Fats, the problem here is they are very nice guys who have been recording a CD in my place some 5 years back and that CD sounds very good, but isn't loud of course.

I am a very straight guy and I always say what I think (but I think first), so I gave them my opinion about the sound of the CD's they had brought with them.

"But it sounds so very good in the car" was their reply.

So I'm beginning to ask myself what to do. They're nice guys who will stay at least a couple of weeks.

I will track them on two inch and it will sound pretty good. But in the end we will mix to CDR and I will make two CD's like always. A "soft" one and a loud one. One for mastering and one for playing at home.

I have a couple of stand alone CD burners and I can burn a CD that's twice as loud as the Red Hot Chili Peppers CD, but it will sound like shit.

On the other hand I have a pretty good name in the jazz scene, where loud CD's are no subject at all. I've had some very good reviews for jazz productions and that's why I'm doing it. I love my job.

We as engineers are always discussing gear, how to record an acoustic guitar, what's the best mic for horns, best converters etc. We spend piles of money for better gear, but the average guy in the street who buys the CD (or copy it) doesn't give a flying shit for sound quality and the average musician only wants his CD as loud as possible.

I think I'm going to refuse, I love my work too much. I really hate this loudness war.

Han,
I agree. We as recordists need to make a stand and refuse to butcher our work. You may be surprised, they may relent. Maybe you guys can split the difference and meet half way. But burn one at the level you like too. The Mastering House will be able to "Pump it up" without artifacts much better than you . Good luck and right on ! Fats
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RO, EXPERTISE ON TAP! To help keep this site alive and growing, please show your support by purchasing one of our caps, studio clocks, T-Shirts etc. Banner ads too!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fats, I got an email from the guys. They are very confused they say. They think the sound they seem to like is kind of a "standard" in metal nowadays.

I asked them to go listen to "System of a Down" in order to find out that loud CD's can sound decent. They have no trained ears they say and they really like the sound of the CD's they had brought. And you can believe me, that was the worst sound I've heard lately.

What are we doing with our art? I have explained them how I love my job, how it hurts to see it's going down the drain, my Gawd, this ain't funny at all!

Right now I listen to Frank Sinatra's "It was a very good year", and a very good year it was (recorded april 22 1965) It sounds so beautiful that I have to fight my tears.

Sorry.

Do this.

Make them a loud CD, make one to send to mastering. Explain that to the mastering enginner.

Do safetys of course...

With proper equipment, the ME can make it much more POWERFUL than the one they get, loud as well, not crunched to death.

satisfaction guranteed

Prolab by day, Bill Roberts by night.

(my office has a secure connection so I have to long in as a non moderator here..)

I wonder if we will someday see cd players with an "attenuate" control on the front, something that would knock down the signal before it hits the D/A converter? Would this be of any help, or unrelated to the problem? Obviously this would have to ba a digital attenuator, if there is such a thing, and would have to be made as to have no ill effects on the signal.

Uncle Cear, I have been a little frustrated with the same thing you mentioned and so. Once in a hile I hav person like that on here. For example, a guy that insists that needs a heavy snare, 8 db of 236Hz. seem you have a box thrown in your face, etc. Then you compare it to an Europe Hard Rock Group Cd and their nice stuff sound like a small drum.. seems guys are getting eaf, need serious audiometry. It is awful to work like that, be it mixing or mastering.

Originally posted by Don Grossinger:
Just a little bit of information: Bob Ludwig is a big Rush fan. I was his production engineer for 3 years (1988-91) and during that time I believe we did 2 or 3 Rush projects. I only did the vinyl cutting & 1630 CD master assembly & take NO credit for the EQ, but I do know Bob put lots of effort in these projects to get it right. As he always did.

What was the work flow like in that situation? Did you work from an EQ'ed and assembled master or did he write down settings and you transfered live via an A/B path?

I sometimes wonder what the average mentality level is of the kids today. Are they incapable of realising what good sound is when they hear it?
As a child and teenager I didn't think I was anything different from the any other kid, and my friends and I would arrive at a general consensus as to what sounded good or bad. I am not talking quality of the material, but the actual quality of the audio. It is possible to have a good recording done of 2nd rate performers. It would seem kids nowadays dwell more on the material and what it contains than the audio quality of the recording.
I sit back and listen to recordings done from the late 40s 50s and 60s and I am astounded at the quality of some of these recordings. You can hear the musicians breating sometimes between notes. This is realism. I always thought the idea of recording was to reproduce a performance as closely to what you would hear standing in front of the performers live under ideal conditions. Nowadays all you have to do is beat the signal to shit and you have a big hit recording. Where is the reality?
Bill Y.

Originally posted by Bill Yacey:
I sometimes wonder what the average mentality level is of the kids today. Are they incapable of realising what good sound is when they hear it?

:) They do, we hear it a different way. Like Rock was to our, er, my parents.

Originally posted by Bill Yacey:
I sit back and listen to recordings done from the late 40s 50s and 60s and I am astounded at the quality of some of these recordings. You can hear the musicians breating sometimes between notes. This is realism.

Yes, fantastic recordings, using technique so advanced and ahead of it's time. Today it is electronic music, a different sound, like the Moog was at first, and to support this sound are different systems, and engineers, editors, and midi composers, writers, singers, video.

Originally posted by Bill Yacey:
Where is the reality?

My opinion, it is business. This is the new market. It would be fun to spin the old 78's, 45's, and LP's. I loved my parents records as much as my own. As long as there is demand for the new music, someone will provide. It makes a living for people, from all involved, some kind of living anyway. Knowing the difference is something the young will have to learn...when they get our, er, my age.

--Rick

RE; Great recordings from the 40's 50's 60's, I totally agree. I love to rock out to Stompin At The Savoy or One O'clock Jump by Benny Goodman, or Cherokee. How in the heck they got that sound out of a big band with one microphone, I'll never know. Early Sinatra, ah man , the musicianship back then, I don't even want to think about it, it depresses me. Wish I would have been alive back then!

Originally posted by cjenrick:
RE; Great recordings from the 40's 50's 60's, ... Early Sinatra...

The amazing technique used to create such space in the early stereo recordings was phenomenal. Take Frank's voice. Hard panned left, tiny delay right, and a bit longer delay to the stereo chamber. This created an outstanding focus on his vocal talent. Just fill with dynamics and strings and WoW!
:D
--Rick

Yeah, and listen to the recordings of classical music from the sixties/seventies, so much nicer than the edited music of today.

An average classical CD has many hundreds of edits. Sometimes they've edited all live out of it.

Perfectionism, they say :(