Why New Music Doesn't Sound As Good As It Did

Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:17PM EDT

See Comments (521)

Never mind that today's factory-produced starlets and mini-clones just don't have the practiced chops of the supergroups of yesteryear, pop in a new CD and you might notice that the quality of the music itself—maybe something as simple as a snare drum hit—just doesn't sound as crisp and as clear as you're used to. Why is that?

It's part of the music industry's quest to make music louder and louder, and it's been going on for decades, at least since the birth of the compact disc. Click the link for a nice little video, a mere 2 minutes long, which explains it in detail, with audio cues that you'll be able to hear in crisp detail.

The key to the problem is that, in making the soft parts of a track louder (in the process making the entire track loud), you lose detail in the song: The difference between what's supposed to be loud and what's supposed to be soft becomes less and less. The result is that, sure, the soft parts of a song are nice and loud, but big noises like drum beats become muffled and fuzzy. But consumers often subconsciously equate loudness with quality, and thus, record producers pump up the volume. Anything to make a buck.

The bigger problem is that this is all unnecessary. Stereo equipment is more powerful today than ever, and last time I checked, every piece of music hardware had a volume knob.

Don't take my word for it: Pop in the first CD you bought and play it at the same volume level as the most recent one you bought. You might be shocked by what you hear. 

Anyone still wondering why the music business is suffering? 

LINK: The Loudness War 

Comments on Why New Music Doesn't Sound As Good As It Did

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 6 Posted by darksol360 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:36PM EDT Report Abuse

    Listen to the jazz group "The Bad Plus" not over produced and perfectly utilizes the dynamics of, truly, soft and loud.

  • 7 Posted by gr_vaughan on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:13PM EDT Report Abuse

    CDs just don't sound as good as vinyl, although they're certainly more convenient and don't have the pops, etc. I'm surprised about the raised volume levels on CDs - I thought one of their big strengths was improved dynamics, which seems to have helped in a resurgence of the popularity of classical music. Even with old music, most of the CDs I've bought in recent years have been remixed, and seem to have lower sound quality. In particular, the volume levels of the vocalists seem to almost drown out the instruments.

  • 8 Posted by stanleyaston on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:39PM EDT Report Abuse

    Not just the volume. I've noticed a definite loss of separation in the the newer music.

  • 9 Posted by johnpolston on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:39PM EDT Report Abuse

    Actually you are close but a little off track. The record companies actually know what they are doing. They aren't doing it to make them seem to sound better, they are actually over-driving the tracks to make encoded/ripped mp3 copies of the CD-tracks sound like totally over-driven crap. I've been looking for someone to post an inquiry into this for years now and this is the first I have seen it brought up. I have asked the question many times on different forums if anyone has figured out a fool-proof way to keep the encoded versions from sounding over-driven with not much luck other than utilizing an encoder that enables normalization factors which works most of the time but not all. There are still a few niche record companies like Telarc that use the latest techniques and technologies to produce as close to perfect sounding CD's, SACD's etc. for the audiophiles that appreciate the quality even more so than the subject. I would much rather listen to a high-quality SACD of a not-so-favorite genre or artist than listen to a bad recording of a favored artist. I'm actually listening to a hybrid-SACD of Rachmaninoff Symp. #2 by Telarc 2007 while I am writing this and it sounds great.

  • 10 Posted by baron_murray on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:02PM EDT Report Abuse

    It's pretty sad when I could run the music biz better than the "so-called" professionals and should even turn a profit!

  • 11 Posted by gr_vaughan on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:13PM EDT Report Abuse

    "The record companies actually know what they are doing. They aren't doing it to make them seem to sound better, they are actually over-driving the tracks to make encoded/ripped mp3 copies of the CD-tracks sound like totally over-driven crap. I've been looking for someone to post an inquiry into this for years now and this is the first I have seen it brought up." So are you saying legitimate music buyers paying top $$ for CDs are getting crummy music, intentionally degraded by the record companies (with the volume technique) as a copy-protection scheme?

  • 12 Posted by gr_vaughan on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:13PM EDT Report Abuse

    Also, "There are still a few niche record companies like Telarc that use the latest techniques and technologies to produce as close to perfect sounding CD's" - maybe that explains my confusion about why occasionally you do get a good or even great-sounding CD. I suspect it's mostly the rock/pop/latest stuff that's messed up. When you go to an electronics store, they've usually got a demo CD that sounds great, and I've wondered how they could get such good sound when most CDs don't sound that great.

  • 13 Posted by lifecheckangel on Thu Sep 3, 2009 6:50PM EDT Report Abuse

    There are some other factors to be taken into consideration. Such as: digital audio technology has gotten much better since cd's came out. The tech specs of a cd are: 44.1kHz and 16 bit. Now bit depth basically means how much of a volume range the song can have. 16 bit has somewhere around 96dB of range. While 24 bit has a range of closer to 144dB. So digital audio can now have that difference of volume in a song. Problem is that cd's still have a bit depth of 16 bits. Well, using a process called dither, we can fake the cd into thinking that it is 16 bits, when it is in fact 24 bits. Now I'm not saying that record companies are also increasing volume to try and please the consumer, but this is at least another factor to consider. Also when you convert a file in MP3, you are literally taking out data to compress the file down. So record companies might be adding the extra volume so that when you convert to MP3 format, the stuff that gets removed is stuff that you don't care about. So while the cd's themselves sound worse, MP3's will sound better (which most people will listen to their music on an IPod). One last note, there is no such thing as "lossless compression". The best audio is an uncompressed .wav. However most people can't hear the difference between a MP3 and and WAV so it doesn't matter that much.

  • 14 Posted by thisisforever on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:07PM EDT Report Abuse

    You got something there with dynamics being lost over the years. At the end of every mastering session, there is a plug in called The Ultra Maximizer that really squashes the final mix into one huge wave. This is a form of compression, any low sounds in the mix come up to the same level as everything else. There is pros and cons to this method that 98% of rock producers use, and makes it really hard to compete if you like to keep the peaks and valleys of your mix. It's is louder and powerful to the ear. But with the digital age comes some great tools for sound and sound has never sounded better, we can really boost the sound quality to absurd levels and all the tape hiss is gone. Tape and tubes are a beautiful thing and most producers keep that in mind when creating a mix. But if you talking about crappy sound quality, talk about the MP3. It is the downfall of music production, it's lossy compression cancels many sounds in the background so who knows how much of your recordings are missing. It tries to trick the ear in believing all the sounds are there. Most people don't notice it's mostly in the cymbals of the drums, hight end sounds but the clarity is gone. And the record companies like m_knopp said are running their businesses in such a corrupt manner because they are loosing so much in CD sales due to the new digital realm. If you really want to support the artist, go to their shows, by CD's and T-Shirts. This is the only way musicians make money these days, unless you are avril lavign. rant over.

  • 15 Posted by glenntokunaga on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:10PM EDT Report Abuse

    I remember reading an article about this issue several months ago. One of the persons quoted in the article mentioned that one of the reasons record companies push the volume levels to maximum in their recordings is to make the music sound "louder" over the radio. The article mentioned that record companies claim that songs that sound "louder" over the radio sell better than those that sound "quieter." I'm not sure how accurate that claim is, but I thought it was very interesting.

  • 16 Posted by ddmeto on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:39PM EDT Report Abuse

    I'm a songwriter, and I can tell you, it's friggin' hard to make my stuff compete, volume-wise. I'm a slave to the local music store when it comes to gadgets and software - a six-foot 1/4" cable is like, $50 bucks now. Recording software (the good stuff), pushes $1000 now. Wait, I was gonna comment about what makes the best new music, but oh, yeah, the technology keeps getting in my friggin' way! http://eyeofthemonkey.com

  • 17 Posted by zahogues4@sbcglobal.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:58PM EDT Report Abuse

    That is it. I have just decided to "to keep it simple." If it is what I am looking for when I purchased it (the trick is do your research and not take these non-educated salesmans word on things ....Im talking about the salesman at the stores....) than it must be good enough to give me the sound quality I am looking for. Being a drummer, the "cymbals"(#16) means a lot to me. If you buy the right A/V cables and a well known name receiver, you should have equalizer options that allow you to bring out certain volumes and sound settings without always having to make adjustments. This is usually the case with most car stereo's now, also. I know there are other things like i-pods, mp3's, and other technology, but you can't expect your $20 i-pod to sound like your BOSE system. I know for a fact the playstation c.d. player in my garage doesn't sound like the 2007 PIONEER THX system in my theater room; Also we can't expect a lower ranking record company (who many artist pick because they want more profit in their pocket and should also be at blame) to have or be willing to purchase the latest technology, in order to give us a better quality sound. It's called "overhead" welcome to the "new economy".

  • 18 Posted by mikkelbreiler on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:20PM EDT Report Abuse

    "One last note, there is no such thing as "lossless compression". The best audio is an uncompressed .wav." Lossless compression is achieved by using software that does that! FLAC and Mokey's Audio comes to mind. Using these compression methods you can store a WAV file in smaller space while still being able to decompress to a wave file that is 100% 1:1 identical to the original wave file. I use this format to archive recordings made from analog sources I also make MP3 file of selected tracks to hear them on players that do not yet support the seemless use of FLAC or Monkey's Audio. "However most people can't hear the difference between a MP3 and and WAV so it doesn't matter that much." If you make a poor mp3 file you can, if you are familiar with the material you might even though others would not. Comparing live music with MP3 is not an ideal comparison, but comparing a CD with MP3 made from that would make sense in two scenarios: - Where you want to keep the orignal music experience but prefer the MP3 format due to storage issues. - Where you want to keep some of the music experience and have to rely on the MP3 format for convenience. If I am using a train or bus an old walkman is sufficient to play a well recorded cassette. But this solution is not for everyone. Most children growing up NOW will never use cassettes and will only handle them when one day their parents die and they have to get rid of things in the estate and one of the children decided to clear the attic. MiniDisc and MP3 are my most used formats, purely for ease of use nothing else. if you're not having to use different formats slagging another format becomes easy, if for no other reason than being ignorant. Most people are not truly ignorant but most people choose not to understand the mechanisms at work in what they criticize. It would be beneficial if all formats ever invented were used when and for what they are ideal at but for most consumers having recording and playback equipment and available medias on hand is not a solution to consider. For those people people who believe they know what uality is enough for them, they should either research by experience before making a comment or shut the heck up and let others use the formats that works for them. It appears that a car from 1910 is still allowed on the road and everyone who sees the guy driving will not think he is weird, they will think of him as having a hobby that looks great, is expensive and probably a lot of fun. But if you're using vinyl and tape you're looked upon as a loser who stopped progressing and who has no hope of being looked upon as a conneisseur or hobbyist unless another 50 years pass by and he doesn't die meanwhile. I wish the world was more patient, that technology did not move this fast, and then we might get to enjoy and respect the technology rather than alienating those who care about it. Record companies are a big part of the problems with audio today, not the solution. Mikkel Breiler

  • 19 Posted by gr_vaughan on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:13PM EDT Report Abuse

    People like to argue that 128kbs is about the same as 256, that you can't really hear the difference. That may be true for a lot of the stuff now, because of the volume manipulation, but I doubt it's true for the better-quality CDs. In my view, you should get top sound on a CD. If you want to compress it to mush after that, it's your business, but paying customers ought to get quality sound!

  • 20 Posted by doomsdaydave11 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:47PM EDT Report Abuse

    With more and more people buying music from online sources like Itunes and Napster, I don't think it's much of a problem.

  • 21 Posted by bane1190 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:02PM EDT Report Abuse

    This makes me angry. There are no words. Just anger.

  • 22 Posted by sillygirl200161 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:23PM EDT Report Abuse

    I had noticed that some of my cd's have to be toned down volume wise, versus older cd's that I may have to turn down the volume. It makes it hard to grasp the fine tuing of the music when all the record execs are concerned with is noise level. I would rather here the subtle nuances of the band than how loud they can play their music.

  • 24 Posted by smackfly on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:28PM EDT Report Abuse

    I've noticed this a little bit. Although I'm glad for remastered/normalized tracks once a while, earlier Queen & The Clash cd releases were incredibly quiet.. but the quality of the big releases is going down. It can be hard to hear on a subpar system, but when you put it on a good stereo system it can sound horrendous. I've actually just stopped bothering getting CDs and just using MP3s and vinyl.

  • 25 Posted by johnmrice_39 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:39PM EDT Report Abuse

    my buddy mike just a new car with a stereo in it. he only had a radio before.

Post a Comment

Sign In to Post a Comment

My Tech

Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.

Also on Yahoo! Tech

Computers Home Office Wi-Fi & Networking Phones & PDAs Cameras & Camcorders TV & Home Theater Portable Audio
 

Site Map | Tour | Subscribe to Yahoo! Tech

Question and Answer content at Yahoo! Tech is written by Yahoo! users at Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. For more information, read the Full Disclaimer.

Opinions expressed by the Advisors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! receives no compensation from any manufacturer or distributor nor does it compensate any Advisor for the coverage of any product or service in any Advisor's content.