SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the your-lips-move-but-I-can't-hear-what-you're-saying dept.
Lead Vocal Tracks in Popular Music Go Quiet:
A general rule of music production involves mixing various soundtracks so the lead singer's voice is in the foreground. But it is unclear how such track mixing – and closely related lyric intelligibility – has changed over the years.
Scientists from the University of Oldenburg in Germany carried out an analysis of hundreds of popular song recordings from 1946 to 2020 to determine the lead vocal to accompaniment ratio, or LAR. Their results appear in JASA Express Letters, published on behalf of the Acoustical Society of America by AIP Publishing, and show that, contrary to expectations, the LAR for popular music decreased over the decades in question. This means that, relative to their bands, lead singers are getting quieter.
An earlier study suggested that lead vocals were mixed at a higher level than other instruments, but it looked at songs that were not fully representative of popular Western music. The current study rectified this by considering the four highest-ranked songs from the Billboard Hot 100 chart for each year from 1946 to 2020.
[...] "Our analysis showed a significant downward trend in the LAR from about 5 decibels in 1946 to approximately 1 decibel in 1975, after which time the LAR remained constant," Gerdes said.
The investigators wished to determine whether LAR values changed over time to improve the intelligibility of lyrics or if changes in music technology were involved. Electrical amplification of instruments might, for example, be a factor, as could multitrack and stereophonic recording technology. They found that changes in music technology appear to be behind the observed decrease in LAR until 1975.
"Another possibility involves the stylistic evolution within popular music," author Kai Siedenburg said.
Journal Reference:
Karsten Gerdes; Kai Siedenburg; Lead-vocal level in recordings of popular music 1946–2020 [open], JASA Express Lett 3, 043201 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0017773
If you felt that you couldn't understand indie/grunge 90s rock vocals, that apparently was by design:
Beck spoke with NPR to give his own insight on the volume knob turning down over the years.
"I came up more in the indie rock genre, alternative music. And the ethos of that time was to really bury the vocal ... You didn't want people to hear what you were saying."
The track and the rhythm has to be at the forefront if you want to move people. As soon as you put the vocal up at the forefront, the track loses its energy and its immediacy and it becomes something else, which is why I think it suits jazz or folk.
But the minute you do that on a pop song, you kind of lose people in that connection to feel the energy of a track ... It loses a kind of visceral immediacy that people are conditioned to, and it will make the song kind of feel a little dull.
So now we're in this kind of arms race of audio and sound and volume to get these tracks louder and louder. So, yeah, now I think we're at a point where, for the most part, it's the beat, a little bit of vocal, and maybe one little element of music in there. You know, this is a long way from the world of [The Beatles'] Sgt. Peppers, where there are orchestras and sitars and a million other sonic colors happening.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 17, @12:45PM (10 children)
It wasn't just stereo, it was also the increased bandwidth of 33 1/3 LPs vs 78 RPM, FM vs AM, and improving amplifier and speaker technology as well.
My 1978 Toyota Corolla came equipped with an AM/FM radio (I forget if it had a tape player or not), but the key limiting component in that system was the single paper cone 4x10 speaker at the base of the windshield (baking in the sun) coupled with the anemic amplifier. The car had no air conditioning, so with the windows open anything over 45mph of road/wind noise would completely drown out whatever was playing on the "stereo" (with a single speaker output.) It made for a fun trip around town with friends one night in 1984, we sang along to boost the music to a level we could actually hear, quite a different experience from a 6 speaker 450 watt (thank you Class D technology) system playing from a digital source.
You can clearly hear the difference in popular (and not so popular) music released between 1968 and 1972, the years that FM was coming on strong. Pre '68 most popular music played to "fit" in the bandwidth of AM radio, post '72 it was all about using that extra bandwidth to have contrasting treble and bass in the music, instead of cramming it all around the vocal frequencies - which was about all that AM systems (especially portables with 2" speakers) would carry.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 5, Interesting) by RS3 on Wednesday May 17, @03:01PM (9 children)
Much like web designers targeting a specific browser, much of audio mixdown / mastering targets the day's popular listening devices. As good as many small speakers, headphones, earbuds, etc., sound, they can't reproduce true low bass, so some of that is accentuated in the mix to compensate.
But, too much bass causes distortion- largely because a sound diaphragm's motor isn't a perfect device. As it moves through large excursions it has different response to the driving signal, so upper sounds and frequencies get distorted. Good old "tone" controls would help, but many audio systems don't have tone controls. I remember someone giving my mom a Bose "WaveRadio" and I hated it. It has no tone controls, and to me it's very "boomy"- too much high bass (120 Hz or so) but no low bass (40 Hz).
[I do some work in the audio world including running live sound and I'm an EQ freak.]
One thing that audio mix/mastering people do is make bass (kick) drums sound clicky, which I can't stand. It's done because again, many listening devices can't reproduce 50 Hz, so they compensate by bringing in higher frequencies. (They also add a flexible plastic disc to the center of the bass drum head which damps out some of the lower stuff and gives it a "splat" sound. Here's a random example: https://drumheadauthority.com/product/kick-drum-patches/ [drumheadauthority.com] I'm not a fan, but it's very common, so I try to deal with it...)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 17, @03:59PM (4 children)
We have a Bose soundbar that we play our digital juke box through. It sounds good by itself, but it has that peaky Bose frequency response you mentioned...
I got a Marshall Stanmore II Bluetooth speaker for the boat, it comes with two EQ knobs and a 5 band graphic EQ in the app, but I usually run it flat. Side by side with the Bose I strongly prefer the flat Marshall sound, much more midrange clarity, the treble and bass are still there, but they aren't dominating the sound. You can play with the graphic EQ on the Marshall and make it sound like the Bose (which has no adjustment on its own), but I prefer flat for the vast majority of what I listen to.
Now, if you want to talk over the music and be easily understood, the Bose profile is the ticket, so it's a good fit for our living room, whereas the Marshall is in the man cave where there's mostly no conversation competing with the music.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday May 17, @04:53PM (3 children)
It'd be great if the Bose had an insert point- jacks on it- where you could plug in an external equalizer. If I ever owned one, I'd open it up and add such a thing.
When I play background music for live events I often dip out upper mid range EQ, say 1-4KHz, to allow space for people talking. Too much low bass and/or too much high highs can be distracting too, so as I said, I'm an EQ freak. :) Can't be helped.
Yeah, many of the newer BlueTooth speakers are stunning. They sound so good I'm in awe and have no desire to mess with them. I can't remember all the brands, but I've heard JBL and Bose that were amazing, as well as many of the "new kids on the block" brands. One gig I did some construction work- mostly carpentry on a large outdoor porch- one of the guys had a bluetooth speaker- I don't know the brand. I was trying to find the large PA system, but it was a tiny speaker! It sounded so so good it wasn't annoying like the older "boomboxes" were.
I don't know the "Marshall Stanmore II" but I'll be looking for them. Not cheap I see, but I'll have to listen. I have played through Marshall guitar amps. :) I even have a tiny Marshall practice amp.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 17, @05:39PM (2 children)
Thing about Bose is: a lot of their EQ profile isn't accomplished electronically, it's in the physical resonance of the (tuned port) driver chamber and the relative efficiency of the tweeters. You can use electronics to (try to) bring that back to a flat response, but it's not the same as starting with a decently flat physical implementation.
The Stanmore III is supposed to be better (and it's harder to find discounted because it's newer), but I was space constrained and the Stanmore II just barely fit, whereas the III (only a little bigger) would have been too large for the space.
Yeah, even with discount it was still pricey ($229, I think I paid...) but, I already had a set of cheap bluetooth speakers, and they were O.K. - but just not quite right, you know: a little buzzy now and then, kinda missing some frequencies in the midrange, too peaky (for my taste) on the bass band...
Most audiophiles are delusional about the details that matter to them - maybe myself included - but when the speakers get too small and cheap, there _is_ a difference, and if I'm going to be listening to 4+ hours of music while I work - it matters enough to me to justify a couple hundred extra dollars.
I understand that Marshall recently sold out to a new owner, I don't think it has impacted their products - yet. If the new owners know what's good for their brand, it will only make them better in the future, but that's not usually how buyouts work.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday May 17, @09:32PM (1 child)
Yeah, that Bose mini-labyrinth folded waveguide boomy resonator thing. It sure increases sound, I just wish they'd have tuned it lower. I have a laptop with JBL speakers that sound much fuller than the Bose. But I'm very EQ sensitive- resonant peaks bug me at any frequency. It might be easy to put some dampening material in the thing and get it to behave.
I used to play with stereo speaker stuff, bass port tuning, etc. It was getting too complicated for my poor little brain and budget, but I have a pretty good understanding. I've thought about running my own live sound business, and for subwoofers I've thought about building a pair of 6th-order bandpass boxes driven by 21" (or bigger) speakers. I hear tell that at high energies, those lower / subsonic frequencies can make people puke. As long as I'm not cleaning the venue afterwards...
Ever listen to any Klipsch stuff? I've heard quite a few, but not the biggest Klipschorn. Their stuff is resonant and peaky, but as many say- it's "musical" IE, the peaks are in pleasing musical scale notes (A440?).
I count that as a Good Thing. I've been around enough "Golden Ears" audio "engineers" and they really do hear this stuff. I theorize that we all hear it, but we're not aware that we're hearing it. I don't know if I have "Golden Ears", but I hate most live mixes. Don't ever go to a concert with me unless I'm mixing.
Wow that's a great price for the Stanmore III. Good for you.
Some years ago I started getting into doing RTA- real time analysis of sound systems. What I heard vs. what the software told me didn't match up. I did some thinking and investigating. I actually specialized in DSP in undergrad and took several MS courses. Nobody would hire me without experience. Sigh. But anyway, I conclude that the typical RTA is much too broad of a frequency sample. If you have a very narrow frequency peak in something, the RTA will average it over a range of frequencies. Not sure the numbers, but I decided I need enough resolution to see maybe only a few Hz bandwidth, so a lot of sample points and some CPU power, which we can do now, but couldn't then- 15 or so years ago. Well, _I_ didn't have the $ to buy the latest Intel or AMD CPU.
That and I remember I couldn't find FFT software that would do the Hz resolution I wanted. People I know who do overall system tuning use both RTA, pink noise, and their ears.
Sounds like you'd do well in the audio world- maybe you're already doing something in audio?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday May 18, @12:04AM
My master's thesis was in computational music synthesis, now I just cringe when I'm involved in a commercial product that includes "quality" sound in the product. Our current design spec allows up to 50ms of lag between touch action and audio output, my thesis research and experimentation showed that most people can perceive a lag around 1.5ms. Even though the spec is 50ms our actual performance is around 20ms, which is horrible in my opinion, but we dominate our market segment so users are accustomed to that 20ms lag and they complain about other things.
Then we can get into the wonky design of our output speakers vs where the bulk of the valuable audio information is in our signal. I think our competition got it right with a single 6" driver resonant ported around 100Hz (which is the main band where interesting audio differences are). Our previous generation had a single 4" driver. This generation they tried to run an array of 4 synchronously driven 2" drivers (against my advice/opinion) - the very first customer feedback told them it was seriously lacking, so they added back the 4" driver and a decent sealed resonant case volume. We do play more of what I call "twinkle tones" than the competition, and the 2" drivers do carry them better. Our customers are split 50/50 between "driving by the twinkle tones" or hating them and listening to the raw signals around 100Hz, so I guess in that respect the design makes some sense.
I gave up the speaker game early on. We do have a decent 5.1 setup for the TV, but I have been satisfied with simple 6" + 1" bookshelf speakers.
I have considered a high power in-ground subwoofer to annoy the moles and neighbors' dogs, but for now we just have some modest ultrasonic squeakers that sort of calm the bark fests. Besides: deep powerful bass still costs more than annoying the dogs is worth: https://www.wholehouseaudio.com/12-500w-outdoor-in-ground-subwoofer-xternal12.html [wholehouseaudio.com]
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Interesting) by nostyle on Wednesday May 17, @04:04PM (3 children)
One "trick" I learned about when mixing/mastering my own music CDs was to mix down the vocal and accompaniment tracks separately - then wherever there was a vocal element, go the accompaniment mix and use EQ to scoop out some mid-range frequencies in those passages so that the vocal track would seem louder and/or more pronounced or clear. It made a real difference in the "presence" of the vocal. It does require the ability to rapidly vary EQ levels across the composition - trivially done with digital mixing.
Clearly this would have been more difficult in 1960 when fewer tracks were available and automated EQ was in its infancy. I'm not sure how much this trick is still in use today now that everybody and their dog fancies themselves sound engineers.
--
-Ray Charles
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday May 17, @04:33PM (2 children)
Awesome, nice work. Being an EQ freak I try to make EQ space for vocals. Many beginning and intermediate audio people use EQ in a cutting / removal way, but advanced EQ is more along the lines of: "what is good in this track, and how can I enhance it".
I'm super privileged to have worked under a (literally) Grammy-winning recording engineer, who also did mixdowns, and some mastering. I'm no expert, just got to look over someone's shoulder a bit.
A great trick, not sure when they started doing this but maybe the 40s? is "side-channel" or "ducking" where you use a compressor on let's say acoustic guitar track (or any other vocal frequency range thing), but the trigger for that compressor comes from a vocal channel. This has to be done gently, but can really enhance vocal clarity.
Micing technique is huge.
Some of the biggest: singer enunciation. At the risk of saying too much, IMHO too many singers are trying to sound like Muddy Waters (bad example because he enunciated well) or someone similar, and they mumble (coolness abounds). I try to politely tell people to just be themselves. Some people can pull off the mimicking, but they'll likely lose who they are- the listeners won't get a sense of originality and consistency, but rather a copycat, and they'll fade into the "just another bar cover band". And that might be okay if that's their jam. I'm no producer and very rarely give any artistic or musical advice, unless I sense that the musician / singer is solid and maybe professional or semi-pro and is open to suggestions. Very rarely someone asks for critique, and they're usually the really good ones and there's nothing to fix. :)
When I feel they are receptive I try to encourage vocalists to "own" the microphone, learn its strengths and weaknesses, etc. But everyone is different, as are various mics, so it's quite a stew pot when you work with so many varying musicians, styles, venues, systems, etc. The most fun I've had doing live sound was when I did many gigs with the same act and system and I could refine everything each show. It got better and better, and easier and easier.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday May 17, @05:23PM (1 child)
Maybe they got to be really good by listening to critique and learning from it.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday May 17, @09:09PM
Very possible. If you watch any voice competition shows, you might know some have been singing for years, have much coaching, lessons, etc., and some are raw even to the point that nobody has really heard them sing. I work with the vast range. And then you have all the personality types- some are very sure of themselves but aren't very good, some incredibly good but lack confidence. It's fun, I enjoy it most of the time, but I'm very privileged to work with mostly top talent.