I'm In a minority

Brown Dawn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:38 pm **Posts:** 769

vikmarlo wrote:
Brown Dawn wrote:Still haven't heard the new album yet- I know what my ears tell me as regards good production e.g Levitation- Being the eejit that I am I must ask- what is 'compression' anyway? - I was in the back of the queue when it came to computer technology

there are no eejits on this forum !!! just curious minds hungry for knowledge
theres two kinds of audio compression. DRC or Dynamic Range Compression
narrows an audio signal's DNR, thats the ratio between the largest and smallest possible
values of a changeable signal. the effect is reducing the volume of loud sounds and
amplifying quiet sounds.

Audio Data Compression on the other hand, refers to file data compression,
bit-rate reduction by encoding information using fewer bits than the original representation,
such as with mp3 but also can refer to a lossless compression format which is achieved without
sacrificing some sound that may or may not be audible to an individual listener.

Thanks for that - I think I understand now! - As regards the new album - Would it have been much different or better if it wasn't 'compressed' ?

jamun · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2012 10:58 am

Brown Dawn wrote:
vikmarlo wrote:
Brown Dawn wrote:Still haven't heard the new album yet- I know what my ears tell me as regards good production e.g Levitation- Being the eejit that I am I must ask- what is 'compression' anyway? - I was in the back of the queue when it came to computer technology

there are no eejits on this forum !!! just curious minds hungry for knowledge
theres two kinds of audio compression. DRC or Dynamic Range Compression
narrows an audio signal's DNR, thats the ratio between the largest and smallest possible
values of a changeable signal. the effect is reducing the volume of loud sounds and
amplifying quiet sounds.

Audio Data Compression on the other hand, refers to file data compression,
bit-rate reduction by encoding information using fewer bits than the original representation,
such as with mp3 but also can refer to a lossless compression format which is achieved without
sacrificing some sound that may or may not be audible to an individual listener.

Thanks for that - I think I understand now! - As regards the new album - Would it have been much different or better if it wasn't 'compressed' ?

Yes thanks vikmarlo, that was an excellent explaination of Dynamic Range Compression vs Audio Data Compression.

barnetquark · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2012 2:42 pm

JephraimToe wrote:Richard is doing the metal horns under that Badger, his first TV appearance no less!

Nottingham 1990 would be Richard's first TV appearance.

Dell1972 wrote:My first listen to the album I found it painfully in your face, but I have aclimatised to it somewhat now. My take on it is it's perhaps nothing to do with the band. From what I can see, plastichead seem to be effectively a metal label. It's possible the mastering was handled entirely by them, and they just like to have a bit of a Spinal Tap moment when setting the levels. Anyone else got any other Plastichead/Eastworld albums that aren't by Hawkwind? Yuri Gagarin/Text Of Festival after all can't really be used as comparison as they sounded shite in the first place.

I found it compressed and difficult to listen to at first but then it all unravels with repeated listening. This is something I find repeatedly with Hawkwind albums. I'm not a fanboy who is desperate to listen to the record until I 'get it'. It just happens that new Hawkwind albums tend to sound confused, compressed, fuggy, in your face, difficult, yet at the same time quite good and calling you to listen to them again....and again and again...

I love the shiny high production of Space Bandits and Levitation but I like the murky sound of ISOS and In Your Area. Hawkwind have always taken an angle on sound and a nod to the times (if not actually leading them...) - look at the typical 80's and slightly metal production of the RCA albums. High quality recording is good but it can ruin a record. I can't find much wrong with the music on the COTBS album but to my ears the production ruins it. I had trouble liking Alien4 for a while as at that time I was listening to a lot of average production indie stuff and early Bob Dylan and here comes this big shiny metal production record. I just couldn't take it! Yet I don't have any problems with it now. Then again I don't listen to much on high quality audio equipment any more.

We may be in an ipod generation but not too many gens ago a lot of people were listening to stuff on crappy tape machines.

vikmarlo · **Joined:** Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:16 am **Posts:** 2011

Brown Dawn wrote:[... As regards the new album - Would it have been much different or better if it wasn't 'compressed' ?

that would seem to be the consensus among many here! I still assert that it remains to be
seen, or rather heard as to whether less compression would be an improvement.
common wisdom would seem to suggest so, but thats assuming several factors are in
place. one would be that the original master is free of the kind of limitations that
might warrant heavy compression as a sort of compensation for any incongruous
or otherwise anomalous artifacts. another would be the aggregation principle; elements
can be made more consistent in dynamic range to fit in the mix better, to maintain a
more consistent presence, through the use of compression. an engineer might change the
character of an instrument or element as some sounds tend to decay quickly, where a
compressor can create the appearance of a more sustained trail-off. there are myriad
ways to manipulate multiple waveforms, ideally bringing what is meant to be heard to
the listener, which in the end is ideally up to the artist. there is quite a lot of very
fascinating information available on the web, for those so inclined.

smugdruggler · **Posted:** Mon May 21, 2012 7:34 am

[quote="vikmarlothat would seem to be the consensus among many here! I still assert that it remains to be
seen, or rather heard as to whether less compression would be an improvement.
common wisdom would seem to suggest so, but thats assuming several factors are in
place. one would be that the original master is free of the kind of limitations that
might warrant heavy compression as a sort of compensation for any incongruous
or otherwise anomalous artifacts. another would be the aggregation principle; elements
can be made more consistent in dynamic range to fit in the mix better, to maintain a
more consistent presence, through the use of compression. an engineer might change the
character of an instrument or element as some sounds tend to decay quickly, where a
compressor can create the appearance of a more sustained trail-off. there are myriad
ways to manipulate multiple waveforms, ideally bringing what is meant to be heard to
the listener, which in the end is ideally up to the artist. there is quite a lot of very
fascinating information available on the web, for those so inclined.[/quote]

Blimey, ugh - I'm sure you know what you're talkin' bout. Unfortunately I don't have my jargon-buster dictionary at hand right now! :wink:

Sweep · **Posted:** Mon May 21, 2012 7:52 am

smugdruggler wrote: Blimey, ugh - I'm sure you know what you're talkin' bout. Unfortunately I don't have my jargon-buster dictionary at hand right now!

Ok, here's a rough translation:

"that would seem to be the consensus among many here! I still assert that it remains to be
seen, or rather heard as to whether less compression would be an improvement.
common wisdom would seem to suggest so..."

It isn't certain that it would sound less like shite without compression, though most people think so.

"but thats assuming several factors are in
place. one would be that the original master is free of the kind of limitations that
might warrant heavy compression as a sort of compensation for any incongruous
or otherwise anomalous artifacts."

It could have already been shite before compression.

"another would be the aggregation principle; elements
can be made more consistent in dynamic range to fit in the mix better, to maintain a
more consistent presence, through the use of compression. an engineer might change the
character of an instrument or element as some sounds tend to decay quickly, where a
compressor can create the appearance of a more sustained trail-off. there are myriad
ways to manipulate multiple waveforms, ideally bringing what is meant to be heard to
the listener, which in the end is ideally up to the artist."

Compression can be used constructively (as also mentioned by me in an earlier post). To which it might be replied: Yes, but instead of using it constructively it was used to smear shite over the whole thing, as keeps happening with CDs that are mastered by people who don't know what they're doing.

Brown Dawn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:38 pm **Posts:** 769

thanks vik and sweep - as i say i think i'm getting the jist! - all i want now is to hear it compressed or not! still haven't received it and would like to familiarise myself before next weeks gigs - might just get it in hmv

stevet · **Joined:** Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:56 am **Posts:** 21

I agree with the poor production comments.

I can understand Hawkwind wanting to do everything in house. Less bills, more money for them.

But at the very least, I think they should bring in a decent producer/engineer to:

* ensure a good recording, mix and mastering
* tell Dave and Dibs to get back in the vocal booth and redo flawed performances.

As it stands, Onward sounds markedly worse than Levitation. And they recorded that 32 years ago.

Time's running out boys. Give us the classic-sounding Hawkwind album we've all been waiting for.

vikmarlo · **Joined:** Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:16 am **Posts:** 2011

first of all folks, I am no expert – just an enthusiastic novice. and thanks Sweep
(you probably know more about this than me) for translating my post to the lowest
possible denominator. there is a certain air of disappointment and frustration among
many here, regarding the mix and/or compression of Onward. ( thread title might be
changed based on the original post by Ozhawk, who started it, to majority!).
an aggregation principle is quite simply defined as just what it says - the collection
of particulars and the rules used to choose among solutions the problem of collecting
together multiple waveforms into an assemblage or sum. there are obstacles to overcome.
signals collide, interfere with one another, in effect cancelling-out to the human ear. dense
aggregations can be tricky this way, in that there is a greater risk that what the artist has
envisioned may not map-out on media quite the same way as intended. maybe a "sonic doctor"
or "wizard engineer"can coax a better result from what there is to work with. sometimes one has
to settle for the closest they can get. who walks that fine line between artistic limitation and
sonic order? you can see the possible dilemma an artist might run into.

@stevet: I think Dave's vocals sound fine!

vikmarlo · **Joined:** Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:16 am **Posts:** 2011

Dell1972 wrote:My first listen to the album I found it painfully in your face, but I have aclimatised to it somewhat now. ....

barnetquark wrote:I found it compressed and difficult to listen to at first but then it all unravels with repeated listening. This is something I find repeatedly with Hawkwind albums. I'm not a fanboy who is desperate to listen to the record until I 'get it'. It just happens that new Hawkwind albums tend to sound confused, compressed, fuggy, in your face, difficult, yet at the same time quite good and calling you to listen to them again....and again and again...

good points. a challenging listen but worth it IMO

mike coleman · **Posted:** Mon May 21, 2012 3:29 pm

vikmarlo wrote:first of all folks, I am no expert – just an enthusiastic novice. and thanks Sweep
(you probably know more about this than me) for translating my post to the lowest
possible denominator. there is a certain air of disappointment and frustration among
many here, regarding the mix and/or compression of Onward. ( thread title might be
changed based on the original post by Ozhawk, who started it, to majority!).
an aggregation principle is quite simply defined as just what it says - the collection
of particulars and the rules used to choose among solutions the problem of collecting
together multiple waveforms into an assemblage or sum. there are obstacles to overcome.
signals collide, interfere with one another, in effect cancelling-out to the human ear. dense
aggregations can be tricky this way, in that there is a greater risk that what the artist has
envisioned may not map-out on media quite the same way as intended. maybe a "sonic doctor"
or "wizard engineer"can coax a better result from what there is to work with. sometimes one has
to settle for the closest they can get. who walks that fine line between artistic limitation and
sonic order? you can see the possible dilemma an artist might run into.

@stevet: I think Dave's vocals sound fine!

I always admit I am an "idiot", and so with that out front and clearly stating that I see the hawkwind clan as a race unto itself and am not disputing anyone.

1) To me, Hawkwind records are like smoking a doob. I admit I am out of practice, but I think I did enough time in the green machine to say that.

2) I liked this album straight through with the exception of "Mind Cut" causing me paranoia at first.

3) I thought the sound on this was an improvement from last time. With the last one I have to make individual adjustments to tracks

4) While using "home theater" equip might be sacreligious, the pre-amp I am using on front channel only is Sony E9000ES. Pretty sure you can get the sound good enough if you get this and then:

5) maybe Dave won't take this suggestion to announce a "bluff retirement"

I want to thank you all for easing some of the already diminished pain of why being a muscian might not have worked out for me!!!

6) what's wrong with "right to decide"?? When it came out it seemed a little "commerical" for me at that moment. to me it seems like a "mantra statement" that need not go away until the problem does

vikmarlo · **Joined:** Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:16 am **Posts:** 2011

mike coleman wrote: I always admit I am an "idiot", and so with that out front and clearly stating that I see the hawkwind clan as a race unto itself and am not disputing anyone.

1) To me, Hawkwind records are like smoking a doob. ....

ah,ah - no eejits!!

... and well said for the rest

@ Sweep: very funny post btw, whether intended as such or not:))

Sweep · **Posted:** Mon May 21, 2012 7:39 pm

vikmarlo wrote:@ Sweep: very funny post btw, whether intended as such or not:)

Yes, it was intended. I couldn't resist having a bit of fun with this, really.

To be fair, I'm not any kind of expert on compression. Someone like Jamun certainly knows more about it than I do. Because I never use it I'm not familiar with it at all. I just know when I'm listening to something and it doesn't sound right. Compression is one of the common culprits for that, especially over the last decade or so.

I think Jean-Philippe Rykiel (who of course owes a lot to Tim Blake) summed it up very well when he put a note on his Under the Tree album saying "This album has been recorded without compression in order to respect the original dynamics of the music." That word "respect" seems to sum it up, to my mind. Blandly levelling everything out seems disrespectful to the music. And dynamics are massively important. Ear-fatigue follows quickly if there aren't enough dynamic changes happening.

I often find the best way to deal with this kind of thing is to take the piss. It makes you feel better, at least. I used to spend a lot of time talking about music with a highly skilled singer who's also a trained recording engineer. She could spot autotune at a thousand paces, in many cases where I couldn't. We had a lot of fun with autotune, both verbally and practically. Being silly with autotune is more fun than being silly with compression. Designed to drag poor singers onto pitch, it can be fun to mistreat skilled and highly technical singers with it. She's a good enough singer to run rings round autotune's tracking ability, ad we had some good times putting other unfortunate singers through the autotune mangle. In the meantime there were people making albums and sounding nothing like their recorded selves when they played live. We also have people who've been dragged onto pitch and they still sound off-key because of pushed tones. You can lead a singer to pitch but you can't make them sing in harmony.

But ultimately we're in a philistine age when it comes to recording techniques. We've got better sound equipment than ever, but if people don't have the ears to use it, it's going to sound like crap. Sometimes you just have to laugh to survive.

vikmarlo · **Joined:** Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:16 am **Posts:** 2011

Sweep wrote: ...To be fair, I'm not any kind of expert on compression. Someone like Jamun certainly knows more about it than I do. Because I never use it I'm not familiar with it at all. I just know when I'm listening to something and it doesn't sound right. Compression is one of the common culprits for that, especially over the last decade or so.

....dynamics are massively important. Ear-fatigue follows quickly if there aren't enough dynamic changes happening.

well stated Sweep. and indeed a tip of the hat from me to jamun, for kindling my own interest by first pointing out to me the diff. between DNR and audio-data compression.

....But ultimately we're in a philistine age when it comes to recording techniques. We've got better sound equipment than ever, but if people don't have the ears to use it, it's going to sound like crap. Sometimes you just have to laugh to survive.

this is very true. tricks like autotune can save time and money when a good singer is
just having a bad day on studio time, but use of these tools can become a sham and disgrace
if placed in the wrong hands, or throat.

Brown Dawn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:38 pm **Posts:** 769

interesting - if memory serves the first album was recorded 'live' - i think the sound is fine to my ears on that - i know the music is more 'complicated' now - first thing i listen for is dave's rhythm

Hawkwindforum

I'm In a minority

Who is online