Wilco (The Mastering)

[ray]

Anybody else noticing how "modern" the CD mastering is on the new album? To achieve that "loud" sound that's common on most releases today, it's compressed heavily, much more so than any previous Wilco CD. It has a really "pressed-to-the-lens" sound, and to be honest, as much as I hate to criticize an artist's output, it's fatiguing to listen to.

 

The vinyl however, is a world of difference. And it's not just the sound of the medium. They're actually very different masters: Bob Ludwig mastered the CD, and Bernie Grundman mastered the vinyl release. Grundman's master is much more conservative and has much more room to breathe.

 

I can't figure out if this was a conscious decision by the band to make the CD release so "smashed". They were one of the few contemporary bands making new releases which were NOT void of dynamics, or with that overly compressed "radio sound", and they've always seemed to be very conscious of the audio side of things. This CD stood out in how much it sounds like other pop records of today (in terms of mastering, rather than arrangement). And it does feel like one of the themes in this album is that one has to be freed of their self consciousness, and in some ways, perhaps, the acceptance of that modern smashed sound is part of letting go of ideals.

 

Ludwig is very aware of the war on maintaining dynamics in mastering, but he has also often made loud/super-compressed masters when requested by his clients or the record company. So I'm wondering if this has indeed been the case here.

 

Or was it just a stuff up?

[quosh]

Stuff up!

 

No, seriously I don't know but your post makes for interesting reading, It's crazy to think that once the recording is in the can, the end results differ considerably over different mediums. So if you ripped the vinyl to say uncompressed AIFF/WAV - would you still hear less compression than on a straight CD rip to AIFF/WAV?

 

Just curious.

 

alex

[ray]

Yes. You can hear the difference very noticably, even from listening to a vinyl rip in WAV. (I listened to it at my friend's place with his turntable - I don't have a turntable, we made a rip so I can listen at home and even there it's quite clearly noticible alongside the CD).

 

It's a completely different mastering job. That's what mastering is, they compress and EQ the final mix for that "finishing touch". In the old days, it used to be done to cater to the medium the music will be pressed on, because you can't put too much bass on a vinyl record or the needles on the turntable will skip, etc. These days, it's usually done to make it sound "louder" -- like the way you notice commercials on TV or radio, always sound louder than the actual show you're watching/listening to.

[Vacant Horizon]

Anybody else noticing how "modern" the CD mastering is on the new album? To achieve that "loud" sound that's common on most releases today, it's compressed heavily, much more so than any previous Wilco CD. It has a really "pressed-to-the-lens" sound, and to be honest, as much as I hate to criticize an artist's output, it's fatiguing to listen to.

 

The vinyl however, is a world of difference. And it's not just the sound of the medium. They're actually very different masters: Bob Ludwig mastered the CD, and Bernie Grundman mastered the vinyl release. Grundman's master is much more conservative and has much more room to breathe.

 

I can't figure out if this was a conscious decision by the band to make the CD release so "smashed". They were one of the few contemporary bands making new releases which were NOT void of dynamics, or with that overly compressed "radio sound", and they've always seemed to be very conscious of the audio side of things. This CD stood out in how much it sounds like other pop records of today (in terms of mastering, rather than arrangement). And it does feel like one of the themes in this album is that one has to be freed of their self consciousness, and in some ways, perhaps, the acceptance of that modern smashed sound is part of letting go of ideals.

 

Ludwig is very aware of the war on maintaining dynamics in mastering, but he has also often made loud/super-compressed masters when requested by his clients or the record company. So I'm wondering if this has indeed been the case here.

 

Or was it just a stuff up?

 

 

i havent heard the vinyl, but i too have some reservations about the sound of this new album. it does sound compressed and loud. AGIB and SBS really felt as if there was space between the instruments. not the case with WTA. even though i like most of the tunes on the album, i haven't been listening much...at least not as much as AGIB. i also think there is a bit more production sheen on this album, ala summerteeth. lots of echoed voice and reverb in some spots. i miss that straight, warm, in-room sound of the last few albums.

[Synthesizer Patel]

This mastering and mixing, and general production issue with Wilco i think is one of the biggest let downs in the last 2 Wilco album. I personally think this last album sounds like it's been produced someone who doesn't really know what they are doing. So it's badly produced - and as a result they needed to give it some "magic" to try and bring it's rotting corpse to life - resulting in a poor mastering job. To be honest I've not heard the cd or vinyl because I've only got a certain amount of money to spend on music each month, and this last album doesn't warrant me wasting it on it. But, I'm assuming the proper versions can't be that much better. I'd site YHF and AGIB as two of the very best produced albums of the last few years - so I don't know why in the hell they're fucking up so much now. You'd assume they must hear the difference in quality. This new one sounds uninspired, and whilst Sky Blue Sky is better, it's still pretty mundane and lacking in anything I'd regard as good.

[MattZ]

I don't know why in the hell they're fucking up so much now. You'd assume they must hear the difference in quality. This new one sounds uninspired, and whilst Sky Blue Sky is better, it's still pretty mundane and lacking in anything I'd regard as good.

 

Yes, I'd assume they can hear how this album sounds. Maybe they like how the last two albums sound? I don't know enough about mastering but the naysayers seem to be speaking in not only absolute, but in objective terms. Is it possible that the issue is neither absolute, nor objective? I don't ask that question to be snarky -- I really don't know enough about mastering to know if this is an objective or subjective issue.

 

I have been listening to this album on vinyl exclusively and I am happy with it. I haven't compared to the CD.

[So Long]

The drum sound on this record is way too compressed for my taste. It's pretty loud on whole, even the more quiet parts of the album. Personally, I'd opt for A ghost Is Born production any day.

[H.Stone]

I've only got a certain amount of money to spend on music each month, and this last album doesn't warrant me wasting it on it.

 

 

Thank god their fan site is free!

 

To be honest I've not heard the cd or vinyl

 

Yet...

 

I personally think this last album sounds like it's been produced someone who doesn't really know what they are doing. So it's badly produced - and as a result they needed to give it some "magic" to try and bring it's rotting corpse to life - resulting in a poor mastering job.

 

...and...

 

This new one sounds uninspired, and whilst Sky Blue Sky is better, it's still pretty mundane and lacking in anything I'd regard as good.

 

Come on. This seems like an interesting conversation, but it's about the mastering of the official releases, the ones you haven't heard. Save your impassioned commentary until you've actually heard them. If the music isn't worth your money, thinking of it as paying to really be able to bitch in this thread.

[Livin' in New Orleans]

i havent heard the vinyl, but i too have some reservations about the sound of this new album. it does sound compressed and loud. AGIB and SBS really felt as if there was space between the instruments. not the case with WTA. even though i like most of the tunes on the album, i haven't been listening much...at least not as much as AGIB. i also think there is a bit more production sheen on this album, ala summerteeth. lots of echoed voice and reverb in some spots. i miss that straight, warm, in-room sound of the last few albums.

 

It is very worth hearing it on vinyl, trust me! It is just a much more warm and inviting sound. As a good friend put it, "it is like the band is right here in the room."

[mpolak21]

Yeah, if I had to pinpoint a major issue I have with the record it's definitely the production and the mastering. While it's not as distracting as Nevermind or an old Smashing Pumpkins record, everything is a little too loud and a little too compressed. Not making O'Rourke a Godfather offer to produce and mix everything from here on out after Ghost runs alongside canning Bennett as choices in retrospect I wish Tweedy hadn't made.

 

--Mike

[monster]

Some possibly relevant comments in this interview;

 

 

John Stirratt Interview

 

"Washington City Paper : Wilco (the Album) suggests there’s no new overt sonic agenda. Even though Sky Blue Sky wasn’t billed as experimental as you other releases, it still had a definitive sound. Did the impromptu nature of what transpired in New Zealand contribute to putting down an album of just….songs?

 

Stirratt: We were interested in getting the best sound we could get. There have been records in that past that may have had some limitations that are taken for a sonic agenda. We wanted the capability to go for a denser sound, a sturdier higher-fi sound with basic tracks on this release.

 

But every record does have a sort of story, and for this one we were in a very comfortable situation recording in the New Zealand summer when it was winter back home. We did strive to get the best sound, and Jim Scott’s [Wilco (the Album) co-producer and engineer] fingerprints are all over it. There’s also something similar since he [scott] recorded “Can’t Stand It” from Summerteeth. This is the first time we’ve recorded with him since that track. I loved his demeanor then and this record does reflect his sound."

 

 

 

My 0.02 worth; I agree WTA sounds a bit more polished than most of their previous albums, but personally i don't feel the CD sounds like it's been compressed to the point where dynamics and color have been lost from the music. I haven't listened to the vinyl yet for comparison.

 

I know what you mean though about alot of the stuff released these days being really hard work to listen to - the music ends up coming accross as being in your face and relentless....

[MattZ]

I can agree with the statement that the album sounds a little bit too polished in spots. The harmonies are super crisp and in your face. Or, that's where I notice it at least. I just find it hard to believe that Jeff and boys weren't aware of it and it wasn't a conscious decision. To think that all this work went into crafting the album and then they ignored the mastering process seems hard to believe for too many reasons to list.

[Synthesizer Patel]

Come on. This seems like an interesting conversation, but it's about the mastering of the official releases, the ones you haven't heard. Save your impassioned commentary until you've actually heard them. If the music isn't worth your money, thinking of it as paying to really be able to bitch in this thread.

 

Does the mp3 version from itunes sound the same as the CD, or does that sound different too? I also kind of added to the conversation - that being the idea that the mastering is shit because the production is shit. The mastering of it is like putting a lot of cover-up on a spot - not ideal, everyone can still tell you've got a spot if they look closely, and not something you'd like to admit to in an interview. I've personally never heard a well produced album that's simply been mastered badly - resulting in it sounding bad. I can do a test if you wish, and boost the levels of AGIB and make it sound like the mastering of the new album - it'll still be listenable.

[Synthesizer Patel]

I can agree with the statement that the album sounds a little bit too polished in spots. The harmonies are super crisp and in your face. Or, that's where I notice it at least. I just find it hard to believe that Jeff and boys weren't aware of it and it wasn't a conscious decision. To think that all this work went into crafting the album and then they ignored the mastering process seems hard to believe for too many reasons to list.

 

I am sure they noticed it - I'm just surprised they thought it sounded good, especially based on their past efforts. As I've said, the mastering is just the final mistake - and it was probably necessary because of the bad production. I said it the first day it leaked - the acoustic guitars sound bad, and the piano sounds like a keyboard, and probably is a keyboard, and the drums are compressed to a silly degree. I'd be really surprised if the vinyl sounds that much better.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Does the mp3 version from itunes sound the same as the CD, or does that sound different too? I also kind of added to the conversation - that being the idea that the mastering is shit because the production is shit. The mastering of it is like putting a lot of cover-up on a spot - not ideal, everyone can still tell you've got a spot if they look closely, and not something you'd like to admit to in an interview. I've personally never heard a well produced album that's simply been mastered badly - resulting in it sounding bad. I can do a test if you wish, and boost the levels of AGIB and make it sound like the mastering of the new album - it'll still be listenable.

 

This is very interesting to me.

 

By coincidence, just last night I was going through my iTunes library, and I had downloaded the mp3 version of the album from Wilco's web site (which I got from purchasing the CD through them). I had also ripped a 256-kb AAC version (i.e. pretty high quality rip) from the CD into iTunes before. I compared the 2, and the mp3 version from the web site sounded slightly better to me, which I thought was weird because (1) my CD rip was supposedly better quality than the mp3 (AAC is supposedly better/less-compressed than mp3); and (2) I'm not such an audiophile that I can usually tell the difference between these things.

 

If the mp3 download from the web site was ripped from the vinyl master, and the vinyl master is different, that would explain it.

[Dude]

Does the mp3 version from itunes sound the same as the CD, or does that sound different too? I also kind of added to the conversation - that being the idea that the mastering is shit because the production is shit.

 

Out of curiosity, what about the production strikes you as shit? To me it sounds like a great production. Hell, I wish Summerteeth (my favorite album of theirs) was recorded with half this fidelity. That album sounds totally compressed, Protooled to death, wayyyyy too many overdubs, too many instruments occupying the same sonic spaces / frequencies. It's like pancakes with half a bottle of syrup slathered on it. The syrup, of course, was Jay Bennett layering on a zillion overdubs. Which to me, is part of it's charm -- Pet Sounds is also overtracked to death -- but Summerteeth is clearly more of a case of covering up spots than W(TA) is.

[conezone]

it all makes so much sense now. let me preface this with the fact that i am completely in love with this record, find more and more to love everytime i listen to it, and change my favorite song off of it every 5 minutes because i love so many of them. with that said, THIS POST EXPLAINS SO MUCH. the first time i listened to it i remember telling my sister "the record sounds so compressed... the band sounds separate from jeff and theres not as much distinction between all the little frills that they add to the songs... but maybe it's just because it's a stream". then when i bought the record i have to admit i was slightly disappointed to find that this was not the case. im now really regretting the fact that i didnt get the CD/vinyl pack because this seems like an ideal one to get on vinyl if this "problem" is altered.

 

it's clear they meant to do it and the more i listen the more i notice some places where it does sound great that way, but overall this is one of my few and far between complaints of the record. im pretty much in love with it.

[ray]

Yes, I'd assume they can hear how this album sounds. Maybe they like how the last two albums sound?

 

I don't know enough about mastering but the naysayers seem to be speaking in not only absolute, but in objective terms. Is it possible that the issue is neither absolute, nor objective? I don't ask that question to be snarky -- I really don't know enough about mastering to know if this is an objective or subjective issue.

I personally love the way SBS sounds (even on CD). It is (objectively) worlds apart from the mastering style of WTA. Subjectively, one may prefer one over the other. But the mastering style of SBS involves much gentler compression and is less loud (this isn't subjective, it can be measured by dB's).

 

I do lean towards thinking it was a conscious decision to depart from the previous album(s) aesthetically. But it is also not unheard of that albums get mastered and approved by the record company and the artist didn't get a chance to check the final copy (see Dinosaur Jr.'s new album). Or they stuff up and used the wrong master for example.

 

Given that there's two mediums targeted for release for WTA (vinyl and CD), there is a possibility that the band mostly listens to vinyl and focused their approval on that. It's possible they cared less about the CD, maybe even the fact that since they don't listen to it much, they might as well make that sound like other modern CDs, since people who listen to CDs clearly don't mind that over compressed sound. I can see that attitude.

 

I have been listening to this album on vinyl exclusively and I am happy with it. I haven't compared to the CD.

 

Didn't you get a CD with your vinyl release? Just pop that into the player and compare it to the vinyl. It should be quite clear just how different it is, and how much louder it is, on the same volume setting of your amplifier. There's nothing subjective about there being a difference. The subjective bit is whether you prefer one over the other.

[ray]

Does the mp3 version from itunes sound the same as the CD, or does that sound different too? I also kind of added to the conversation - that being the idea that the mastering is shit because the production is shit.

 

It's wrong to call it "bad production" or to say "the production is shit". You might not LIKE the production, but that doesn't mean it's factually, or professionally inferior. It's just not in line with your aesthetics.

 

Clearly, your aesthetics are much more akin to Jim O'Rourke's sonic tastes. There's a certain audio signature to that style of stuff, which is clear on the Loose Fur stuff too. I love it too, it's clarity, claustrophobic, yet warm and menancing all at the same time.

 

But I think it goes too far to say the production is bad on WTA. In fact, it's really the opposite: alot more production went into it. It's a very layered sound. It has less space but it's sweet in other ways. It's like saying chocolate milk is terrible because it isn't a Shiraz.

 

I can do a test if you wish, and boost the levels of AGIB and make it sound like the mastering of the new album - it'll still be listenable.

 

That is not the same as increasing volume through compression/limiting. It's not just about boosting the levels. It's about squashing the dynamics so that its perceived volume can be increased.

 

It's like having one photo taken 5 meters away, and the other is zoomed in on the target so that the entire picture is filled, there's no space or room, but every detail is clearer, closer and emphasized. It can appear more impressive at first, but it's exhausting and you lose the atmosphere you could create in a photo by capturing the environment - or even the blank space in a b&w photo can add alot to the mood.

[lamradio]

I know this has nothing to do with the master, but the first thing I noticed about the CD version is how loud the vocals are. They are way too upfront in the mix.

[Synthesizer Patel]

Out of curiosity, what about the production strikes you as shit? To me it sounds like a great production. Hell, I wish Summerteeth (my favorite album of theirs) was recorded with half this fidelity. That album sounds totally compressed, Protooled to death, wayyyyy too many overdubs, too many instruments occupying the same sonic spaces / frequencies. It's like pancakes with half a bottle of syrup slathered on it. The syrup, of course, was Jay Bennett layering on a zillion overdubs. Which to me, is part of it's charm -- Pet Sounds is also overtracked to death -- but Summerteeth is clearly more of a case of covering up spots than W(TA) is.

 

I said, the acoustic guitar sounds bad - it sounds like it's been recorded through a pick-up, so it sounds like that horrible cross between an electric and acoustic guitar, the piano sounds like a keyboard and the drums are compressed - it just sounds poorly put together, nothing blends - oh, and there is next to no bass.

 

As for Summerteeth, whilst I don't like that production and think it sounds dated now, at least it was interesting and original at the time. An effort was made. I can't see that here.

 

It's wrong to call it "bad production" or to say "the production is shit". You might not LIKE the production, but that doesn't mean it's factually, or professionally inferior. It's just not in line with your aesthetics.

 

Clearly, your aesthetics are much more akin to Jim O'Rourke's sonic tastes. There's a certain audio signature to that style of stuff, which is clear on the Loose Fur stuff too. I love it too, it's clarity, claustrophobic, yet warm and menancing all at the same time.

 

But I think it goes too far to say the production is bad on WTA. In fact, it's really the opposite: alot more production went into it. It's a very layered sound. It has less space but it's sweet in other ways. It's like saying chocolate milk is terrible because it isn't a Shiraz.

 

That is not the same as increasing volume through compression/limiting. It's not just about boosting the levels. It's about squashing the dynamics so that its perceived volume can be increased.

 

It's like having one photo taken 5 meters away, and the other is zoomed in on the target so that the entire picture is filled, there's no space or room, but every detail is clearer, closer and emphasized. It can appear more impressive at first, but it's exhausting and you lose the atmosphere you could create in a photo by capturing the environment - or even the blank space in a b&w photo can add alot to the mood.

 

My production tastes vary massively. I'm calling it poorly produced because I think the fundamental songwriting is good, but the finished music isn't, so I believe that is down to the production, and with production I'm also including the arrangements and instrument choices etc...

 

Also the thing I said about mastering AGIB, I actually meant opening it up in Adobe Audition and using Waves to master it again / tweak with it. I didn't mean increase the volume. Also, that compression and limiting will be occuring all the way back to the recording stage, it's not simply a method used for mastering.

[Sir Stewart]

If they'd just recorded it in Dubley, they wouldn't have any of these problems.

[ray]

Also the thing I said about mastering AGIB, I actually meant opening it up in Adobe Audition and using Waves to master it again / tweak with it. I didn't mean increase the volume. Also, that compression and limiting will be occuring all the way back to the recording stage, it's not simply a method used for mastering.

 

I'm aware of that. But the fact that I think the vinyl master sounds much better indicates that the compression/limiting applied during tracking and recording was not what tipped it over the edge for me. It was the stuff applied during the CD mastering stage.

 

In general though, yes, this album does feature a more compressed and up-front sound all round, and it was mixed and recorded that way too. Again, that's an artistic direction and a choice. I respect that as part of the album. You can use judacious amounts of compression artistically at that stage, without making it hurt your ears.

 

But when the CD leads to listening fatigue (you actually feel tired and want to stop the CD after hearing a barriage of noise and not enough "rests"), then that's unfortunate and usually a mastering problem (which is applied on the entire mix and so it causes things to fill up the sonic spectrum much more easily).

[Shakespeare In The Alley]

If they'd just recorded it in Dubley, they wouldn't have any of these problems.

You sir, are a winner.

[Dude]

I said, the acoustic guitar sounds bad - it sounds like it's been recorded through a pick-up, so it sounds like that horrible cross between an electric and acoustic guitar, the piano sounds like a keyboard and the drums are compressed - it just sounds poorly put together, nothing blends - oh, and there is next to no bass.

 

Ah okay. I remember reading Jeff saying that they he only had two guitars in New Zealand, and they didn't have the range of instruments that they have in the Loft. Maybe that resulted in some of the compromises you are hearing.