Source:

 

These days "mastering" is just a code word for "add more limiting", so yeah. But they're just giving people what they want. If there wasn't a demand for it, it wouldn't be done.

 

Those who think the 'war' was over are not in contact with the music business. I believe we probably have the hottest levels today, since the limiters have evolved so much that they can be pushed much more than some years ago.

As long as developers will compete to bring cleaner sounding algorithms, engineers will use them to push the sound a db more to have that instant wow effect. Educating artists is a much more difficult task than just some online articles and discussions among a fraction of the audio engineers (mainly those who live more from writing than those who are too busy to produce records).

Even Pensado admitted he likes loud and uses it to impress clients. I recently heard a master made by Big Bass Brian and it was pushed to the maximum limit possible, louder than everything else I've heard lately, even thought the result was Youtube lowered it more than other, quieter masters that, not surprisingly, sounded louder when streamed than the BBB one. Client was too happy to notice so there you go, that's what happens in the real life.

 

Mastering nowadays always make me think of that "more cowbell" scene with Christopher Walken. "I got a fever, and my prescription is more limiting"

 

Pensado is a dipshit... A well paid dipshit

 

any mastering engineer over limiting is a total idiot, cause streaming is all standardised levels now, so the joke is on the moron who goes there

 

There is should be balance between loudness, squashing and peaks, transients, attacks, punch. But in some cases loudness is first. My player walkman by sony, mobile phones, notebook, wife's player are very limited by volume. So I need louder tracks, not these attacks , and not walking with headphones amps. And guys with radios/cd/mp3 working in noisy environment, their players need louder songs, not quiet ones with these transients and attackies. But yes, here should be optimized loudness, not oversquash each sample/frame. Balance is a key

 

It happened to Nirvana's Nevermind too.
The original CD was so much better, the kick drum makes your heart pounding and the snare hits you in the face but the remastered version is so lifeless and static, everything's the same level.

 

Oh, i didn't know about this. Back then i thought the original cd was kinda overcompressed/lacking dynamics in comparison with the vinyl version hehehe.
What @Lambchop posts is kinda disturbing. If due to digitizing/remastering back catalogue, all we 're left, let's say 50 yrs from now, is "ironed out-compressed to oblivion" versions of the past music, all evolution will mean absolutely nothing. We will have destroyed what all past artists have struggled and even dedicated their lives for, since the very beggining of the recording era. I just hope these examples are isolated and not the norm for major labels.
Cheers
PS: Professionals who do this kind of mastering job are just destroying the industry and their own profession, little by little with every crap re-master/master like the one posted. They are either illiterate musically or grabbing a quick buck (most of the times i presume it's the latter). After all, dynamic is still a musical value.

 

Last edited: Dec 9, 2017

Please be careful of damaging your hearing

 

Or is that just how u remember it when your hearing and brain was 30 years younger

 

All that shitty grunge and post grunge genre was over compressed, heck we are talking about the 90's here all the engineers could do was limit the heck out of those thrash bands, so it became the sound of that type of thing.

 

I stand corrected

 

louder = better, that is nature, let's not lie to ourselves. otherwise you wouldn't be turning up your volume while listening to your favourite piece.
if the song has been made and mixed in the right way, it can be as loud as it needs to be. this is true especially for club, dance styles of music. squashing it a bit is almost necessary.

people overdo it? sure. in some cases it sounds shit? sure.

also before anybody say technical stuff about uploading to streaming stuff or similar, i'm mainly talking about the original audio file, nothing else.
and again let's not forget it depends a lot on the style of music, but what i wanted to say clearly was, no matter how many graphs, vids, researches or stuff you're gonna show me, but louder sounds better, and that's what matters

 

Not really because I was born in 1994

 

Don't believe the hype kid, Nirvana suck, Eddie Vedder will always be the king of Grunge lol
RIP Scott Weiland

 

I do love Pearl Jam and STP too.
You might think Nirvana suck but the truth is, they are the ones who brought the Grunge movement to the mainstream.
Excuse my English lol.

 

Not true. There's a fine balance than some don't seem to achieve. There's a point up until one can push levels and it WILL sound louder than if having conservative levels. But, indeed, if one goes past that, it's going to be reduced by the streaming algorithm level thing. It's part of the job, some are more experienced than others.

 

Your personal preference is clouding your judgement m8. I couldn't stand Pearl Jam but i loved Nirvana, does this lead us anywhere ? It's good thing and very honest of course, you realized yourself not every engineer over compressed music. Not then and not now.
Ps: Perhaps you meant it in a more generic way, but language is here for us to communicate with precise meanings, especially in such a forum.
This is thrash :

This is NOT thrash :

Thanks for listening