Uncompressed records in this day and age

how many bedrooms?

I'll start.

The Guillemots album is, while not Arvo Part in terms of its dynamic, absolute spacious bliss compared to, say, Snow Patrol's last two. Which hurt me. In terms of pure sonics.

Eureka and Insignificance by Jim O'Rourke are very spacious.

X-post, yes they do, Steve, I mean, EVERYONE does to some degree.

Louis - the past five years have been shite! (Joke - I simply can't stand to listen to BB though.)

My own recent uncompressed record would probably be Bark Psychosis' latest, or perhaps Elbow's Asleep In The Back. Good solid English alt-rock...

I was listening to The Breeders' Title TK last night on headphones and that sounds absolutely terrific; space, weight, texture, raw voices - about as far from yr typical block-o-sound as it's possible to get.

Thing is, all these records are fairly sparsely constructed anyway; the last couple of Lambchop records don't sound overcompressed to me and there's a lot going on in there. O'Rourke production jobs - seconded.

That packed-out driving guitar-rock thing that seems to be very popular with the NME thesedays (sorry to sound like an out-of-touch fuddy-duddy - I just am) lends itself to supercompression and would be an entirely different beast without it. I just don't like those bands.

I think the last full length (sorry. too drunk @ the moment to remember title) was pretty compressed. As was Geogaddi . MHTRTC not as much , methinks. But they're all lovely. G'night!

BOC are very clever. The sepia-toning thing, they record stuff onto analogue formats over and over again, to make it sound aged. MHTRTC is a much quieter record (and all the better for it!). I get the feeling big labels and mastering houses wouldn't dare to make a quiet record these days, especially if it might get played on the radio. Apparently the UKs mastering houses make the loudest records in the world, esp when it comes to vinyl stuff.

I think what we're talking about here is the fact that todays records are so damn loud!

I've always noticed this in cars, after a few tunes my ears get tired of the sound rather than the songs, which leads to more cds being changed, therefore more road accidents. Mothers against compression should be notified.

Then again, I can't believe that anyone would just type "BOC" on music knowledge board and assume that the whole world would think, "oh, sure, Boards of Canada! That band that stoners liked back in the twentieth century."

Sheesh. It's like you never even heard "Flaming Telepaths".

As if it matters...

I like toast!

Personally, I hate when I'm driving and have to constantly adjust the volume, but that's just me (not an audiophile in the slightest, I do 80% of my music listening by radio, tv and shitty mp3s)

What records make you constantly adjust the volume?

Anyway, yeah, classical recordings are mastered totally differently, but I guess I thought we were discussing popular music.

A good argument for some form of rudimentary limiting on car stereos rather than on the recording itself, which is what aggrieves those of us who think that mastering compression has gotten out of hand.

I'm sure there are car stereos than do this kind of thing - a "freeway environment" setting or something that compresses the buggery out of everything.

Which is fine as i need the exercise.

That would make a great compromise.

Goldberg: Specifically the albums this bugs me about are Hot Buttered Soul and Sketches of Spain.

I've had a Giya Kanceli album on my MP3 player for months and I've never got through the whole thing; some things were just not designed for listening to on the bus (especially not these new noisily air-conditioned models).

also you know what else sounds really good? the brighblack morning light record. crystal clear recording yet totally swampy dr john vibes. lovely.

Hiss? That's room acoustic you're hearing - that's the beauty of it! ECM recordings have been DDD for years, so there's no tape hiss.

I dunno - it's all 5th-hand info and conjecture really.

But this thread is for pop / rock / alternative!

3xpost

some car stereos have it. when the volume got past a certain level on the crappy radio/cassette player in my 1995 nissan quest (usually using a cd player w/ a cassette adapter), the compression/limiting kicked in. it got more and more brickwally the more you turned it up, but not louder. it was actually kind of cool to fuck around with, but decidedly uncool if you just wanted your music to be louder.

Some Luigi Nono recordings really push my patience tho'.

ffff - What does a 'half-decent system' mean when talking about classical recordings? xxp

This is probably fair comment but I think there's something to be said for preserving as closely as possible (and very possibly at the artist's/composer's/conductor's insistance) the live dynamics of the performance. CD is a wonderful medium for this, it's nice for there to be some music out there (as opposed to audiophile test recordings) which exploits that 90dB+ range. Get a good pair of headphones!

Sundar that makes sense if you can compress it so that the quiet parts are less quiet and the louder parts stay as loud and not louder

Yes, that's what compression is.

After that, it's up to you. (Not a gearhead...)

Making records you know you're not going to compress is really hard, you're constantly looking at the dB levels and worrying.

If I could get to my Ps, I'd check this out. Perhaps it's mic pre-amp noise. (Not that there can't be hiss of a sort on a well-dithered/noise-shaped DDD recording but it wouldn't be nearly as prominent as tape hiss).

The only singer I know who almost definitely does not compress the vocals (or anything) is Veda Hille from Vancouver. I'm pretty sure she doesn't, but I don't know for sure.

The Grizzly Bear "Yellow House" masters are compressed, I think so at least. There's a big difference between the rough mixes and the finished product. The rough mixes sound very warm, and the finished record sounds brittle. Both sound nice.

Indeed. I just got the record in the mail today. I'll tell you if I believe you about not compressing the masters after I listen ;)

OTM I was gonna say them, on both their records and the non-live EP stuff. they and Espers et al benefit tremendously from that starkness.

They're HTML commands. Use i and /i for italics and img src="http://url.jpg" and /img for images, all enclosed in < and >.

One minute from He Poos Clouds:
http://media.stevegoldbergmusic.com/poosclouds.GIF

One minute from The Arcade Fire's Funeral:
http://media.stevegoldbergmusic.com/funeral.GIF

Not really -- Aeroplane is pretty damn compressed. The opening guitar bit is just incredibly loud.

(Should we move this discussion to a new thread?)

and one of the most incredible things about it is the unbelievable shifts in dynamic range and all the ludicrously quiet little details in the record that force you to strain to listen, knowing that any moment she could start right back in wailing again -- it's an intense experience that would be totally compromised with compression, it's the kind of record that you probably shouldn't even try to listen to under certain conditions.

adjustable compression on end consumer units would fix all of this, can't believe it isn't here yet already -- I'm all for being able to listen to Charles Ives in the car -- but for the times I'm not listening to the Holidays Symphony in my car, I don't want every CD copy of it to be mastered into squashed background music.

oh now that's a good typo

Still amazes me that when folks type "BOC" they could mean anything other than Blue Oyster Cult for cryin' out loud. And I say this not owning (nor ever have owned) a single Blue Oyster Cult record. Boards of Canada are not that important people!!!

yes, but not free

Octiv was an interesting company that had a plug-in tailored to sound fantastic with mp3's. But they were slightly ahead of their time (probably still a little ahead), and were bought out after they exhausted their venture capital. The new owners haven't been keeping the code current.

http://www.volumelogic.com/index.asp?content=downloads

The production style may be back-to-basics, but they're still incredibly loud and pretty flat - it's less detrimental to the sound than other things though because there are generally less instruments going on in a WS track, hence you can make each one proportionally louder without starting to eat into each other. Unlike, say, a more layered and orchestrated record with strings and bass guitar and backing vocals and horns and loops and pianos and guitars et al.

Albini used to be dead against compressing, and in fact would master (have records mastered?) at about -6dB (check Surfer Rosa/Come On Pilgrim for example), rather than -0dB (which is louder, but still not necessarily compressing the record).

FWIW, I am completely behind Nick in his mission to destroy over-compression.

Yeah, because of the compression!

so all limiting would do is boost everything consistently to the same level

Yeah, that's what limiters are for.

But now I'd really like to hear a recording of some late-Nono that has been carefully/lovingly compressed and compare.

Perhaps you realize this, but I think the point was that you are acting as a compressor when you adjust the volume knob while listening.

I'm not sure to the extent compression takes all this away or whether it flattens anything out as I've still to listen to a recording compressed differently.

An uglier mutilation by studio capture of what is otherwise fine music (heard live, the damage done is much revealed) I've not heard in quite some time.

If I hadn't heard (a little) of them already you'd have killed my interest on the spot with that...

Let's bump this one too.

The 65dos record, obviously. The Electrelane. The LCD Soundsystem.

That's just this year.

Anything post Definitely Maybe is fair game, I reckon.

Anything by Califone. He Poos Clouds. Midlake.

He Poos Clouds is terrific for reminders of how rooms can sound. Agreed on the LCD, too, which is ... it's still loud, punchy, and energetic, but he not only knows how to keep it unsquashed, but why to keep it unsquashed (e.g., the background "North American" lines on "North American Scum" sound so perfectly roomy, like she's genuinely standing a few feet behind him and off to the side, and there are walls of specific dimensions surrounding them).

Ha, I was listening to He Poos Clouds while driving on the highway a while ago, and I actually wished it were more compressed, because amidst the rush of passing cars, I couldn't hear the quiet parts at all. I kept tinkering with the volume knob the whole time.

Is anyone here familiar with Pere Ubu's St. Arkansas (2002 iirc)?

I know David Thomas has strongly held views about recording and mastering techniques, and this is a very unusual sounding rock record to me, everything very palpable but with an odd practice-shed kind of feel... I'm not techy enough to identify what's going with it mastering-wise. Anybody?

Post-rock (stop groaning) is a good place to look for more under-compressed records, what with the dynamics being more part of the songs and all.

True, some post-rockers are vocal about avoiding compression. Take Souvaris:

(from their bio):

Sharing a belief that dynamics and texture in music are just as important as rhythm and melody. Our music is not performed all at the same level, nor is it a simplistic switching between quiet and LOUD. Our CDs tend to sound 'quieter' and have less immediate impact than other people's, but it's for a good reason. read this if you're wondering why.

Also, I'm sure Nick doesn't want this derailed with Classical banter again, but my big nominations for uncompressed-to-a-fault are the orchestral recordings of Sibelius on BIS Records (Sweden) by Osmo Vanska and the Lahti Symphony.

Vanska brought a lot of great interpretive/technical ideas to bear on the music. He's a really terrific conductor. But his one tic is this super-show-offy triple-pianissimo, abetted by BIS' usual wide dynamic range. In passages like the rustly-string beginning of Sibelius' 5th/3rd movement, I DEFY you to hear what the strings are doing without an acoustically-armored listening chamber and a $1500 system. It's not a problem with other BIS symphonic recordings, or even other BIS records by Vanska, only with that orchestra.

I would love to try compressing these a little bit. Did that freeware referenced above ever come back into currency?

I really can understand the "doesn't cut through background noise" complaint, but when albums are always getting squashed to crap, there's this point where it feels like someone deciding, I dunno, "The backgrounds and extras in this movie keep getting blurred out -- we need to reshoot it with everyone and everything standing the same distance from the camera."

Followed by: "Crap, that's too many people to keep in frame at once -- you guys should all just wrestle for space as your lines come up."

Yeah, ultimately, I'm glad it sounds the way it does: it's not meant for highway driving.

I don't really know about such things, but didn't Stuart Murdoch used to have a bee in his bonnet about compression, and wouldn't let it be applied to any B&S records?

Ten months too late N, but yeah, to the point where pre-release pressings of records were leaping out of the grooves because of no compression.

I always used to wonder how (once I reached middle age) teenagers would manage to find some way of annoying their elders via music...seemed that lyrical/noise factors had already been pushed to the limit. Maybe the answer is going to turn out to be production/mastering techniques.

Midlake, Nick? I like Van Occupanther, but I'd say it's about average as far as compression is concerned.

As for B&S, "Stars of Track and Field" always has me reaching for the volume knob at the beginning. That shit starts out really quiet.

I always used to wonder how (once I reached middle age) teenagers would manage to find some way of annoying their elders via music...seemed that lyrical/noise factors had already been pushed to the limit. Maybe the answer is going to turn out to be production/mastering techniques.

You do realize that 99.99% of teenagers and middle-aged people, even the vast majority of the music geeks, could give one fuck about mastering techniques.

You do realize that 99.99% of teenagers and middle-aged people, even the vast majority of the music geeks, could give one fuck about mastering techniques.

Obviously those people don't know what mastering compression is, but they certainly know what a modern record sounds like compared to one from the 80s, and I'm sure it would be easy for them to identify which was which in a listening test. This whole "most people can't even tell the difference!" thing has gotten old. Yes they can.

Of course they could tell the difference, but very few would know to pin the reason to mastering techniques. But that's not the point. Average middle aged people complain about the "noise" and lyrics of the stuff the "kids" are listening to all the time; mastering techniques, not so much. Hell, I bet a lot of the MOR stuff they like is compressed as shit.

I don't get what you're saying. Why does it matter if they know what makes it sound the way it does or not? A lot of the MOR stuff who likes is compressed as shit?

A few things.

Compression is a needful step to artiface which defines pop in the post multitrack universe. I want headroom, I'll listen to Dave Brubeck or the Berlin Symphony.

Mastering is an unheralded art. You don't (usually) just squash the stereo master wily nily--it's selective, it's amping filters and squashing them and so on.

Any time I pass a high end audiophile store, I either giggle inwardly or wonder about foolish people with money. I mean, you create, mix and often master on NS-10s or the like, then iPod buds and maybe a three inch tweeter. And here's people shelling out tens of thousands to hear better what nobody who made something ever heard or was probably even interested in hearing.

I'm going to stop replying soon, I promise.

Mastering is an unheralded art. You don't (usually) just squash the stereo master wily nily--it's selective, it's amping filters and squashing them and so on.

Ok, what does this mean?

Any time I pass a high end audiophile store, I either giggle inwardly or wonder about foolish people with money. I mean, you create, mix and often master on NS-10s or the like, then iPod buds and maybe a three inch tweeter. And here's people shelling out tens of thousands to hear better what nobody who made something ever heard or was probably even interested in hearing.

Are you a mastering engineer? Every mastering room I've ever been to or heard about has very high quality speakers as well as maybe NS-10s or something to represent lo-fi systems. But there would be no point in paying them if they only used crappy speakers. Most tracking studios want to have good monitors, too. So I think you're off base.

Midlake, Nick? I like Van Occupanther, but I'd say it's about average as far as compression is concerned.

Yeah, I guess it's not totally free of compression next to Guillemots or Final Fantasy, but it's used well, to my ears; not intrusive. I remember being struck by how (relatively) quiet and warm it was next to the stuff that was starting to blast my mind out when i began writing ISF.

And here's people shelling out tens of thousands to hear better what nobody who made something ever heard or was probably even interested in hearing.

You don't know what the audiophiles are playing on their systems or how those records were recorded. To concur with Steve above, I've never been in a pro studio or mastering suite that didn't have high-quality monitors (Genelecs, ATCs, Dynaudio, B&W, some unbranded and built to room spec) in addition to yr NS-10s, Tannoy Reveals, etc.

Diminishing returns set in very early on with the audiophilic pursuit of perfection and I think most hi-fi geeks know this (though they may be in partial denial about it), so the notion that only a few percent of recordings really justify their multi-$k system doesn't really make it all not worthwhile. It's kind of accepted. It just enhances the pastime to chase down particularly fine recordings, XRCD remasters, etc. An audiophile who owns a copy of What's The Story, Morning Glory? is not automatically a fool. Perhaps if that's all they own.

As for mastering being an unheralded art, well, fair enough. But the argument is that the bottom line these days with rock/pop is "make it as loud as possible", so judicious use of multi-band compression and EQ to achieve certain effects in the stereo mix are rather overwhelmed by the requirement to flatten every transient and shove everything within 3dB of full scale. I'm sure these records sound much better with an experienced mastering engineer flattening the fuck out of the everything with several grands' worth of outboard gear than they would with me applying a one-off DirectX plug-in in CoolEdit to achieve the same average RMS level, but it's still not a great end-result.

some folks may not like those last two Devendra Banhart albums on Young God (Rejoicing... and Nino Rojo), but they are good examples of simple, uncompressed room recordings. Fingers sliding on guitar strings, etc.

Nina Natasia records sound gorgeous.

And those are also Albini, aren't they, like Electrelane?

And those are also Albini, aren't they, like Electrelane?

-- These Robust Cookies, Thursday, June 7, 2007 5:25 PM (58 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

yep, at least the ones i have are.

but i think they are beautiful and tender sounding, and prove that albini doesn't make everything sound all aggressive and "ugly" like some people claim he does.

You do realize that 99.99% of teenagers and middle-aged people, even the vast majority of the music geeks, could give one fuck about mastering techniques.

Hahaha IF ONLY this were true -- then mastering standards could just be set however we alleged "audio geeks" want them. OBVIOUSLY it makes a difference, or people wouldn't be investing giant sums of money in getting their records flat-line louder!

The thing that 99.99% of people don't know or think about -- justifiably -- is the WAY the loudness and energy are achieved, and what kinds of tradeoffs they mean for the listening experience; people aren't audio specialists, and there's no for them to realize that (e.g.) the reason they never feel like listening to an album all the way through is related to the blaring, bursting energy of the single they first heard. A normal human will just think the album is kinda so-so, a little annoying after a while.

Oh, and I want to note something about "dynamics" here, because we keep talking about whole-song dynamics, like quiet parts vs. loud parts and whatnot -- one obvious thing that over-compression kills.

But beyond the cross-song "reaching for the volume knob" stuff, I think where the overcompression REALLY kills stuff is in ripping the dynamics out of any one moment or section. I mean, you take two bars of a rock chorus, with standard guitar/bass/drums/vocals -- the sound is constantly flat-lining up against the ceiling basically, right? Which means that when the drummer hits a drum, everything else has to squish quieter to make room for it. When the singer's singing, a drum's ducking out to make room. You can hardly listen to any given element, because they're all being pureed together into this giant blare.

You get some weird results out of that kind of thing that I can't imagine ANYONE would say sounds good. E.g.: when someone does a Townshend-style guitar windmill, it should go KERRANG and then have a long fading-off tail of sustain, right? And yet with instruments fighting for space, you'll hear windmills that actually go kerrANGandANGandANG, that actually get louder and softer along their length, because they're being pushed in and out by other sounds.

I mean, Jesus, if I'm playing bass and you're playing drums, I really don't think it's THAT old-mannish to imagine that the beats we BOTH play on should be slightly louder than the beats that are just, like, a tiny hi-hat click.

Nabisco this is BLATANT percussionism and I won't stand for it!

Which means that when the drummer hits a drum, everything else has to squish quieter to make room for it. When the singer's singing, a drum's ducking out to make room. You can hardly listen to any given element, because they're all being pureed together into this giant blare.

Well, to be fair, part of the point of using multi-band compression is avoiding artifacts like this. For example, if the floor tom is in a different band from the vocal, when the floor tom gets hit hard he vocal doesn't suck down as a result.

Yeah, but part of the whole blaring aesthetic that's being pioneered here involves kinda avoiding band-separation -- at least with modern rock stuff, there'd seem to be a deliberate blurring of guitar ranges and such. And the problem's equally noticeable (sometimes worse) when it's just catching the edges of an instrument's frequency range, since now you have its extension across the EQ range swelling and squashing over time.

(Worst is when this gets done to original mixes that just weren't recorded for that -- suddenly there's a bass break and you hear the high end of the bass track's ROOM SOUND swell out and hiss loud, and then that room sound disappears when the guitars come back, and you wind up with bits of actual space/rooms that seem to be fading around everything.)

Agreed on Vetiver, Espers and Electrelane. I guess I could name lots of folk albums with minimal instrumentation, but you'd have to be a moron to mess them up too much, right? Anyone got any good counterexamples?

Out of interest, does myspace compress uploaded music? Listening to almost anything on there for more than a couple of minutes gives me brainache.

I think Myspace's compression is lossy compression (i.e. bitrate)

at least with modern rock stuff, there'd seem to be a deliberate blurring of guitar ranges and such.

For sure, the "modern rock" conception of an electric guitar sound is a giant, opaque monstrosity that pretty much occupies every frequency band.

I think Myspace's compression is lossy compression (i.e. bitrate)

Right.

We laughed at Dylan when he said that today's records sounded atrocious, that they had sound all over them.

Who's laughing now?

What recent records sound open, airy, free, proportioned and spacious?

Shellac - Excellent Italian Greyhound

For all the talk of how bad CDs can sound, there are plenty of albums I have on vinyl who suffer just as significantly from poor, cheap pressings as they would have from a bad mastering job. I'm an active believer that we need both airy vinyl and (reasonably) in-your face CDs to live side by side, ready to fit whatever listening mood you might be in.

I laughed at Dylan, not because I thought what he was saying was wrong but because it sounded like was just being snobby and drawing attention to himself more than anything. I don't really think he could have predicted that it would blow up the way it did.

I didn't laugh at Dylan. I said "he's talking about the same thing as me! in an even more ridiculous manner".

Yeah, I didn't laugh at him either!

Incidentally, I attended the mastering sessions for my record (after mixing it myself), and I think it's pretty nice and (relatively) non-squished. I listened to it next to the recent Shins release and the difference was really obvious. It was mastered by Garrett Haines of Treelady Studios, who's mastered the Starlight Mints and some other Barsuk stuff. Cool guy.

I was always a bit depressed about the way my CAN cd's had been mastered. They always sounded a bit weak and flat. But the other day I put on I'm So Green and it didn't pound me til I couldn't take it anymore or whatever, it just bounced there in mid-air. Great!

This is my own personal thing, but the one record in my collection that really sticks out as being somewhat ruined (in the long term) by its mastering is Tegan & Sara's "So Jealous."

I'm slightly afraid to bring it up, as T&S tend to get a knee-jerk dismissive reaction anyway (see Pitchfork). But that album, as far as songwriting, playing, production are concerned is just amazing, and initially knocked my socks off as basically a better, more concise New Pornographers (sceptics: take note of the producers). Over time, though, have a really hard time getting through it due to a major lack of dynamics. I'm no audiophile, listen to most stuff on a Tivoli or iPod, but the thing is just fucking brutal to sit through. Would kill for a chance to hear what it sounded like before it got squashed.

I suspect (as a few have noted above) that the vast majority of listeners have no idea why some music seems tiring, etc. The thing about this massive compression is that it sounds great in the short term, crappy in the long term, and if you don't know what to listen for you'll never figure out why you keep switching songs on your iPod. Which is why short listening tests really miss the point.

I'm real happy that Mouthy started this thread. I really need to have someone help lead me to whatever sounds "old" in the studio, production-wise. I think we've already covered that White Stripes passes the test, but that my have been way upthread or another thread.

Also here's something I noticed: I have famous 70's disco track "The Hustle" by Van McCoy (and the Soul City Symphony) on a vinyl 70's disco compilation from K-Tel and I've noticed every time I try to play this, I can't get it as loud as I want it. I've got a new amplifier that just says "Volume Max" after a certain point, which is great because god knows I don't want to blow out my speakers again for the third time in a row, but all the same, I feel the need to own this track "The Hustle" on CD because I want it just a little bit louder than I can get it on vinyl.

the last scritti politti album, it seems to have loads of space yet at the same time feels quite over crowded. it confuses me slightly.

Yeah, actually I agree with that. Excellent observation.

"I can't get it as loud as I want it."

buy the 12 inch. it will definitely be louder.

Hmm...well, that's an idea. Thanks Scott.

the other think about van mccoy/the hustle was that he was a string arranger guy(he did a lot of work with the beach boys in the early 70's) and the drums/mix on that record are/is really weak. That record was a huge hit in 75, but it was kind of a pop-disco record for hetero-tards in the burbs that was mixed with prominent sub-phily muzak strings. Check out the Tom Moulton and Nicky Siano comps on Soul Jazz for concurrent stuff that gets yr blood up.

also, I am not trying to be a disco snob or insult anyone, I am just saying that the record is never going to kick ass because it is an intentionally wimpy mix. Scott is right a 12" mix will be cut louder. You might also want to look out for the hustle LP, because it will be easy to find for a buck in the used bin. It is worth it just for the goofy cover.

One thing that never gets mentioned is the way people use music today. I don't think people *listen* to music like they did 30 years ago. I know people drive to music, I know they sweat to it at the gym, and I know it plays in the background at the bbq, but do people specifically listen to music as an entertainment experience like they once did?

People will drop thousands on plasma screen and laptops at Best Buy, but they don't spend money on audio gear like they used to. They will spend $250 on an ipod but they will skimp on the playback system. Consumer audio just isn't good anymore. A consumer Japanese receiver from the 70's will kill anything coming out today. Why should a record be well mastered when it is being played back on 15 dollar computer speakers or a boom box?

IOW why listen to a record when you could watch Spiderman on DVD in 5.1 on HD?

"Why should a record be well mastered when it is being played back on 15 dollar computer speakers or a boom box?"

the rise of the bookshelf system! on a related note, there ARE actually good cd players for sale, but everyone opts for the 50 dollar special at walmart. or the 20 dollar special! most people don't care AT ALL what they play a cd on. i think this says something. about something.

I would think musicians would want their music well mastered regardless. Besides, there's always likely to be a few audiophiles in the audience who wouldn't just play things on a boom box or ipod.

I do wonder whether the notion of a decent separates system is just completely old hat these days and whether it's just the 35-55 demographic that's keeping all the Tottenham Court Road* stores in business (well, no, it's the plasma TVs they sell, obviously).

(* - for non-UKers, a street in central London which, at its southern end, is entirely consumer electronics stores - above five of them are nearly exclusively entry-level-and-up hi-fi gear. They seem to be doing OK).

vinyl 70's disco compilation from K-Tel and I've noticed every time I try to play this, I can't get it as loud as I want it.

Also note that those K-Tel comps were the cheapest pieces of crap vinyl ever....a ton of songs squeezed onto a side at 33. I have a K-Tel disco comp that has like 8 or 9 songs per side. That's not going to compare to 1 song on 45.

But it was only a dollar!

i believe, though I'm not positive, that there is little to no compression on Mark Eitzel's "the invisible man", because he did a lot of the tracking himself, and didn't know anything about compressors and didn't have any in his home studio. that album went through about four different studios and engineers though and was finally mixed by someone else, so i'm not positive. it's pretty dynamic sounding though.

jack white produced records

Incorrect.

Sonic Youth don't seem to use much ever

band of horses?

Interestingly, in light of all the Albini talk here, in the poker forum thread that someone linked on the thread about how Albini felt about recording the Bush album, Albini said he never had any influence over how records he engineered got mastered.

Set yourself on fire is pretty uncompressed in a lot of parts.