk but not quite sober).

[mancunianfox]

It was about 95/96 when the trend towards heavy compression and limiting occurred in mastering and its got to the point now where it is like a competition to see who can have the hottest, most compressed and clipped mix. It is insanely annoying, especially when listening to tracks from different era's whose output differs massively.

On the subject of headphones I use CX300 earphones for listening on the move and they are excellent and I'd definatly +1 them. At home or on the train I use close backed Audio Technica headphones because they sound ace and spill very little audio out. I am a polite person really.

[The People's Hero]

Can someone explain the reasoning behind the continuation of his heavy compression?

[Bellend Sebastian]

As far as I know, the main reason is to make tracks sound louder, and I understand that the original reason for which was to give them more impact on the radio. I've also read that they still do it 'because it makes things sound better on Ipods' which sounds like bollocks to me because most people listen to mp3s encoded at low bit rates that sound crap anyway, so how it can make much difference to them I haven't a clue.

All it means in practice is that people that listen to CDs on half decent home audio set ups get pissed off that they don't sound as good as they used to. It's completely bleeding stupid of course, as the only people that are actually bothered are the few people left like me that still buy CDs - just piss off what's left of your customers, guys

[Daggers]

I approve of this thread - I've just come from one where morons were spouting bollocks and it upset me but I am delighted to see clever people talking about sensible stuff.

Bravo.

[Flynny]

Where was this? I might point and laugh.

[Lillehamring]

As far as I know, the main reason is to make tracks sound louder, and I understand that the original reason for which was to give them more impact on the radio. I've also read that they still do it 'because it makes things sound better on Ipods' which sounds like bollocks to me because most people listen to mp3s encoded at low bit rates that sound crap anyway, so how it can make much difference to them I haven't a clue.

All it means in practice is that people that listen to CDs on half decent home audio set ups get pissed off that they don't sound as good as they used to. It's completely bleeding stupid of course, as the only people that are actually bothered are the few people left like me that still buy CDs - just piss off what's left of your customers, guys

yes,

over-compression is just one further example of the vanilla-isation of this world... all compression is actually doing (if used sensibly) is sofetening unnaturally strong peak signal, whilst boosting quiet signals - thus the result is a more 'average' sound level (see fig in flynny's post) - so you get more of the quiet bits, and less of the loud bits...

however, to achieve maximum sound levels across the board, ie over compressing, you have to lower the threshold that the compression kicks in at and boots the ratio by which the low signals are boosted, the result being much more of the peaks are compressed and at a level which is no longer softening, but actually hard-limiting (think decapitation)

also, it looks like it is done on the final mix down rather than specific instruments, which is just blindly crushing anything - thus the lack of subtelty.

hope this helps---

as to why it's done - who knows, some genre's it sort of works, when you distort everything anyway, it doesn't matter so much