Ah, you baited me into another response, but how can I stop when you give such gems?
Here is something useful that I've found.
It shows visually the volumes of the songs of Iron Maiden songs.
You can see visually here that Virtual XI is heavily compressed. That's from 1998. and pretty much every Maiden album since.
Thank you. THANK YOU.
This proves what I've been saying all along. This shows very clearly that TXF is NOT "heavily compressed". Run To The Hills and Fear Of The Dark (the songs) are shown in this video with more compression than TXF. Again, that's objective. That's not up for debate. TXF is notoriously quiet as an album. If it were
heavily compressed this wouldn't have been the case. Words have meanings.
Also, it's pretty adorable how you moving the goalposts now instead of simply acknowledging that you were wrong lmao
This video shows The X Factor as being OK.
But, I still maintain that this might not be the case for X Faxtor as a whole.
In that previous link I provided, there are several versions of X Factor from 1995. One version is OK, one version is not.
So, now we turn to conspiracies?
Here are all version of TXF. There is a single 95 version with worse DR, the rest are either the same or better. The actually highly compressed versions are ironically from remastered releases decades later.
If one version is "OK" that means that one would sound better and have a better drum sound, right? How about you prove your claim by finding the better version then? You are the one who claimed that the drums sound bad due to too much compression after all
I have also seen images where a highly compressed song has quiet parts.
So, you know, there is proof that you are wrong on your assertion that compressed songs can't have quiet sections.
Again, a strawman. That's not what I ever claimed. I specifically said, the level of quietness found in TXF is not something seen in "highly compressed" albums. I don't have access to my main computer ar the moment due to travels, otherwise I would've brickwall limited a song, adjusted the volume with automation and would've visualizer what I'm actually saying. Compression like that is destructive to waveforms and kills transients. No amount of automation could restore those.
I ask you a third time: Do you have
any experience mixing and mastering albums yourself? Yes or no?
It didn't start a decade later. It started in the mid 90's
Which is literally what I'm saying. The 90s are a decade later than the 80s. I gave you a list of albums from the 80s, which last I checked is a decade prior to the start of the loudness wars
Oh boy, this arguing with you is insane. You just go off on stupid tangents.
The irony to call clarification a tangent.
You are making the absurd claim that production is not relevant when discussing compression, when those thinks are inherently linked.
This comment of yours is literally deflection, because you are unable to properly defend your position. Also, another ad hominem
What on earth are you on about? Noone is winning or defeating. I'm trying to discuss a topic, not win an argument.
Acknowledging that guitars sound thin, has nothing at all to do with whether an album is compressed or not. A Non Sequitur here.
Aaaamd another strawman. This is not my claim. You constantly misrepresent what I'm writing. Let me break it down for you:
- You claim the drums sound bad because of the album being highly compressed.
- I claim they sound bad because of the poor production and that there's no evidence or excessive compression.
- I bring up the notoriously weak and thin guitar sound, which supports my argument about a poor production.
- I've also explained multiple times how the album is notoriously quiet in many sections, which contradicts your claim.
I've never thought the guitars are thin on that album. But if it makes you feel better, I'm not going to dispute whether they are thin or not.
If you think they are thin, then lets go with that.
I don't care what you think. I'm not talking about your opinion or mine. I'm talking about the consensus in the fandom. The prevailing opinion of most people who've listened to the album.
Dude, are you for real?
Really? or are you just trying to argue for the sake of it?
I've never said I have proof why the drums sound bad.
I've only presented proof that there is a version of The X Factor from 1995 that was compressed.
I have clearly stated that I am speculating that the bad drum sound could be due to counteracting compression.
Aaaand more goalpost shifting. So, no it's just "compressed" instead of "heavily compressed"? Because otherwise your very own source as well as Mosh's screenshots are proof that TXF is not "heavily compressed", which were your exact words. If we're moving to "there's some amount of compression", then duh, or course. Compression is one of the regular parts of mixing and mastering. Every album has some level of compression applied.
You were given undeniable proof that the album is not highly compressed. You were shown multiple times that your theory about the bad drum sound is unsubstantiated (as well as your understanding about the costs of album production being severely flawed, which you've sidestepped again, curious
![Wink ;) ;)](http://forum.maidenfans.com/smilies/wink1.gif)
). You were informed multiple times that the "counteracting compression" argument makes no sense in this regard.
Please take the time to understand what the other person is saying rather than rushing into an argument on everything.
The incredible amount of irony, after misrepresenting most of my claims, multiple comments in a row. You are shadowboxing with strawmen instead of engaging with what I'm actually typing out. When I elaborate to explain why your arguments make no sense, you cry foul and throw around ad hominems and fallacies to try and discredit my comment, and to sidestep another part of the conversation.
There are at least two versions of The X Factor from 1995. One version has a dynamic range of 12, the other a DR of only 9.
Just because there are albums with worse DR than TXF it doesn't mean that TXF hasn't been compressed. Do you understand logic?
I've had an education in formal logic, thanks to my degree. I understand logic perfectly fine, no worries. Chill with the pErSoNaL aTtAcKs.
I linked all versions of TXF earlier in this comment. You can clearly see the average dynamic range of each release. Yes, a version with a DR of 9 is
more compressed than a version with a DR of 12. No one is disputing that. A 9 is not
heavily compressed though. Not unless the original were a 21 or something. Again, words have meanings. Do you understand logic
and linguistics? Or rather etymology?
You made very specific claims, which were objectively incorrect. You seem to have conceded the point about album costs since you stopped responding on that front, but you're doubling down on the loudness wars by moving the goalposts. You have dodged multiple questions and arguments, so once again:
Do you have any personal experience in actually mixing and/or mastering an album? Yes or no?
Will you finally acknowledge that I gave you a list of albums from
1987 (year chosen at random, but 8 years prior to TXF and the alleged start of the loudness wars) which have a DR of 9 or lower? I've asked you multiple times.
If you ignore these things again I can only assume that you've recognized that you were wrong on this but are too proud to admit that. I had no intention for this discussion to get
this out of control, but it's a pet peeve of mine when people make arrogant and confidently incorrect statements about things I'm very familiar with and then double down once corrected instead of admitting that they were mistaken. I've spent hundreds of hours mixing and mastering my own music at this point, and hundreds if not thousands reading, learning and educating myself on the whole process. Add to that, that you keep setting up strawmen and misrepresenting my claims while attacking me, instead of the arguments (how ironic
![Wink ;) ;)](http://forum.maidenfans.com/smilies/wink1.gif)
). In stuff like that I'm a bit too easily baited and can't resist calling out bullshit.