'Loveless'

themagicmanmdt · Post by **themagicmanmdt** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:25 am

You guys aren't looking at the real truth!

If you've even gotten worked up (temporarily) in the whole OMG LOUDNESS WAR thing, you probably would have pulled up something like "Only Shallow" in your editing program.

Guess what?

Yes, it's quiet.

But it peaks at around -9!

Yeah! So, if you took the record and just added 9db of gain (which requires no peak limiting at all - there's simply no info above that -9 barrier on most songs) - then it's a pretty damn 'loud' record. I think if you got the songs to peak at 0 (or -0.2 if you will), the average might be up by -10 or -9. Not quite Radiohead territory, but close.

The compression and thickness is the beauty, though. It's perfect (though I don't care for the songs on the second half - I do get ear fatigue), but one album that sounds like that is enough - if I heard a Loveless sound-a-like, I think I'd just shut it out.

*edit* Maybe there's something that happens to the sound by letting your stereo reciever provide that extra gain instead of simply correcting it in the master. Hmm...

syrupcore · Post by **syrupcore** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:09 am

I haven't brought it into an editor but I remember noticing the meters on my stereo back in 1992 hardly moving between only shallow's verse and chorus. like, maybe 3db.

I got the impression from the article in tape op that most of the compression came from guitars hitting tape really hard. Certainly in only shallow, the drums and vocals are crushed.

Absolute desert island recording. 17 years later, there's not a moment I don't enjoy. And hells yes, by all means, play it balls on fire loud.

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:38 am

themagicmanmdt wrote:Maybe there's something that happens to the sound by letting your stereo reciever provide that extra gain instead of simply correcting it in the master. Hmm...

ding ding ding ding! we have a winner. volume knobs are attenuators...

Judas Jetski · Post by **Judas Jetski** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:22 pm

Loveless... sigh...

ashcat_lt · Post by **ashcat_lt** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:56 pm

I could not stand Loveless for years. Then I had the chance to hear it really loud, without tape hiss or car noise, and I finally got it.

Kind of difficult to explain to the wife, though.

leigh · Post by **leigh** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:29 pm

AnalogousGumdropDecoder wrote:Step 1: Place record on turntable
Step 2: Turn volume all the way up
Step 3: Take drugs
Step 4: Drop deap

Eh?

Was step 4 "Drop dead" or "Drop deep"?

AnalogousGumdropDecoder · Post by **AnalogousGumdropDecoder** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:48 pm

Drop deap.

logancircle · Post by **logancircle** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:05 am

I wonder what the Loveless mastering session was like. Did Shields sit there saying, "Whatever you do, keep it really quiet. I want people to have to turn their stereos up really loud to get the picture." ....Well, if you want the record to be listened to loud, why use the listeners knobs as attenuators and not make it a step easier by just mastering it as loud as possible before any mastering attenuation kicks in. It just seems a little like putting out a DVD with purposely low contrast expecting the listeners to know to boost the contrast on their TV.... unless there was another mysterious reason.

red cross · Post by **red cross** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:01 am

1991 was way before the CD loudness gangbang / Mastering-As-Magic-Voodoo-For-Shite-Mixes era, so I'm guessing his only instructions to the ME were probably along the lines of "make sure you don't fuck with my mix" or "TRANSFER FLAT". They probably left 9dB of headroom because headroom was considered a good thing to have back then too.

Trick Fall · Post by **Trick Fall** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:13 pm

red cross wrote:1991 was way before the CD loudness gangbang / Mastering-As-Magic-Voodoo-For-Shite-Mixes era, so I'm guessing his only instructions to the ME were probably along the lines of "make sure you don't fuck with my mix" or "TRANSFER FLAT". They probably left 9dB of headroom because headroom was considered a good thing to have back then too.

I'm thinking '91 was way before Waves L2 etc. Loveless might even be a "loud" record for it's day.

logancircle · Post by **logancircle** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:29 am

I had one of the best times I've had recently this weekend involving this rec. I took some green, leafy medicine and pulled out Loveless and listened to it on my monitors and sub. I did this also using a master limiter, threshold set to attenuate like 3dB, never anything even close to artifacts. It sounded unreal. There is SO much going on, and insane delay looping. Someone said, "But the songs are kinda boring." "Yeah, well you're kinda stupid." That's how we do. (all I mean is that they were missing the point)

micyourbrain · Post by **micyourbrain** » Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:12 pm

i LOVE that album but I hate how harsh it is

it sounds like the main mix was put through the shittiest digital box of some sort

i know he used that awful yamaha effects unit a lot - maybe that is the sound I am hearing

saint360 · Post by **saint360** » Sat May 03, 2008 8:41 pm

It's certainly harsh and gives you ear fatigue, but nowhere as bad as the ultra-squashed stuff coming out now. It only takes one or two tracks into Broken Social Scene's album of the same title before I feel like my ears are bleeding from all the distortion, which is a shame because it, too, is a masterpiece. I read an interview with Kevin Shields (maybe it was in TapeOp) where he said he was very unhappy with the mastering of Loveless and would like to see it remastered. I think I remember him talking about the mastering house using the crappy AD built into a DAT deck for the CD, and saying that they had to use a de-esser for the entire album mix to tame some weird high frequency stuff going on before it could go to vinyl/cassette/CD. Loveless is a top 10 desert island disc for me, maybe even top 3.

btswire · Post by **btswire** » Tue May 06, 2008 12:14 am

Certainly one of my favorite records of all time, and one of the few that stands the test of time. Curious to see what the upcoming record will be like. I think I remember hearing that almost all the drums with the exception of one track were triggered and then quantized, which I think works very well in context. The 33 1/3 Loveless book is a great quick read, which I finally got around to getting this past winter. Yeah, it really is amazing how much subtlety there is in that record and how little things can still surface for the first time with each successive listen. I do wish it was a little less harsh simply because I get ear fatigue really easily. I think I remember someone mentioning that it was mixed on an SSL. I'd be curious to hear a mix through a Neve or Trident or API.

Another record that really stands out for me is Gas "Pop." "Gas" is the moniker of Wolfgang Voigt, an electronic music composer from Germany, and "Pop" is, in my opinion, his finest ambient work. This is one of those albums that has lots of subtlety, and the listener is always rewarded with new observations through each listen. If you're not paying attention you might think each song is a 10 second loop repeating over and over again, but try tapping your finger with each kick drum hit and listening to what's going on around you. You will then begin to pick up on all of the variations that are taking place (timing, timbre, new instruments slowly introduced....) A great listen. I think most of the source sounds are strings sampled from Wagner pieces. Unfortunately the record is out of print (and goes for a fortune on Ebay) but all four of the Gas albums are being rereleased and remastered as a set. I'm excited about this, but I fear the remastered versions will suffer from being squashed to death like everything else being released now...

asmara · Post by **asmara** » Tue May 06, 2008 12:48 pm

Loveless was a great seminal LP and deserved all the hype and praise but it really doesn't impact me as much as a very similar LP of Ride's Nowhere. I cannot recall which came first (I assume MBV) but Nowhere is the masterpiece in my opinion. Don;t mean to Hijack this thread. I am very happy that people even listen to these LPs'. How many people do you know that actually even know who the hell MBV is these days?

Message Board

'Loveless'

Who is online