Radiant Sea performance origins, When and Where the live tracks and two new songs came from Options

[AgentK7]

I was hoping this thread could pull the forum's vast Live live knowledge together to track down where the live tracks came from on Radiant Sea. I was kind of miffed that they didn't include that information on the CD packaging.

Anyway, I know track 8 "Nobody Knows" is the same live performance as found on the Birds Of Pray DVD recorded on May 18, 2002 at PinkPop, Landgraaf, The Netherlands. (I know that's an easy one, but it's a start).

I know I could probably use Bootleg Heaven and figure out most of it myself, but I don't have enough free time to do that. I'm sure other members are also curious.

I'm hoping we can wrap this thread up by figuring out all the performances, maybe this information could then be added to the live discography, etc.

....and to discover the origins of the two new tracks.

This post has been edited by AgentK7: Sep 24 2007, 8:05 pm

[Alex]

I'll start by saying that on most of the basic points there you're right, and in my argument, I'm not completely disagreeing with you, just trying to cover all the bases.

I'm sorry, but the analysis isn't all that faulty. I understand what you're saying, but it still proves the point - dynamics in music have been ruined over the past 10+ years.

OK, for the point of 'proving' that dynamics have been compromised in mainstream music in recent years, it somewhat shows this visually. However you can't just compress an already mastered file to oblivion and expect it to be an accurate representation of what the song would sound like if mastered in the 2000's. (None the less on YouTube, given the audio streaming quality)

There are just so many other factors to be considered. Plus, mastering involves so much more than just brick wall limiting with a software program. So you can see what I mean when I say that anaylsis is faulty. It manipulates peoples knowledge- A lot of people haven't even heard of mastering, other than glancing over a name in an albums credits. Unfortunately in recent years when people discover what mastering is, and how loudness and compression has changed, they get a completely misinformed idea of HOW those tracks became so loud and start this outraged cry of 'stop the loudness wars' (which seems to be a hip, and almost elitist thing to proclaim on message boards).

Bottom line is, when you make the songs an equal volume, the older stuff just sounds better. There's no denying it. Digital recording *COULD* be great, if they knew how to keep the dynamics. Instead, all we get is loud loud loud. Have you listened to the new Smashing Pumpkins album? How about the new Foo Fighters album (or, just about any of their albums for that matter)? Everything is so loud, there's no room for the music to breathe, and it just doesn't sound very good.

But there IS denying it. That's the thing. In mainstream music (which admitedly, I don't know much about since there are relatively few 'popular' bands that I listen to) the norm is very loud, compressed files. But there have been some absolutely incredible sounding releases in the last 10 years that occupy more of the dynamic range than ever possible before. And there have been some very well produced releases that have been very compressed. (I'll go in to that soon).

I've only heard the new SP album via a mates copy in my car, which has 10 year old 4" stock speakers. But you know, all of SP's releases have basically sounded crap. (Nothing to do with the music, just production/mixing/mastering wise. I haven't heard Gish, but assume it's of the same standard.)

MP3 gain is a godsend - I adjust every track to "equal" volume so I can remove all the clipping from songs and at least tolerate listening to music on random from different eras. Siamese Dream, Superuknown, Deluxe - all those albums have volumes around 92-93 (using MP3 gain volumes here) and sound great. All new albums are around 99-100. Californication, perhaps one of the worst sounding albums of all time, is between 100-103. When I adjust all these new albums to equal the volume of old albums, the sound is very wimpy. In fact, while my "normal" volume level is 91, I have to adjust the new albums to 93 or 94 because they sound so weak at 91. Go read diehard Beatles' fans complaints about the "1" album from a few years ago - they all say how it sounds like total shit. That's because they squashed the hell out of all those songs when they remastered it.

You can't remove clipping or undo the mastering process in any way. You COULD apply extensive multi-band compression, use EQ, and gates/expanders to try and restore dynamic range, but this would be highly inaccurate, take a long time, and in the end, wouldn't acheive the results you wanted. By removing clipping, I'm guessing you're meaning to stop the tracks 'hitting the red'. Essentially you're normalizing the files to all play at a consistent volume, correct?

Apart from the fact that (from the name, I'm guessing) this program uses MP3's, which are already very compressed, and differ greatly in quality, (not only dependant on bitrate etc. but on the encoder) there are some faults with this. For a start, does the program reduce to the average, or the peak values? Secondly, this loudness matching will not be accurate- the more recent recordings were supposed to be played at the higher level, which affects freq. response. This is way too in-depth to go in to on here, so that last quote is slightly false, but basically it comes down to the analysis method from before- If these recent masters were aiming for a similar RMS level to CD's produced 15 years ago, it wouldn't be simply a case of reducing the maximizer or compressor accordingly; other factors would also be changed. Most importantly, EQ- based on fletcher-munson curves of freq. loudness perception at different amplitudes.

All new albums are around 99-100

First off, let me rephrase that to say 'Most new mainstream pop/rock albums are around 99-100'. Again this is a bit confusing to me without knowing the program. If these albums peak at 99-100, there's nothing wrong with that whatsoever. This probably isn't the case, but my point is there are some albums in recent years which may peak at this level, the average may occupy a much lower level, and have 'quiet' sections even lower in the spectrum. I have a bit of trouble with you saying 'ALL' new albums.

I know you know more about this than most, but you have to agree that music doesn't sound like it should. Most albums over the past 10 years could sound so much better if the dynamics werent so sqaushed. This is why I'm considering buying albums on vinyl - the crappy mastering process on CDs can't be duplicated on vinyl.

And to answer the person's question, both of these songs look to be mastered at a different time - these tracks come out to roughly around 97 (in MP3 Gain terms) and have no clipping. TDTH's songs are all around 98-99 and have substantial clipping. V is just about the same, except V's songs are even louder - mostly all are 99-101.

People need to start fighting back against these shitty mastering standards. The problem is, so many people are used to (and accept) shitty, compressed to hell music, that they don't know any better. They don't know how good their music could sound.

There are so many factors which affect a vinyls output. You would need a very expensive set-up to truly benifit. The problem is there are a lot of crappy vinyl masters, and even albums that haven't been mastered any differently to vinyl, just shoved on to the format. Vinyl, being an analog system, doesn't interpret the files with the same fidelity as digital cd players do, as they all conform to a standard. This is generally considered pleasing, as is most analog-produced works. To be honest, I think some of your trouble with the whole loudness thing is you're setting too much to store by these visual representations. As I said before, there are some very nice sounding releases from recent years. On to the point I said I'd cover earlier...

Mastering is NOT the only reason audio production has succumbed to these 'loudness wars'. This is one of the reasons that vinyl won't make any difference. The treatment of individual instruments has changed significantly. Basically, the amount of compression used in tracking and mixing nowadays is (often) far more liberal. So mastering often isn't to blame- essentially you'd be getting the same lack of dynamic range, just at a lower average level. Of course this is far from being true for all producers/mixers, but in the popular music field this is generally the standard at present.

I could literally talk all day about this, and I'd be reasonably happy to do so. But I have work to do.. and I'd rather be applying compression myself than talking about it.

A few more basic factors to consider though:

- Pop music in general has had a steady decline in (would love to say quality, but this is obviously fairly subjective) its dynamic range in songwriting, before production even enters the equation. Hard to explain, but there are generally very few different sections in pop songs nowadays. Generally the power and intensity is consistent throughout the song, and the effect of building to a climax or using different emotionally applied instrumentation (getting a bit in to production here) is more rare than it used to be. You referred to Superunkown, Siamese Dream (and Deluxe, which I can't recall... who is it?)- basically albums released during the grunge era. A LOT of these songs were based on the soft verse, loud chorus formula. This is not something which is generally applied to songwriting that you hear on the radio nowadays.

- Mastering and compression, apart from being necessary, is a creative tool. Take The Mars Volta- they definitely have dynamic range, but the loud sections are completely and utterly squashed. This, in my opinion, is a creative option, and I think their music would have suffered had it been less compressed. It's quite a messy sound, and benifits from this style of prodution/mastering. This links with the last point.

- I have to do it. Pop music right now is at a low point. The variation not only in single songs, but in songs you hear back to back on the radio is minimal... (I will finish this later)

I forgot that the clocks here have gone forward. I am an hour behind now.

[mattdm11]

I'll start by saying that on most of the basic points there you're right, and in my argument, I'm not completely disagreeing with you, just trying to cover all the bases.



OK, for the point of 'proving' that dynamics have been compromised in mainstream music in recent years, it somewhat shows this visually. However you can't just compress an already mastered file to oblivion and expect it to be an accurate representation of what the song would sound like if mastered in the 2000's. (None the less on YouTube, given the audio streaming quality)

There are just so many other factors to be considered. Plus, mastering involves so much more than just brick wall limiting with a software program. So you can see what I mean when I say that anaylsis is faulty. It manipulates peoples knowledge- A lot of people haven't even heard of mastering, other than glancing over a name in an albums credits. Unfortunately in recent years when people discover what mastering is, and how loudness and compression has changed, they get a completely misinformed idea of HOW those tracks became so loud and start this outraged cry of 'stop the loudness wars' (which seems to be a hip, and almost elitist thing to proclaim on message boards).



But there IS denying it. That's the thing. In mainstream music (which admitedly, I don't know much about since there are relatively few 'popular' bands that I listen to) the norm is very loud, compressed files. But there have been some absolutely incredible sounding releases in the last 10 years that occupy more of the dynamic range than ever possible before. And there have been some very well produced releases that have been very compressed. (I'll go in to that soon).

I've only heard the new SP album via a mates copy in my car, which has 10 year old 4" stock speakers. But you know, all of SP's releases have basically sounded crap. (Nothing to do with the music, just production/mixing/mastering wise. I haven't heard Gish, but assume it's of the same standard.)
You can't remove clipping or undo the mastering process in any way. You COULD apply extensive multi-band compression, use EQ, and gates/expanders to try and restore dynamic range, but this would be highly inaccurate, take a long time, and in the end, wouldn't acheive the results you wanted. By removing clipping, I'm guessing you're meaning to stop the tracks 'hitting the red'. Essentially you're normalizing the files to all play at a consistent volume, correct?

Apart from the fact that (from the name, I'm guessing) this program uses MP3's, which are already very compressed, and differ greatly in quality, (not only dependant on bitrate etc. but on the encoder) there are some faults with this. For a start, does the program reduce to the average, or the peak values? Secondly, this loudness matching will not be accurate- the more recent recordings were supposed to be played at the higher level, which affects freq. response. This is way too in-depth to go in to on here, so that last quote is slightly false, but basically it comes down to the analysis method from before- If these recent masters were aiming for a similar RMS level to CD's produced 15 years ago, it wouldn't be simply a case of reducing the maximizer or compressor accordingly; other factors would also be changed. Most importantly, EQ- based on fletcher-munson curves of freq. loudness perception at different amplitudes.
First off, let me rephrase that to say 'Most new mainstream pop/rock albums are around 99-100'. Again this is a bit confusing to me without knowing the program. If these albums peak at 99-100, there's nothing wrong with that whatsoever. This probably isn't the case, but my point is there are some albums in recent years which may peak at this level, the average may occupy a much lower level, and have 'quiet' sections even lower in the spectrum. I have a bit of trouble with you saying 'ALL' new albums.
There are so many factors which affect a vinyls output. You would need a very expensive set-up to truly benifit. The problem is there are a lot of crappy vinyl masters, and even albums that haven't been mastered any differently to vinyl, just shoved on to the format. Vinyl, being an analog system, doesn't interpret the files with the same fidelity as digital cd players do, as they all conform to a standard. This is generally considered pleasing, as is most analog-produced works. To be honest, I think some of your trouble with the whole loudness thing is you're setting too much to store by these visual representations. As I said before, there are some very nice sounding releases from recent years. On to the point I said I'd cover earlier...

Mastering is NOT the only reason audio production has succumbed to these 'loudness wars'. This is one of the reasons that vinyl won't make any difference. The treatment of individual instruments has changed significantly. Basically, the amount of compression used in tracking and mixing nowadays is (often) far more liberal. So mastering often isn't to blame- essentially you'd be getting the same lack of dynamic range, just at a lower average level. Of course this is far from being true for all producers/mixers, but in the popular music field this is generally the standard at present.

I could literally talk all day about this, and I'd be reasonably happy to do so. But I have work to do.. and I'd rather be applying compression myself than talking about it.

A few more basic factors to consider though:

- Pop music in general has had a steady decline in (would love to say quality, but this is obviously fairly subjective) its dynamic range in songwriting, before production even enters the equation. Hard to explain, but there are generally very few different sections in pop songs nowadays. Generally the power and intensity is consistent throughout the song, and the effect of building to a climax or using different emotionally applied instrumentation (getting a bit in to production here) is more rare than it used to be. You referred to Superunkown, Siamese Dream (and Deluxe, which I can't recall... who is it?)- basically albums released during the grunge era. A LOT of these songs were based on the soft verse, loud chorus formula. This is not something which is generally applied to songwriting that you hear on the radio nowadays.

- Mastering and compression, apart from being necessary, is a creative tool. Take The Mars Volta- they definitely have dynamic range, but the loud sections are completely and utterly squashed. This, in my opinion, is a creative option, and I think their music would have suffered had it been less compressed. It's quite a messy sound, and benifits from this style of prodution/mastering. This links with the last point.

- I have to do it. Pop music right now is at a low point. The variation not only in single songs, but in songs you hear back to back on the radio is minimal... (I will finish this later)

I forgot that the clocks here have gone forward. I am an hour behind now.

I appreciate the long response, and like I said, you know more about the subject than I do, which this post proves. However, my ears do not lie. There's no question that many albums suffer from what I've talked about, but I also agree that there are a few bands that want it to be loud and fuzzy. I think that's the sound that the Pumpkins were going for on their last album. Yes, the Pumpkins' sound on most of their albums is different to say the least...IMO, Mellon Collie sounds pretty horrible, even though it is a "quieter" album.

I'm not saying there aren't some good sounding releases out there now (although I can't say I've found many), but most of the worst sounding records, at least production-wise, have come in the past 10 years.

To address some other of your points:

1. No, you cannot change the mastering process, but you CAN remove clipping, in a sense. You're right, MP3 gain is an equalizer, but one of the advantages of using it is that it removes clipping (or at least the clicking and popping that occurs when a song clips). So, yes, by lowering the volume, it avoids "hitting the red". Again, IMO, the songs sound a LOT better when the song volumes are lowered. And I think that it equalizes to the "average" volume, not the peak volume. All the program essentially does is keep the wav file intact, but makes it quieter in the process. If you were adjust a song without clipping with MP3 gain, the song would sound exactly the same, you'd just have to turn the volume up on the quieter one.

2. As you guessed, MP3 gain only equalizes MP3s. I realize MP3s are not WAV, but I am in the process of encoding my entire collection and encode at 320kbps. I know there is a loss in quality, but my ears can't really tell. In fact, just reading various articles on the internet (take it for what it's worth), when you play the same song to someone at 320kbps and WAV, most cannot tell the difference. Also, due to what MP3 gain does, I think 320kbps with all the same volumes is better than lossless files where you're reaching for the remote to turn the volume down every other song. I don't have the time (or the harddrive space) to change the WAV of every song. MP3 gain does an album in about 45 seconds.

3. I completely agree with your assessment of pop music. I don't even listen to the radio anymore, and haven't in about 8-9 years, because I get sick of hearing Nickelback, The Rascal Flatts, and all the other crap. I was at the Genesis concert last night (one of the youngest people there ) and was thinking about how great is must have been back in the day to have actually talented bands rule the radio and music sales, and how long-running bands like Genesis are coming to an end...it's all about getting a radio hit, and then you don't hear from these people again. (A side note - I don't care what people's opinions are about Phil Collins...yes, his solo stuff is a little poppy and fluffy, but he (they) are very talented and were awesome in concert)

4. Yes, you're right about some vinyl records just having the mastered CD copied onto it - I wasn't going to mention that, but you pointed it out....nothing gets by you

5. Better than Ezra put out "Deluxe". Obviously, not a essential 90s album or anything, but it's a great sounding album and one of the last without a ton of clipping....listen to a rock track from nowadays, immediately by "Porcelain"...talk about a wonderful sounding track.

5. (From a previous post) No, I have not analyzed the WAVs of Radiant Sea, but am not surprised that it's squashed to hell. It's the norm. Most live releases sound like garbage nowadays...it's getting to the point where ACOUSTIC concerts are getting squashed..."Skin and Bones" by the Foo Fighters is a great example.

Again, I respect your opinion, as you know more about the whole process than I. It may be the hip thing to say to "stop the loudness wars", but its does have to stop. If nothing else, refer back to my Beatles example. All these albums that are being "remastered" nowadays are nothing more than some hack making all the tracks loud and ruining the dynamics. This is not how the tracks were meant to be heard. I've invested thousands into my CD collection, and I can't say it's upsetting that I buy an inferior product. The problem is, I'm anal about my music. I don't like downloading anymore - I don't know how the track was ripped, so I buy everything I want (I buy a lot of one track promos off eBay for songs I want by one hit wonders - Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm by Crash Test Dummies is an example). I don't believe in the whole iTunes thing (unless its an iTunes only track) because I like having the CD, as well as the crappy quality of what you buy (although they are getting better about it). I know one day, when all these albums get remastered properly (aka with dynamic range), I'll go out and buy all those, too.

I apologize if this post is all over the place - it probably is - there was a lot to respond to.

[AgentK7]

5. (From a previous post) No, I have not analyzed the WAVs of Radiant Sea, but am not surprised that it's squashed to hell. It's the norm. Most live releases sound like garbage nowadays...it's getting to the point where ACOUSTIC concerts are getting squashed..."Skin and Bones" by the Foo Fighters is a great example.

I forgot to mention, not only are the dynamics squashed to almost nothing, they are also extremely clipped. In some cases it's below the standard threshold and the clipping is just straight across. It just looks terrible. You've got to open up the individual songs in a wav editor to see for yourself. Let's hope any future independent releases Live puts out are better produced/mastered.