How not to get Arry to open up a bit, ask the same boring cringeworthy questions he always gets asked like ' if you were to pick one song'. I mean Flight of Icarus? celtic frost? come on. The only interesting question he asked was about Blaze
It pretty much does. It also proves that you have a pretty flawed understanding of the subject matter.
Oh boy, you couldn't argue in more bad faith if you tried lmao
Cute ad hominem once again
That you tried to use a resource without understanding what it actually says. The fact that you didn't respond to the fact thar there were plenty of albums in the 80s, well before the loudness wars, that had identical or even worse scores than TXF is pretty telling though.
I don't need to ask anything since you keep doubling down, even on matters where you're objectively and decisively incorrect.
And I've explained to you multiple times that TXF's bad sound is because of its poor production and Steve's inexperience, not due to excessive compression. You keep ignoring the fact that the guitars are incredibly thin, which has been brought up to you multiple times. Going "la la la, the drums sound bad because of the loudness wars!" like a broken record doesn't make the claim anymore correct
Uh no. Your very own source disproved your claim, as did the Mosh's screenshots which show the literal waveforms. They showed conclusively that TXF was not highly compressed. Have you worked with waveforms before? Hell, have you any experience with mixing and mastering music? Because TXF is objectively not "highly compressed".
Yes and that's baseless speculation. The guitars sound horrible as well. Is that due to compression as well? No, it's due to a mixture of bad tones, poor mixing and poor mastering. An issue the entire albums suffers from. The loudness wars have absolutely nothing to do with TXF.
They are not my friends. They are artists. They want my money and need to give me an incentive. Once again you make the objectively incorrect claim that a high quality sounding album is expensive. It's not. In fact, if you already have the gear you can get an amazingly sounding album literally for free nowadays. No matter how often you repeat that, it's still wrong.
Wrong. As a consumer it is my right to criticize subpar products, especially when competitors provide higher quality services. I can voice my criticism for a product I purchased and explain what my issues with it are. The band obviously can decide to proceed however they want, that doesn't make the criticism invalid.
You might have to look up what a non sequitur is, because you are using it wrongly. You've made the objectively incorrect claim that a high quality production has to be expensive and that the ROI isn't there multiple times. Despite being told, multiple times, that this is not correct. So, I'll repeat it again for you:
No, it doesn't prove what you think it proves. Being compressed doesn't mean they can't then go back and make certain sections less loud.
No bad faith there at all. You however are unable to see the serious flaw in your own argument.
My own source showed that it is compressed and its dynamic range has been reduced.
I understand what it says.
All Maiden albums prior to TXF had significantly more DR than TXF
You don't need to ask because you already know, right?
I'm not disputing the poor production. But I was talking about compression, this talk of production is deflection.
I don't care that the guitars are thin. No one asked my opinion about the guitars being thin.
I haven't been making that claim over and over. I've actually gone to lengths to show you the proof of the album being impacted by compression. But you have thus far swept my proof under the rug and instead gone on personal attacks of me.which has been brought up to you multiple times. Going "la la la, the drums sound bad because of the loudness wars!" like a broken record doesn't make the claim anymore correct
The version that was assessed by dr.loudness-war.info was compressed in 1995.
I certainly haven't made any claim that the "thin" guitars is due to compression. Why, instead of deflecting, don't we actually stick to the claims that I actually have made.
Not really. You are a fan, you'll probably buy their album no matter what.
Oh boy.
Are we talking about what Iron Maiden do, or are you talking about some hypothetical which doesn't relate to Iron Maiden at all?
I've already said that people can criticise to their hearts content.
Yes, of course you can.
Sure, but you aren't entitled for them to make a high quality sounding album for you.
Oh boy, talk about banale. Are you going to now argue about everything? Perhaps you may want to criticise my spelling and grammar too while you're at it. Anything to distract from the actual points I've made. Attack the person and not the points, right?
Serious question, because you dodged it the first time: Do you have any experience mixing and mastering an album? Because I do and no one would ever compress a song during mastering to such a degree and then would go and create artificial quietness through automation. That's not how these things work and you would still see the crushed transients in the waveforms. Again, this is not up for debate, you are simply wrong on this. Let's stick to facts, not your fantasies
Strawman.
Which is not indicative of "highly compressed". Also, once again, cute how you ignore that there have been hundred of albums from the 80s that had just as much or even less DR than TXF. This is the third time that I'm mentioning this. The loudness wars started a decade later.
lol, lmao even.
So? That doesn't mean that TXF was "highly compressed", which again we can see is not the case by analyzing the waveforms.
Well, you've been objectively incorrect multiple times in a row, refuse to acknowledge when corrected and keep whining about ad hominems when you're the one constantly using them
Compression is literally, per definition part of the production. Just because it ruins your argument doesn't mean that you can try to ignore it by claiming it's deflection. It's on topic.
Because acknowledging that would mean you'd have to admit defeat, which you obviously aren't willing to do, despite how much evidence is against your claims.
You haven't provided any proof. You literally said yourself that you are theorizing why the drums sound bad. Mosh provided proof that directly and conclusively refutes your claim. Hell, the website you linked shows that whole TXF has less DR than other albums, it doesn't qualify as "highly compressed". Also, the only "personal attack" from my side were the statement that you talk confidently about matters which you clearly haven't understood as well as you think you have and that you misuse and throw around fallacies to sidestep valid arguments. You've been throwing around plenty of personal attacks as well, so you have no right to complain on that front
That's not what deflection means. Again, throwing around buzzwords and talking points to escape valid criticisms of your poor claim. TXF has always been criticized for its poor production. The guitars are thin, the performances are weak and the drums are poorly mixed. There's no indication for the album being highly compressed, while there's plenty of evidence that it's not. You can literally look at the waveforms, which you'll probably ignore once again though.
It's about the principle. Didn't think I'd have to spell that out for you
This once again shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. People can and have produced high quality albums in their fucking bedrooms without spending an additional dime. Adrian has a DAW that he uses to record demos. They can easily produce an album without having to pay the money you are imagining in your fantasy world (your words, not mine
). I'm far from being rich. In fact, I grew up pretty poor. I still managed to record and produce an album myself. The results are arguable, but that's more due to inexperience than a lack of funds. So, stop with the strawmen and engage with reality: Maiden could easily produce a fantastic sounding record for much cheaper than their last productions. Your claims about ROO and the alleged costs are objectively wrong and incredibly ignorant on the modern music business.I'm directly talking about the falsehoods you are spreading. Not need to become butthurt for being called out.
Again, a strawman. That's not what my argument was or has been at any point. I'm explaining to you that every single consumer has the right to criticize multimillionaires for delivering subpar products while other bands go above and beyond to produce amazing sounding albums. This becomes even more evident and important when we think back to the 80s or to BNW when Maiden set very high standards themselves. Your argument doesn't contribute to the discussion. It simply tries to squash dissent.
I am constantly engaging with your points, but it is also important to inform you that, despite your smugness and arrogance, you keep using words and phrases wrong while thinking you've said something profound or important. It's particularly important to call that out when you try to dismiss arguments that are 100% relevant to the discussion and directly refute your claims, by misusing phrases and concepts. What I said was not a non sequitur; it was relevant. You simply didn't want to deal with it.
Again, it has everything to do with the discussion we are having. You have claimed multiple times that the ROI isn't there. You have multiple misrepresented the cost of recording an album in 2024. you have been informed multiple times that you were wrong, yet you still double down.
Holy shit, the amount of projection would make an IMAX blush lmao.
Here is something useful that I've found.Serious question, because you dodged it the first time: Do you have any experience mixing and mastering an album? Because I do and no one would ever compress a song during mastering to such a degree and then would go and create artificial quietness through automation. That's not how these things work and you would still see the crushed transients in the waveforms. Again, this is not up for debate, you are simply wrong on this. Let's stick to facts, not your fantasies
It didn't start a decade later. It started in the mid 90's
Oh boy, this arguing with you is insane. You just go off on stupid tangents.
What on earth are you on about? Noone is winning or defeating. I'm trying to discuss a topic, not win an argument.
Dude, are you for real?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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
Aaaamd another strawman. This is not my claim. You constantly misrepresent what I'm writing. Let me break it down for you:
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.
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 informed multiple times that the "counteracting compression" argument makes no sense in this regard.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.
I've had an education in formal logic, thanks to my degree. I understand logic perfectly fine, no worries. Chill with the pErSoNaL aTtAcKs.
). In stuff like that I'm a bit too easily baited and can't resist calling out bullshit.
No. Compression is used to control volume and dynamics. (there are some shades of grey here, e.g. multi-band compression) but the result and objective isn't to make all frequencies the same volume.
Yeah this was a really dull interview. Basically half an hour of hero worship.
In the context of the loudness war, they compress the music to get the average volume to be close to the top volume (i.e. the squash the Dynamic Range). They then increase the volume of the whole piece to be close to the maximum the CD format allows, and that allows them to get the volume of the music to be louder than other CDs on the market.
It shows that that version wasn't compressed.
Irrelevant.
There are 6 1995 versions of The X factor in that list. Only one of them has good DR of 12, it's green, green for good.
The 2015 and 2019 versions are even worse. But that doesn't mean that some of the 1995 versions aren't also bad.
No, it doesn't mean that at all.
I'm thinking you lack the ability to understand words. You are constantly misunderstanding what I say.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
This is completely irrelevant. Why do you keep going down irrelevant tangents, rather than discuss the actual topic at hand?
I have never said the loudness war stared in the 80's. Are you on drugs or something? It seems you are very muddled.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
You are insane.
Not the claim that I've made.
I've shown you the evidence that there are 1995 versions of the album with poor dynamic range.
Dude, this is completely irrelevant. Sure their could have been poor production of the guitars. But that has no bearing on whether the album was compressed or not. It is totally irrelevant.
This is irrelevant. Compressed albums can have quiet parts. In fact, I have provided evidence of a compressed song with quiet parts.
Do you understand that there are multiple 1995 versions of the album?
Holy shit, the audacity of you trying to poorly explain concepts you clearly don't understand to someone who literally told you that they have more than a decade of professional experience. Multiple people have told you that you were wrong and explained it in detail. What will it take for you to back down?
Ah, so we entered the realms of conspiracies I see lmao
It's 100% relevant. It literally couldn't be more relevant. Just because it completely dismantles your argument doesn't mean that you get to ignore it. You were wrong, deal with it.
That's a child's understanding of dynamic range. Your claim was that TXF was "highly compressed". That's objectively wrong and not supported by your own source. In fact, it proves the exact opposite. To turn your own argument against you, just because other albums had a higher DR than TXF doesn't mean that it was "highly compressed". You were wrong, deal with it.
Literally how conspiracy theorists deal with arguments when they are proven wrong. Keep moving the goalposts until you can somehow justify your stance a tiny bit, instead of acknowledging that you were wrong.
The 1995 objectively weren't bad. Again, this isn't up for debate. The album is in fact notoriously quiet. Mosh showed you that it was quite a bit quieter than contemporary albums. Your own website showed that the album wasn't "highly compressed" (your exact phrasing!). A 9 isn't highly compressed. Words have meanings, you were wrong. Stop doubling down.
Not only is your speculation baseless, all information we have directly disproves your speculation. Multiple people have called you out on this. Stop doubling down.
Right back at ya. I respond to your exact words.
And there we have it! So you have no experience mixing and mastering music, but you still have the arrogance to think you know better than people who do it professionally or who've spent hundreds of hours doing so? Your knowledge or lack thereof on the topic is entirely relevant. You're just ashamed to admit that you don't know what you're talking about and were caught by people who know better. Instead of personal attacks (iRrElEvAnT tAnGeNtS), focus on the topic: You were objectively wrong and people who know much better have explained it to you multiple times. Stop doubling down. It's shameless and insulting.
First, another personal attack. Second, your reading comprehension is failing you. I didn't accuse you of what you are typing. I explained to you that the LINK I GAVE YOU (which you've ignored for the what, fourth time now?) shows albums from 1987, which us a decade prior to the loudness wars and which have DR of 9 or even lower. Learn reading instead of getting so desperate that you're just flailing around and throwing a tantrum.
And another ad hominem.
No tangents whatsoever. I've been on topic the whole time and I've explained in detail why you were wrong. My argument is entirely coherent. It explains all the issues with the album's sound. Yours doesn't explain any of the issues and is not supported by any data, regardless of your trying to misrepresent the dr website and the waveforms. I talked about production, which is inherently linked to compression and you cried foul because you couldn't argue against that. Stop with the childish attacks and the constant deflection. You were wrong, deal with it.
No, that's not the evidence you presented. That's not what qualifies as "poor dynamic range" (which is again a different claim than your original "heavily compressed", so you're once again moving the goalposts. Who's the one who can't stay on topic?
).Again, 100% relevant. You keep trying to handwave away anything that refutes your argument. This was directly in support of my argument, which goes against your argument. How in the world is this not relevant?
Compressed ≠ highly compressed. You made the absurd claim that it was highly compressed and then certain sections got their volume automated do be quieter. This is objectively wrong and would be visible in the waveform, because crushing transients is destructive and they can't be restored by rolling back the volume. Here it is more obvious than ever that you know nothing about audio production, yet you still have the audacity to think your ignorance on this matter is in any way comparable to the knowledge and experience of people who've been mixing and mastering for hundreds of hours.
Again with the arguments on the level of a flat earther. There is only one version from 95 with a worse score. There are:
The one that always irritates me is the guitar in 'Isle of Avalon' when Bruce sings 'Keepers of the goddess in the underworld'The same "live magic" that results in literal mistakes, like one of the guitars changing chords a couple of measures too early, switching to the earlier chord in the next measure and then finally playing the expected change in the measure afterwards after the second chorus in TBOS?
Exactly. No wonder he barely gives interviews if this the tripe hes gonna get asked.
What exactly is the issue there? Tried listening to it, but didn't immediately hear anything wrong.
The guitar changes note a second or two earlier than it should, and it's always irritated me
