Sean,
What do you think monitoring setups in most studios and recording schools are like? If you think that $3,000-$5,000 nearfield monitors and a pair of expensive mains is akin to bose speakers, then you've obviously never heard a serious studio playback system. A student listening in a highly acoustically treated, specially designed room on dynaudio nearfields and ATC mains has an idea of what good sound is like.
It really gets me angry when over and over again I see a lack of respect on this and other audiophile forums for people in the recording industry. There is a negative (in my opinion) trend towards over compression and SOME poor recording practices, but the problem isn't all the engineers. You would also be SHOCKED to hear how different most recordings sound like before mastering. If anybody is interested I can post a clip of a project I just finished before mastering, and afterward. There's probably a 10-15db difference in percieved loudness, and the difference in dynamic range is huge.
The problem is NOT the engineers (or even the mastering engineers), it's the labels and people's expectations. When someone puts a CD in their car and it's 15db softer than the rest of their CD's, their instant reaction is that it is an inferior product, and that the sound quality is lower than their other CD's. In a short AB test, people almost always prefer the louder, brighter recording.
Another reason for over-compression and a lack of dynamic range is that most people don't just sit and listen to music anymore. They listen in the car, on headphones while commuting, jogging, etc, or in the background. A recording with little dynamic range is ideal for these purposes. I can't listen to classical music in the car because it's either too soft to hear, or it's blowing my ears out. Same goes for listening on the subway or while jogging. Music with too much dynamic range is tougher to listen to in a noisy environment or in the background. Most modern music isn't very dynamic anyway. Trust me, it's not like there's much in the way of dynamic swings in modern pop or rock before it hits mastering.
The problem is also that engineering is an INCREDIBLY competitive field. Most attempting to enter the field today won't be anything more than assistants, interns, or runners for the rest of the decade and beyond. There aren't many jobs for engineers out there, and getting the few that do exist involves mainly luck, but also feeding into exactly the expectations that are there for you. It's probably not too surprising that the goal is almost always "sound like band x", or "just like the break in song y", not "give us the best sound".
So don't be so quick to blame the state of modern recording on some incompetency on the part of engineers. We know what good sound is, even if most of the guys don't have nice playback rigs at home (do you like to bring your work home with you?). Engineers also know about the current state of the recording industry. Engineers are always complaining about over compression and the lack of musicality in modern recordings. Most of the problem is in mastering, and out of the recording/mix engineer's hands, and even then the problem is with the labels and expectations of the public and the guys writing the checks. I have a degree and years of experience in my field. If you think that you can do my job better, please come out to the studio and have a crack at it. You're welcome to try anytime.
