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: 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