A little off topic I know, but recently I heard on BBC Radio 1, two DJ's on different days played a track from the forthcoming Arcade Fire album, now whatever you think about the band this was interesting. The song is mainly vocals and organ, and apparently it was completely unmasterred, the DJ's were bragging about getting the track early, and it sounded as loud if not louder than the tracks they played either side of it.
Bob Katz often says about this sort of over compression "for radio", they have compressors and limiters, that's why everything sounds as loud as everything else, so as long as it's a pretty loud signal it's fine. You don't need to destroy the dynamics for it to sound good on radio, they'll do that!

Thanks guys! I thought they just had a limiter set as a safety net!!

College radio can be a different story... it seems often there is a great difference from one record to the next on many of the smaller stations. Either they do not have as much fancy equipment or nice equipment or they do not know how to use it.

Radio Station in the 70's used to set their turntables a smidgin faster so that the music they played would sound a little more 'exciting'. Ha!

On a personal note, I will admit hating the practice of squeezing all the dynamics out of music just for the sake of getting it as loud as the next radio play. I understand wanting it to sound good on the radio but it seems this should be secondary to making a recording sound dynamic in a more natural way. We have talked about this many times in this forum but I just wanted to restate it.

Mayfair wrote:Radio Station in the 70's used to set their turntables a smidgin faster so that the music they played would sound a little more 'exciting'. Ha!

This was also done to shorten the songs so they could guarantee the same number of songs/hour and maybe squeeze in an extra ad or two.

endofanera wrote:

Mayfair wrote:Radio Station in the 70's used to set their turntables a smidgin faster so that the music they played would sound a little more 'exciting'. Ha!

This was also done to shorten the songs so they could guarantee the same number of songs/hour and maybe squeeze in an extra ad or two.

Yes, done for both reasons actually. There is a new movement to deal with oldies in a similar fashion.... the idea is to go back to the idea of the 'single' version of songs where the single might be a slightly abbreviated version of the album track. I have heard of this as making a comeback... taking guitar solos out or a verse or chorus here or there to make room for more commercials.

We live in a very strange world.

I like the slightly older way still of having a LONGER version of the song as the single, like "Fun Fun Fun" by the Beachboys, the single version has an extra few repeats of the chorus at the end which the version on the album doesn't have.

the 'radio edit' of reverence by jesus and marychain is hilarious! It's at least 2 minutes longer with heaps more noisy guitar solos and it's sounds really hot and distorted. Must have been a big fuck you to radio on their part.

Tuite wrote:Well, Im only doin 3 songs and they are kinda demo versions, vox done with SM58`s, acoustics DI`d, bass DI`d etc. so I don`t really wanna pay for mastering! So...ur saying there`s nothing REALLY wrong with this meter reading and I should trust my ears? It doesn`t sound distorted but then again, a mastering engineer might say it definetley is!

"Well, Im only doin 3 songs and they are kinda demo versions, vox done with SM58`s, acoustics DI`d, bass DI`d etc. "


why make it "loud." why make a statement or demo with regard, louder? sheesh!

i don't understand. almost everything has a volume knob. if ilike something and it is quiet, i'll turn it up.

not to be harsh...

n.

but still you don't want it way quieter than everything else, just make it as loud as stuff that is softly mastered.