"Backspacer: Another Release Ruined By The Loudness War"

jmk

"Pearl Jam - Backspacer: Another Release Ruined By The Loudness War!"
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showt ... backspacer

While there was a lot of discussion about the mastering of the CD of Ten re-issue being mastered too loud, I haven't seen any discussion about the mastering of Backspacer.

There's a discussion on Steve Hoffman Music Forum (the link) and people are saying that Backspacer CD is mastered way too loud, too. The positive side is that they say it's not as bad as Avocado and the Ten re-issue and also the vinyl version gets positive feedback what comes to loudness. There's quite a debate about the loudness level and most people don't think that it's ruined by the loudness war... I'm glad that the mastering is better than Avocado and S/T.

I'm really waiting for the vinyl to arrive from Ten Club...

corduroykelly

Awesome start a forum bitching about loudness there's a new one!
Something new to bitch about!

Wilds

corduroykelly wrote:

Awesome start a forum bitching about loudness there's a new one!
Something new to bitch about!

Don't think the OP was bitching.

NMyTree

jmk wrote:

"Pearl Jam - Backspacer: Another Release Ruined By The Loudness War!"
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showt ... backspacer

While there was a lot of discussion about the mastering of the CD of Ten re-issue being mastered too loud, I haven't seen any discussion about the mastering of Backspacer.

There's a discussion on Steve Hoffman Music Forum and people are saying that Backspacer CD is mastered way too loud, too. The positive side is that they say it's not as bad as Avocado and the Ten re-issue and also the vinyl version gets positive feedback what comes to loudness.

I'm really waiting for the vinyl to arrive from Ten Club...

These people (nor the band) give a rat's @ss about the horrific Loudness and Excessive Compression issue, that's ruining physical media, radio and music in general.

Just start a thread about Ed looking cute in pictures or yet another, in a long line of Pearl Jam praising threads and you'll be golden. They'll love you.

orig_long red

if it's too loud, you're too old.

EvilRabbit

Who knew you could have anally-retentive ears?

Johnnyguitarwatson

Metallica Death magnetic caught hell for this as well... I dont hear any distortion when i turn it up.

jmk

As there was discussion about the loudness on Avocado and Ten Re-issue, I wanted to point out that it's a bit better this time. Maybe some people are interested... I admit that the title of this thread don't really suite the reality but maybe it will bring some readers...

NMyTree

long red wrote:

if it's too loud, you're too old.

You clearly don't understand the concept of EQ Loudness and excessive Compression.

Excessive EQ Loudness robs the music of it's dynamic crescendos and dyanamic peeks. And in doing so, it robs the music of it's soul, natural melodic balance and emotion.

As well, it creates a HUGE amount of nasty, excessively bright and harsh distorion that highlights third order harmonics.

Essentially, what that does....is ...it prevents one from cranking one's stereo system and utilizing one's stereo system at it's best.

hedave

why do you think PJ puts there stuff on vinyl, doucher. music mixes digitally now, homo. are we seriously bitching about this?

NMyTree

hedave wrote:

why do you think PJ puts there stuff on vinyl, doucher. music mixes digitally now, homo. are we seriously bitching about this?

You see, the problem with that is this. If they use the same digital source for the vinyl release (which is what a lot of artists have been doing). As opposed to actually using the orginal analogue master tapes (if there are any) and changing the EQ and compression; then, the vinyl releases are nothing more than a vinyl version of exactly what is ont he CD. And that's a pointless and comepletely defeats the purpose of a vinyl release.

Lennon_Cobain

NMyTree wrote:

long red wrote:

if it's too loud, you're too old.

You clearly don't understand the concept of EQ Loudness and excessive Compression.

Excessive EQ Loudness robs the music of it's dynamic crescendos and dyanamic peeks. And in doing so, it robs the music of it's soul, natural melodic balance and emotion.

As well, it creates a HUGE amount of nasty, excessively bright and harsh distorion that highlights third order harmonics.

Essentially, what that does....is ...it prevents one from cranking one's stereo system and utilizing one's stereo system at it's best.

Finally, a voice of reason. There is a reason why stereo systems have volume controls. Maybe there are a lot of people who only listen to music on crap equipment or iPods and can't hear the difference between a properly mastered CD and a "brickwalled" CD.

Unfortunately, most modern releases are "brickwalled" to some extent. Thankfully, the new remasters of The Beatles stereo CDs sound great.

slightofjeff

I don't even know what the fuck this is supposed to mean.

I guess what you don't know *really* can't hurt you.

orig_long red

NMyTree wrote:

You clearly don't understand the concept of EQ Loudness and excessive Compression.

Excessive EQ Loudness robs the music of it's dynamic crescendos and dyanamic peeks. And in doing so, it robs the music of it's soul, natural melodic balance and emotion.

As well, it creates a HUGE amount of nasty, excessively bright and harsh distorion that highlights third order harmonics.

Essentially, what that does....is ...it prevents one from cranking one's stereo system and utilizing one's stereo system at it's best.

nerd alert.

slightofjeff

long red wrote:

NMyTree wrote:

You clearly don't understand the concept of EQ Loudness and excessive Compression.

Excessive EQ Loudness robs the music of it's dynamic crescendos and dyanamic peeks. And in doing so, it robs the music of it's soul, natural melodic balance and emotion.

As well, it creates a HUGE amount of nasty, excessively bright and harsh distorion that highlights third order harmonics.

Essentially, what that does....is ...it prevents one from cranking one's stereo system and utilizing one's stereo system at it's best.

nerd alert.

Seriously. I put the CD in my CD player. I listen to it. It sounds like music. I try not to get too caught up in pyschoanalyzing the sound.

I suppose some people get their jollies that way. Good on 'em, I guess.

NMyTree

Lennon_Cobain wrote:

NMyTree wrote:

long red wrote:

if it's too loud, you're too old.

You clearly don't understand the concept of EQ Loudness and excessive Compression.

Excessive EQ Loudness robs the music of it's dynamic crescendos and dyanamic peeks. And in doing so, it robs the music of it's soul, natural melodic balance and emotion.

As well, it creates a HUGE amount of nasty, excessively bright and harsh distorion that highlights third order harmonics.

Essentially, what that does....is ...it prevents one from cranking one's stereo system and utilizing one's stereo system at it's best.

Finally, a voice of reason. There is a reason why stereo systems have volume controls. Maybe there are a lot of people who only listen to music on crap equipment or iPods and can't hear the difference between a properly mastered CD and a "brickwalled" CD.

Unfortunately, most modern releases are "brickwalled" to some extent. Thankfully, the new remasters of The Beatles stereo CDs sound great.

I have the new Beatles Remastered Stereo Box set and it sound exceptional!

They did use a very subtle ....tweaky EQ increase. As well as just the right amount of compression. They did it in a very tasteful, respectful and subtle manner. Which is exactly how it should be done. Beautiful sounding!!

norm

slightofjeff wrote:

Seriously. I put the CD in my CD player. I listen to it. It sounds like music. I try not to get too caught up in pyschoanalyzing the sound.

I suppose some people get their jollies that way. Good on 'em, I guess.

jeff you are not being a real fan...don't you know that real fans must criticize and over analyze everything about the new album?

come back when you stop enjoying music and are treating it like an irs audit

thanks!

kiljoythemerciful

NMyTree wrote:

You see, the problem with that is this. If they use the same digital source for the vinyl release (which is what a lot of artists have been doing). As opposed to actually using the orginal analogue master tapes (if there are any) and changing the EQ and compression; then, the vinyl releases are nothing more than a vinyl version of exactly what is ont he CD. And that's a pointless and comepletely defeats the purpose of a vinyl release.

Couldn't the songs be recorded digitally and when put onto CD format be squeezed, brick-walled, etc. But then couldn't that same digital recording be put on a vinyl format and not have to undergo some of the treatment that it would if it was going onto a CD or into a digital file?

In other words, I don't think the loudness factor completely relates to the fact that it was recorded digitally rather it has more to do with how the recordings are transferred and presented on the various formats.

I notice a big difference in sound between my vinyl S/T and cd - more so than I normally notice between the two formats - yet I'm pretty sure it was not an analog recording session.

NMyTree

slightofjeff wrote:

Seriously. I put the CD in my CD player. I listen to it. It sounds like music. I try not to get too caught up in pyschoanalyzing the sound.

I suppose some people get their jollies that way. Good on 'em, I guess.

Yes, I guess I'm a nerd.

Either that, or I'm someone who has more experience and interest in good audio sound.

Some of us grow up listening and playing music. I guess we tend to listen to the music more and appreciate when a producer/engineer/artist really put an effort into creating a work of art ....with wonderful audio quality.

You're right, though. A lot people, especially these days; simply don't know any better. Because they've been force-fed Brickwalled (excessive Loundness) EQing and excessive compression....their whole lives. So they think that's the only way a music mix can sound.

But once you sit down and listen to what a truely quality recording and mix sounds like. You want all music to be that high of a quality.

slightofjeff

NMyTree wrote:

slightofjeff wrote:

Seriously. I put the CD in my CD player. I listen to it. It sounds like music. I try not to get too caught up in pyschoanalyzing the sound.

I suppose some people get their jollies that way. Good on 'em, I guess.

Yes, I guess I'm a nerd.

Either that, or I'm someone who has more experience and interest in good audio sound.

Some of us grow up listening and playing music. I guess we tend to listen to the music more and appreciate when a producer/engineer/artist really put an effort into creating a work of art ....with wonderful audio quality.

You're right, though. A lot people, especially these days; simply don't know any better. Because they've been force-fed Brickwalled (excessive Loundness) EQing and excessive compression....their whole lives. So they think that's the only way a music mix can sound.

But once you sit down and listen to what a truely quality recording and mix sounds like. You want all music to be that high of a quality.

If this is a multiple choice test, I'm going to go with A.

jmk

NMyTree wrote:

hedave wrote:

why do you think PJ puts there stuff on vinyl, doucher. music mixes digitally now, homo. are we seriously bitching about this?

You see, the problem with that is this. If they use the same digital source for the vinyl release (which is what a lot of artists have been doing). As opposed to actually using the orginal analogue master tapes (if there are any) and changing the EQ and compression; then, the vinyl releases are nothing more than a vinyl version of exactly what is ont he CD. And that's a pointless and comepletely defeats the purpose of a vinyl release.

Does Pearl Jam record their music into analogue master tapes or is it recorded digitally somehow?

I know for a fact that everything Jack White is recording/producing or making, may it be the White Stripes, the Raconteurs or the Dead Weather, is recorded on analogue tape but who else does it?

I don't really agree with you on the case of the vinyl and cd sounding the same if there's no original analogue master tape as the source for the vinyl. The vinyl records have better dynamics even though the source is digital.

jmk

kiljoythemerciful wrote:

I notice a big difference in sound between my vinyl S/T and cd - more so than I normally notice between the two formats - yet I'm pretty sure it was not an analog recording session.

Where can we found out how Pearl Jam's albums have been recorded, for a fact? You say you're pretty sure S/T was analogue? Why do you think so?

I remember something about Binaural being the last recorded on analogue tape, but I might be wrong.

NMyTree

kiljoythemerciful wrote:

NMyTree wrote:

You see, the problem with that is this. If they use the same digital source for the vinyl release (which is what a lot of artists have been doing). As opposed to actually using the orginal analogue master tapes (if there are any) and changing the EQ and compression; then, the vinyl releases are nothing more than a vinyl version of exactly what is ont he CD. And that's a pointless and comepletely defeats the purpose of a vinyl release.

Couldn't the songs be recorded digitally and when put onto CD format be squeezed, brick-walled, etc. But then couldn't that same digital recording be put on a vinyl format and not have to undergo some of the treatment that it would if it was going onto a CD or into a digital file?

In other words, I don't think the loudness factor completely relates to the fact that it was recorded digitally rather it has more to do with how the recordings are transferred and presented on the various formats.

I notice a big difference in sound between my vinyl S/T and cd - more so than I normally notice between the two formats - yet I'm pretty sure it was not an analog recording session.

There's no valid reason why music being mixed/EQ'd for CD, has to be highly...excessively compressed.

There are literally hundreds of examples of albums/CDs that are not brickwalled. And they sound beautiful.

I have CD's that sound as good as analogue-based vinyl records, without the weaknesses and flaws of vinyl. Absolutely gbeautiful sounding.

Brickwalling started as a fad, because the Big Labels felt like they needed to do something to get people's attention, through radio stations playing music. They felt like ...if they brickwalled the EQ, that it would jump out and grab people by the balls and get their attention. And with certain types of artists/music...that actually works for it.

But them, they started doing it to all CDs and all artists and genras of music. And that's not a good thing.

There's no valid technical mastering reason or technical requirement for brickwalling CDs. None whatsoever.

It's just a ploy by the big record labels,,,,,which turned into a terrible fad and now......a terrible standard.

NMyTree

jmk wrote:

NMyTree wrote:

hedave wrote:

why do you think PJ puts there stuff on vinyl, doucher. music mixes digitally now, homo. are we seriously bitching about this?

You see, the problem with that is this. If they use the same digital source for the vinyl release (which is what a lot of artists have been doing). As opposed to actually using the orginal analogue master tapes (if there are any) and changing the EQ and compression; then, the vinyl releases are nothing more than a vinyl version of exactly what is ont he CD. And that's a pointless and comepletely defeats the purpose of a vinyl release.

Does Pearl Jam record their music into analogue master tapes or is it recorded digitally somehow?

I know for a fact that everything Jack White is recording/producing or making, may it be the White Stripes, the Raconteurs or the Dead Weather, is recorded on analogue tape but who else does it?

I don't really agree with you on the case of the vinyl and cd sounding the same if there's no original analogue master tape as the source for the vinyl. The vinyl records have better dynamics even though the source is digital.

I didn't say that Cds and vinyl all sound the same. I said that a lot of record labels/engineers are using the same digital source (which is highly brickwalled) for the vinyl versions of their releases. Not all, but a lot.

And no, you don't have to use the same source and the same brickwalled EQ. But a lot do.

SomethingCreative

I really didn't think it was too bad...maybe just me?

NMyTree

kiljoythemerciful wrote:

Couldn't the songs be recorded digitally and when put onto CD format be squeezed, brick-walled, etc. But then couldn't that same digital recording be put on a vinyl format and not have to undergo some of the treatment that it would if it was going onto a CD or into a digital file?

In other words, I don't think the loudness factor completely relates to the fact that it was recorded digitally rather it has more to do with how the recordings are transferred and presented on the various formats.

I notice a big difference in sound between my vinyl S/T and cd - more so than I normally notice between the two formats - yet I'm pretty sure it was not an analog recording session.

All recordings require some compression in the recording process and mixing process.

Preparing for CD and Vinyl requires different adjustments (like the RIAA EQ Curve for vinyl) and processses.

Even in analogue master tapes, there is compression when mixing and preparing for cutting to vinyl. But what were talking about here is gorssly excessive use of comression and EQing.

It's like saying you're going out for a few drinks and you drink a case of beer and down 30 shots of Vodka. Without a doubt,, you'll be fucked up beyond all comprehension and risk your life doing it.

You could have just had a six pack or 7-8 beers and a few shots. And you would have avoided doing that terrible damage to yourself.

Well, Brickwalling EQ is the case of beer and esxcessive compression is the 30 shots of vodka. it's fucked.

12345AGNST1

EVERY new cd is like this. What the hell are you gonna do about it other than bitch and moan?

This cd sounds perfectly fine to me. Especially after the shit distortion on Avocado.

sifoxy

better loud than too late

slightofjeff

sifoxy wrote:

better loud than too late

Nice.

NMyTree

slightofjeff wrote:

sifoxy wrote:

better loud than too late

Nice.

Actually, that was really dumb

If you're going to blurt out some cliche catch phrase, at least come up with something more creative and clever.

NMyTree

long red wrote:

if it's too loud, you're too old.

Or one can argue that someone with this type of cliche catch-phrase rolling off her tounge; is too ignorant to know better. As well as being a mindless sheep.