square waves suck
new music sucks. ok, maybe not all new music, but here’s “yet another reason” for some of the problems the music industry is experiencing (falling sales), that i haven’t seen explored in much detail until now. this isn’t a generational thing. sure, i’m getting old, but this isn’t about new styles of music that you whippersnappers seem to enjoy, this is about recording technology, which is something dear to my heart.
rip rowan, in this article does a wonderful job explaining one of the things that has literally driven me away from the radio and much new music. horrid-sounding square waves.
if major-label-produced-material is really following this pattern, and average levels really are creeping up this much, then the only way to do it is to “square off” just about every transient in the music, and that inevitably results in horrible noises.
ask anyone i’ve ever worked with in music, and chances are they’ve heard me say something like “i appreciate dynamics.” i still do. i don’t like a drummer that has only two settings (”off” and “loud”). i don’t like a guitarist that has only one “signature sound.” i enjoy the differences, and if i wanted to listen to “loud” i’d just record a jackhammer and loop it.
just as an experiment, i dug up a track from studiotone (i listened to this track a while ago and made some comments, so it was familiar territory), and i slapped some “remastering mojo” on it, bringing the average level up to -9dB (from about -16dB), and then all the way up to -6dB (way louder than the new rush album!). yes, virginia, it sounds like crap. and it sounds like a lot of things i’ve heard lately.
square waves suck.
I wonder if this is at all related to the way in which bands try to deaden every receptor in your cochlea during live shows. Do you really need to be literally “blown away” by the power of the sound?
Comment by Dave — August 11, 2003 @ 10:23 pm
i’m pretty sure it’s the same phenomenon… and it was well-described long ago.
“yes. but these go to eleven.”
at the very least, the people mastering this garbage have grown up getting their ears blasted, so they probably can’t tell the difference.
Comment by roj — August 12, 2003 @ 12:40 am
In radio-transmitter work it’s called “splatter”, and the FCC takes an extremely dim view of it…look up “Discrete Fourier Transform” if you wanna analyze just what new intermodulation products the clipping produces…
=^..^= Kitty!
Comment by SableFox — November 26, 2003 @ 4:28 pm
who’da thought i’d be in the same camp as the fcc?
i take an extremely dim view of it too, especially when it ruins decent music.
Comment by roj — December 3, 2003 @ 2:20 pm
the return of the square waves
i still stand by my assertion that square waves suck, and for some time, i’ve toyed with the idea of revisiting the subject with some pretty graphics and specific examples from this era of american-idol-pop-music, but i haven’t. fortunately for…
Trackback by meta-roj blog — May 27, 2006 @ 6:32 pm