by jNive » Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:16 am
It is indeed often tough to determine whether the final result is a product of record execs and contractual waivers regarding the final-final 'mastering' etc, or whether the artists and even the engineers actually prefer or push for that particular sound. It can be a bit of a catch 22
1. If artists provide a reference track to an engineer for type of sound they are going for, is it the sound?, the power? the 'oooomph/chuggg'? or everything about it including the average loudness etc.
2. If the engineer makes a dynamic master, lower in average loudness to the reference, but the same sound character - did they miss what the artist actually wanted - that unrelenting power/pace? - and even if they didn't , will the record company exercise their rights under contract and push for a compressed mastering of that mix / draft mastering.
If so, will engineers often try to just skip some steps that they think they know it will lead toward, and just automatically go for a compressed version regardless since they think they will just request that anyways? and by doing so, does this result in artists & record execs routinely hearing the overcompressed versions and as a result, deeming that sound to be the modern standard to reference and feeling that the dynamic masterings are missing that element and are therefore lacking.
Basically, the ears of artists & execs are likely becoming desensitised to subtle dynamics and other elements of the audio, and the ear is being trained to compare audio on more and more simplistic levels - Amount of bass, and feeling of agression/loudness.