ahah funny
anyway, it depends of the music style and the effect you want with the mastering. I guess some styles require more compression to make more effect.
But some overdo it, like for example the last Metallica album, it clearly destroys the sound. The drums sound really bad with all that compression going on, the sound is way too clipped

People clearly get too accustomed to what they are hearing. I used to have an amp that had a "give insane amounts of bass buton". I almost reached the point where I got used to it at that level, and thought there wasn't anywhere near enough bass with it off. I've come to my senses since then, but clearly my idea of flat frequency response was very much off. Likewise when listening to a clearer hifi, you don't notice the extra details until you get used to the sound, but once you do you can rediscover old records, and you'll notice how bad your less detailed system sounds in comparison. So for people used to compressed music, the lack of awfulness in the unmastered audio is less apparent.

I think we can almost say everything is suffering with this "NEW ERA MODE".

For graphics, more contrast equals to better.

(First pic: CryEngine 3, a "better" and newer engine for consoles (or shall we say a lot less detailed and filled with contrast?). Second pic: original CryEngine 2 engine for PC (not so much contrast and much more realistic and detailed.))

To music, louder also means better. The more clipping you get, the better.

Quote from Velociround :

I think we can almost say everything is suffering with this "NEW ERA MODE".

Its the same with films as well. They're so contrasty they're almost in primary colours. Heck, even photography suffers from it in many cases. It may be I have finally crossed the line into "old fart" and just not understanding the kids and their ways, but this seriously depresses me.

I've become irritated by "trendy" filming techniques, too. Hand-held, perpetually in-motion cameras, constantly and rapidly zooming in and out.. it's a technique that had its place (ONCE, in "Blair Witch") but which has spread everywhere. It even crops up in "Dragon's Den", FFS, in a studio.

The new Star Trek film's gone one further, compounding the lousy camera work with a mind-boggling inundation of fake lens flare. It's all so in-your-face, it makes my eyes bleed.

Am I old? Hell yeah.

Heh, I can agree with the overuse of ShakyCam™

Quote from SamH :

The new Star Trek film's gone one further, compounding the lousy camera work with a mind-boggling inundation of fake lens flare. It's all so in-your-face, it makes my eyes bleed.

I haven't seen the new Star Trek film (but 'hahaha' to you for paying to see it ) but I can imagine the writing is worse than the production style. I hate that JJ Abrams cock and everything he does, what a 'kin charlatan.

Quote from NotAnIllusion :

Heh, I can agree with the overuse of ShakyCam™

one of the things I hate about the otherwise superb "Bourne" films, you can't follow the fist fights cause the camera aims to the guys feets every third second

Quote from SamH :

I've become irritated by "trendy" filming techniques, too. Hand-held, perpetually in-motion cameras, constantly and rapidly zooming in and out.. it's a technique that had its place (ONCE, in "Blair Witch") but which has spread everywhere. It even crops up in "Dragon's Den", FFS, in a studio.

The new Star Trek film's gone one further, compounding the lousy camera work with a mind-boggling inundation of fake lens flare. It's all so in-your-face, it makes my eyes bleed.

Am I old? Hell yeah.

I agree. It is getting over used nowadays though some programmes some of the time I do think it looks good. The first time, I really noticed it was in Firefly which I think was made better at the time for the shakeycam and the “zoom in too far then zoom out a bit” cam. Gave some of the scenes a real sense of urgency. However, yes it is being overused now as it seems to be in so many films and programmes. You mention the new Star Trek, the first time I watched I noticed the lens flair but the shakeycam less though re-watching though I have. In battle scenes when camera is following a group running or on a ship shaking and moving around, I can live with it as (if done right) adds to the depth of the battle. It is when it is used in normal scenes that just make no sense.

You’re not old though, you just remember the good ol’ days lol.

On topic though: Bob is right, you do get used to different things. Due to the amount of travelling I do, with 99% of it on public transport I have gotten quite used to the sound of my ipod. When I get the chance though to listen music properly, you can notice the difference and I still do. Though I don’t always notice the differences (or the full amount of difference) unless I have got the ‘original’ to listen to also. Taking the example that has been used, Metallica: Death Magnetic, it is noticeable on the CD alone. Quite sometime ago I downloaded the ‘originals’ and it is so much better and I haven’t listened to the original CD since.

In slight defence for mp3 players: For a cost effective way to make large volumes of music portable while listening to it you can’t beat them IMO. Though it annoys me when people have mp3’s the are low bitrates. Its not like mp3’s take up that much hard drive space at high bitrates.

I do not understand why the music industry feel the need to do this though. They can give reasons but in my eyes there is no valid reason to do it and they should stop. Bring back people who can actually sing too, not ‘singers’ who have the vocal track edited so they actually hit the notes they were trying to.

Quote from The Moose :

Great example

Here's an even better one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UjQc0dM4H4&NR=1

Compression is the name of the game. It's not the actual loudness that's the problem but the amount of compression that needs to be applied to the master in order to achieve the higher average volume levels demanded by todays music execs.

It just sucks all the life out of the music and robs the musicians of a large part of their musical expression.

Quote from lovretta :

Since i'm not a big fan of metallica, i didn't actually heard how bad it was.

I found this example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRyIACDCc1I
sorry if some of you posted it, but i just cannot believe my ears!

.

First thing I notice, (being an ex recreational drummer), about the two versions is how the CD version looses all of the dynamics and even a lot of the timbre of the high-hat. On the GH version you can hear it peak and decay and how the timbre changes as it does so. On the CD version it's just a mono-tonal splash.

Quote from SamH :

I've become irritated by "trendy" filming techniques, too. Hand-held, perpetually in-motion cameras, constantly and rapidly zooming in and out.. it's a technique that had its place (ONCE, in "Blair Witch") but which has spread everywhere. It even crops up in "Dragon's Den", FFS, in a studio.

The new Star Trek film's gone one further, compounding the lousy camera work with a mind-boggling inundation of fake lens flare. It's all so in-your-face, it makes my eyes bleed.

Am I old? Hell yeah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0e6cyoI1xY

I wanted to listen to Alan, but I was just laughing at the camerawork all the way through!

Quote from Timdpr :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0e6cyoI1xY

I wanted to listen to Alan, but I was just laughing at the camerawork all the way through!

Yeah what the hell was all that about? Maybe they had an ADHD work experience cameraman that day.

Quote from Timdpr :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0e6cyoI1xY

I wanted to listen to Alan, but I was just laughing at the camerawork all the way through!

I just find Alan Davies acting serious very odd somehow.

But yeah, what the heck, its distracting.

While compression ('loudness war type') is a real problem for quality sound, usually people who come up with these arguments (and are right) then loose most of their credibility claiming 128kbit mp3 is horrible and only 320 is good enough, yet pretty much nobody can separate them in a blind test..

Compression of the non mp3/wma type, i.e. the 'loudness war' is a real issue. I play some drums and with todays records its really hard to listen what the drummer plays exactly. Was that a floor tom or a bassdrum? Crash cymbals or open hihat? Its just a mass of noise.

Its a mass market thing, most people don't play LFS but rather go for a shallow unrealistic flashy race game. Most people wouldn't know good sound quality if it peed into their ears.. but there is always a market for quality, also with music, but its few and far between.

The most hilarious thing is, with most recordings you really wouldn't even hear a proper difference if it was 8bit. 16 bit, i.e. the CD standard, has some 90 decibels of dynamic range. This is a silly amount because in order to actually hear this range, you'd go rather deaf. 90 decibels of music is really quite loud, and 90 decibels on top of a 'just audible' signal will make your ears bleed! It also plays sounds up to 20khz which most adults don't hear and most cheap sound systems barely play.

Yet people seem to want more bits with super audio cds or blue ray or whatever and a higher sampling rate. Its funny

- The CD was launched, we had 20..20.000hz and 90db of dynamic range. Sorted!
- Recordings get more and more compressed, to the point where in some cases 8bit 32khz wouldn't really sound any worse
- standards change with dvd audio / SACD / Blue ray! Higher sampling rates and resolution because we can!
- hmm lets compress that audio a bit more..

Any advancements in 2 channel audio post the cd are not necessary from a sound quality perspective, yet they raised the numbers.. And the actual recording quality has gone down.

Sad eh!

Oh and an 8 bit audio file has only 128 different levels of 'loudness'. 16bit has some 32768 different levels of loudness.. Yet really, a compressed loud tune, you'd barely hear any difference if it was 8 bit.

sigh! .. oh! good morning :P