Wilco (The Mastering)

[Synthesizer Patel]

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.

 

yeah, i'm forgetting they recorded it in new zealand, so maybe that's why i don't like the sound of it.

[Analogman]

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 believe one of the reasons AGIB sounds the way it does is due to the fact that was recorded at Sear Sound.

 

And this:

 

Mastered by Steve Rooke at Abbey Road, London

[Synthesizer Patel]

I believe one of the reasons AGIB sounds the way it does is due to the fact that was recorded at Sear Sound.

 

And this:

 

Mastered by Steve Rooke at Abbey Road, London

 

Yeah, but I think if you're a good producer you should be able to work in most environments, though. It's not even that I wanted the new one to sound like AGIB - that sound worked for that album, it's just I didn't want it to sound it does.

[Analogman]

Yeah, but I think if you're a good producer you should be able to work in most environments, though. It's not even that I wanted the new one to sound like AGIB - that sound worked for that album, it's just I didn't want it to sound it does.

 

I rather like the sound of that album, I know that. It's my third favorite Wilco album, actually. I was hoping they would start a long run of making albums in that studio.

[Synthesizer Patel]

this whole thing about it all being subjective, there is also the other thing about how some people have better or worse hearing than others. now, i'm not saying my hearing is better - it might be worse, so that i am missing the quality in the production - but, that very fact means it's possible for someone to say the production is bad or good, beyond the idea that they are being subjective. it only becomes subjective if everyone has the same ability to hear, and also play the music through the same equipment. these factors should be mentioned long before subjectivity comes into play.

[Rock Dad]

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.

The thread has kind of moved on from this point, however, I have heard Bob Ludwig address this very issue. I once saw him speak about a McCartney album he mastered. Paul wanted it to be compressed almost to the point of distortion, so that's what he got. Obviously, Bob could have done it differently if Paul wanted it another way. Based on those comments, I assume that Wilco wanted the CD to sound as it does.

[Vacant Horizon]

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

 

 

yeah, i don't know why bands dick around with a good production formula they find. just stick with what works. tweedy has mentioned that agib is their best sounding album. i don't agree with the bennett comment though:)

 

agreeing with many of the other comments. agib just really nailed me. love that album, so warm and dark at the same time. sbs was 'meh' for me. this new one just 'sounds' like any other new adult alternative stuff that's been coming out the last decade. cant put my finger on why though. mastering may be the answer here.

[Vacant Horizon]

The thread has kind of moved on from this point, however, I have heard Bob Ludwig address this very issue. I once saw him speak about a McCartney album he mastered. Paul wanted it to be compressed almost to the point of distortion, so that's what he got. Obviously, Bob could have done it differently if Paul wanted it another way. Based on those comments, I assume that Wilco wanted the CD to sound as it does.

 

what mccartney album? his most recent?

[W(TF)]

Subjectively.......this record sounds ”good” on my Zune (with good earphones...mediocre on the car speakers), and thats how nearly all modern albums are made, to sound ”OK” on the playback medium that 99.8% of listeners are using now...earbuds, or cheap mp3 or computer speakers. Unfortunately that means loads of compression, but because of the advancements in encoding this artifact isnt nearly as bad as it was 8 or 10 years ago, when mp3 was barely listenable.

 

An analog(ish) mastering played back on a good turntable in a real hi-fi system is always the way to go. Dont know whether Jeff or the others are or ever were audiophiles per se, or as Ray asked, whether they have had to let go of some of those ideals and accept the way things are in the modern digital world. Interesting question though.

[learnhowtosteer]

Re: the production, I actually think it does sound pretty labored. Jeff's voice is double-tracked more than on recent albums. Nels' guitar often seems to swoop in out of nowhere--my understanding is that Nels wasn't in New Zealand, and you can actually HEAR that he wasn't there. His guitar sounds disembodied, like he's just on a different wavelength.

 

Overall, it seems like a situation where they kept tinkering because the basic tracks weren't up to snuff. I remember Jay Bennett once saying that Wilco recording sessions tend to transition "rather slyly" from demo sessions to actual album sessions. Maybe these should have stayed demos.

[imsjry]

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.

 

Of course the CD "sounds" louder then the record with the same amp volume setting. A CD player and a phonograph output totally different impedance levels. I'm not saying they aren't mastered differently, but the above example is not a vaild test of the "loudness" of the mastering.

[jkg12345]

given that a ghost is born is my favorite album, i'd like to hear you mix it differently,and to compare them

 

if it's not to much trouble and all

 

thanks

 

brendan

[DAngerer09]

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

 

+1

[wickerpark]

I maybe wrong, but I think we may have too much time on our hands. I know Tweedy et tal are probably very specific about the sound and all aspects of how they want their records to sound but if it is so awful sounding it wouldn't be released, backed, promoted or a tour supporting it. Hey our record is piss poor sounding, cool, come buy tix to our live piss poor sound...doesn't make a lot of sense. Obviously, the crew here, has a higher standard, but not everyone buying this record has the audio equipment means or time, beyond downloading (legally) into an mp3, fortunately or unfortuately, and still enjoys the art produced.

[ray]

Of course the CD "sounds" louder then the record with the same amp volume setting. A CD player and a phonograph output totally different impedance levels. I'm not saying they aren't mastered differently, but the above example is not a vaild test of the "loudness" of the mastering.

 

Yes, good point. I was listening on my friend's turntable and CD setup which was adjusted accordingly so that the two were outputing at relatively the same level (i.e. the CD player had an output levels adjustment and it was taken down to -10dB). So you should first get an album which is less compressed/mastered, that is, the CD and vinyl for an older release e.g. an early 80s Sinatra CD vs the vinyl. Note the volume difference caused by your setup and how it sounds. Then put on Wilco vs Wilco and now gauge the difference in volume.

 

And to clarify, we're not talking about just the volume/levels difference in this thread. The dynamics are significantly different and more squashed (to make it loud). I was just responding before to someone who was confused about whether there is a subjective or objective difference.

 

On further listenings, I'm pretty sure the two masters are EQ'ed differently as well. There's a much sharper (or "crisp") high end on the CD master, and a much smoother (but less extended) high end on the vinyl. This is harder to gauge though as to whether it is just a difference in the medium. To me, the treble/bass response difference does sound like it was a difference with EQ applied. The vocals don't "cut" through as much on the vinyl and is more set back. And the snare and hihats sound really different.

[Rock Dad]

what mccartney album? his most recent?

It was Memory Almost Full.

[MattZ]

I maybe wrong, but I think we may have too much time on our hands. I know Tweedy et tal are probably very specific about the sound and all aspects of how they want their records to sound but if it is so awful sounding it wouldn't be released, backed, promoted or a tour supporting it. Hey our record is piss poor sounding, cool, come buy tix to our live piss poor sound...doesn't make a lot of sense. Obviously, the crew here, has a higher standard, but not everyone buying this record has the audio equipment means or time, beyond downloading (legally) into an mp3, fortunately or unfortuately, and still enjoys the art produced.

 

You sort of answered your own point here. The argument (that others are making) isn't necessarily that Jeff et al don't care about the sound. The argument is that these days the vast majority of people are listening to music on mp3 players through inferior headphones where these issues are less noticeable. A "give the people what they want" theory, if you will. You are right that "not everyone...has the audio equipment..." I think that's the point. You are also right that we have too much time on our hands.

[ray]

If you can't hear the difference, it is best not to know. Sometimes it's worst off to know, because then you can't not ignore it and it's enormously distracting. Trust me, if I could ignore it, I would.

[lamradio]

So is there a big difference listening to the LP version? I'm trying to justify forking out the cash to buy a record player..

[Vacant Horizon]

It was Memory Almost Full.

 

okay, that's what i thought. that album sounded louder than chaos, which i thought was a great record.

[Vacant Horizon]

If you can't hear the difference, it is best not to know. Sometimes it's worst off to know, because then you can't not ignore it and it's enormously distracting. Trust me, if I could ignore it, I would.

 

 

this is my big issue. the music i love, i really really love. as a result, i want it to sound the best. however, this is a slippery slope. do i go vinyl, do i get audiophile speakers, do i just do lossless, do i eschew cds, etc. it can really be frustrating.

[W(TF)]

Audiophiles get so caught up in the sound, and end up comparing the same pieces of music ad nauseum with every small equipment change or tweak, comparing remasters/reissues and different pressings, etc etc. Many audiophiles are obsessive, even neurotic, and can never be satisfied. Allocate all that "upgrade" money (and time) to seeing concerts and acquiring more music, you will be happier.

 

I really believe listening to music should be a habit, not a sonic "event". Learned this the hard way...

[imsjry]

Interestingly, I got Wilco (The Album) and Yankee Hotel Foxtrot on vinyl yesterday in the mail :-) and yes, they both sound superb and "warmer" then the CD's. However, even on the first listens I hear all the pops and clicks which made me remember why I loved CD's in the first place. To me, the fact that a CD is always going to sound the same vs. the crap that an album will produce over time makes CD the better technology (for me).

[ray]

Audiophiles get so caught up in the sound, and end up comparing the same pieces of music ad nauseum with every small equipment change or tweak, comparing remasters/reissues and different pressings, etc etc. Many audiophiles are obsessive, even neurotic, and can never be satisfied. Allocate all that "upgrade" money (and time) to seeing concerts and acquiring more music, you will be happier.

 

I really believe listening to music should be a habit, not a sonic "event". Learned this the hard way...

 

While I largely agree, I think there is a fine line between being obsessive and just plain being observant. Some of us record and engineer music, and it is a necessary "ear" that we've developed to pinpoint what is wrong with what we're hearing. However, just because other people can't name the problem, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't notice it. They might just wonder why their ears get tired after listening to one particular album over another, and hit the stop button, or turn the volume down more than usual. Have you noticed that between, say, listening to SBS and WTA on headphones? Or they might just perceive of an established feeling that they didn't enjoy listening to the album and just say the whole record "sucks" without understanding why.

 

And would you consider Neil Young and Bob Dylan as people who are overly obsessive with the sound of their music rather than the actual music itself? I certainly wouldn't. They are somewhat infamous for their "raw" approaches to recording, capturing something live and quick is almost always prioritized over minute details. Yet, they have both expressed dissatisfaction with the way many albums sound these days. Neil Young blocked the release of many of his albums on CD at first because he didn't like the sound of them and how it affected his music. He has since relented but largely because he is happier with the higher resolution of DVD-A and 24-bit audio. He also cares alot about who masters and records his music, because he knows how much it affects his work. Similarly, Dylan has publicly lamented the sound of modern recording techniques and the output produced. And he too has demonstrated that he's now careful with how he makes his recordings.

[Vacant Horizon]

for me, i'm just tired of revisiting the whole audiophile issue every few months. if i don't think about it, i don't worry about it. i'm fine with 256kbs mp3s at the moment.