advertisement


Worst compressed album awards

I also heard PF on the radio in the car driving along, and commented to my wife who who has no interest at all, omg that's horrific what they have done to her voice, how can any pro studio personnel allow that out. Even over the engine noise I could tell, truly horrific.
 
Don't know whether you would call it compressed but Yessongs is atrocious. Were's the bass?
 
TheDecameron, Julf,
There are some horrible ABBA remasters! The original releases aren't compressed though. Maybe it's the tonal balance you don't like?
 
Last edited:
The first thing i do if i hear a popular album that sounds terrible is have a guess who it was mastered by, usually it's "i'mastered by a popular mastering house, the albums they master are awful on any device you care to play them back on! Headphones, in the car, on the hifi, they sound terrible everywhere, you've got to admire their consistency!

The sad thing for me while i'm not up on popular albums and artist, there are some out there twho's work is quite good, but is destroyed because of the sound quality of there albums.

See every Adele/Amy Winehouse album as an example then check where it was mastered.

I'm not surprised Bjork's Album is so bad, they used to be mastered by Sterling sound and were always pretty good, now the are mastered by a different place (Mandy Parnell?), the last few albums have take a bit of nose dive in dynamics.
 
Compressed to constant level - Funeral for a Friend - Memory and Humanity
So bad it looks like the output of a FM signal generator in Audacity
 
Rodrat said:
My beloved was listening to Paloma Faith on the radio this morning and asked me to play her new album. It is on now via Tidal. Jesus it is almost painful it is so compressed. I might as well be listening via a boom box. I have to award it the thread title awards. It is also very prentious.
Click to expand...
I got a copy of the CD before I read this thread. It sounds acceptable to me, but noting that it seems to be deliberately fuzzed for effect. I just turn the volume down a notch.
 
Arkless Electronics said:
I get "pro sound news" delivered and in an interview with some female mixing engineer (who apparently last worked on Bjorks new album) in the latest issue there is a telling comment saying "...and then the all important listening to the final mix to make sure it's not optimised for those listening to it on expensive hi fi systems". This is what we're up against...
Click to expand...

Fascinating, there are a whole breed of mixers who are very adept at producing totally 2 dimensional, in effect mono mixes geared specifically for earbuds and radio. People use them because they have had a few hits and the circle just churns on until the next fad in pop music mixing hoves to , then everyone does that instead. If you gave them much of the "modern" music that has stood the test of time to mix, they really wouldn't have a clue where to start. The truth is, a good mix still shows through as good mix even when its crushed down to 128 mp3 form, there's something you can't expunge from a decent mix. Front to back depth though? Nahhhh forget it, they're mixing to to sound "impressive" rather than sound "good". There's not much you can say is technically "wrong" with that they churn out on the other hand, by dint of its' sonic signature it virtually condemns itself from the word go to almost, instantly "forgettable". It is an art form though, to take often 100+ individual tracks and make it sound like it's the most expensive vocal production ever accompanied often, by a backing that sounds like it's been knocked out on a Casio semi pro keyboard.

The true irony is, the style of mixing all started with mega production bands such as Rush and Tears for Fears back in the 80s. Today's "pop music" production is the direct descendant of those early digital albums. It's characterised by a totally squeaky clean upper mid low treble where virtually all the information resides. It's based on the theory that, "it grabs the listeners attention" and there's a truth in that, the down side? It is so flat and dynamically boring, your ears just close down and it becomes a sort of background wash. It's akin to trying to taste too many flavours in a single mouthful or, wearing a scent that has so many combined there's no real base and it wears off after only 10 mins on the skin.

The simple truth is, a truly good mix sounds decent on pretty much anything you don;t "optimise" it for anything other than it sounding good period.
 
davidsrsb said:
Compressed to constant level - Funeral for a Friend - Memory and Humanity
So bad it looks like the output of a FM signal generator in Audacity
Click to expand...

Oh, I sorted it. You need the Steven Wilson remix. In fact if anyone is buying any album and there is a Steven Wilson option go for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top