Where the hell did dynamic range go?

[mrSHEiK124]

I read this and decided to do some testing of my own.

The contenders:
U2 - Boy, (1980 original release - 1990 CD remaster)
U2 - How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, (2004)
This is just a comparison of dynamic range, neither of the two album share any tracks. I can turn Boy all the way up and it still sounds fine, HTDAAB starts to cause migraines at about 50%. All That You Can't Leave Behind was OK compared to the other CDs out in 2001 (see "Linkin Park - Hybrid Theory" for permanent hearing damage), but HTDAAB is just freaking unbearable.

U2 - Achtung Baby, (1991)
U2 - The Best of 1990-2000, (2002)
Listening to "One" off the original CD and "One" off the Best of CD makes them seem like different songs. I can barely make out the guitar, bass, and vocals (!!) from each other when I have the Best of version turned up, and Bono's voice almost becomes ear grating, Achtung version sounds fine though.

U2 - Pop, (1997)
U2 - The Best of 1990-2000, (2002)
Being a late 90's album, Pop doesn't have much dynamic range left to it, but it's STILL better than all the versions of Pop tracks on the Best of CD. Granted, the Best of versions are "new mixes", but still, the difference is amazing. "Gone" from the original CD sounds awesome, I love how the original is mixed together, the bass and the drums just compliment each other so well, the piano solo in the middle sounds great. The new mix on the Best of CD is, yet again, a great way to destroy your hearing. The highs are too freakin high, the lows are too freakin low, and the mids just blend into the whole mess. Garbage.

Keane - Under the Iron Sea, (2006)
Any other album, ever
Holy shyte! I played a track from this album while I was doing the test, thus with my Z-5500s turned up pretty loud, and it almost made me jump out of my seat! Looked at the waveform after normalizing to -3 dB, and I wasn't surprised. It's a f*cking rectangle, no peaks, no troughs; just one, big, rectangle.

 

[Lonyo]

Repost
But yeah, they are all maxed out all the time

 

[spidey07]

It flew out the window a while ago.

Still ticks me off and I'm now buying vinyl and SACD/DVD-audio.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Repost
But yeah, they are all maxed out all the time

I know it's probably been discussed before here, but I never really noticed how much better the "quiet" versions sounded when turned up compared to the loud as fvck ones.

 

[OS]

i was reading some theory that since most mass consumer stereo/audio systems, headphones, etc. are junk, the studios now just equalize music to the lowest denominator.

then again, aren't Z5500s just computer speakers?

 

[davestar]

agreed.

however, U2 at any compression/volume level makes my ears bleed

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: davestar
agreed.

however, U2 at any compression/volume level makes my ears bleed

What has this world come to?

:laugh:

 

[Jugomugo]

And the music industry wonders why no one wants to pay for CDs... where's the value in crappy quality?

 

[Fritzo]

Easy- analog recording equipment was used in the 80's and 90's. Digital equipment started becoming standard around 2000. Digital = compression = loss of range.

 

[radioouman]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Easy- analog recording equipment was used in the 80's and 90's. Digital equipment started becoming standard around 2000. Digital = compression = loss of range.

Digital does not equal compression.

In fact, due to no noise, your signal to noise ratio in digital is virtually infinite, so you can have much better dynamic range out of digital.

But compression is the problem here. Gotta make your song louder than the next person's.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Easy- analog recording equipment was used in the 80's and 90's. Digital equipment started becoming standard around 2000. Digital = compression = loss of range.

Wrong. That has nothing to do with dynamic range.

 

[spaceman]

lets go back to live bands!
:Q
we could by miniature bands and put them in in a corner of the house.
then u simply tell the band leader which song you want to hear then *tada.
live music.

 

[Goosemaster]

Z-5500s?


*giggles*

 

[Rubycon]

Just run your pop cd's through the awesome 24 bit crystalizer for better than studio quality sound!

:laugh:

 

[Special K]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but isn't compression used so that you CAN turn the song up louder? The OP's post made it sound like the compressed tracks were the ones he didn't want to turn up louder.

What I mean is, in an uncompressed, highly dynamic song (think of a classical orchestra performance), you will have certain sections that are very loud, and certain sections that are very soft. Because the total volume will be limited by the loudest part of the song, that will force you to hear the quiet parts as quiet, because you don't want the loud parts to be too loud.

On the other hand, if a song is heavily compressed, the volume will be equalized across the entire song, and you can therefore turn it up louder.

Am I right, or am I missing something?

<-- audio n00b

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Special K
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but isn't compression used so that you CAN turn the song up louder? The OP's post made it sound like the compressed tracks were the ones he didn't want to turn up louder.

What I mean is, in an uncompressed, highly dynamic song (think of a classical orchestra performance), you will have certain sections that are very loud, and certain sections that are very soft. Because the total volume will be limited by the loudest part of the song, that will force you to hear the quiet parts as quiet, because you don't want the loud parts to be too loud.

On the other hand, if a song is heavily compressed, the volume will be equalized across the entire song, and you can therefore turn it up louder.

Am I right, or am I missing something?

<-- audio n00b

God forbid you should hear the original works as they were intended to be performed.

- M4H

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: radioouman

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Easy- analog recording equipment was used in the 80's and 90's. Digital equipment started becoming standard around 2000. Digital = compression = loss of range.

Digital does not equal compression.

In fact, due to no noise, your signal to noise ratio in digital is virtually infinite, so you can have much better dynamic range out of digital.

But compression is the problem here. Gotta make your song louder than the next person's.

Nobody's going to deal with raw music files when doing digital recording. I've spent a fair amount of time in a studio- the signal does get compressed so the equipment can work with it. If this didn't happen, you'd have to deal with a 100 gig track to mix.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Nobody's going to deal with raw music files when doing digital recording. I've spent a fair amount of time in a studio- the signal does get compressed so the equipment can work with it. If this didn't happen, you'd have to deal with a 100 gig track to mix.

read up

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn

Originally posted by: davestar
agreed.

however, U2 at any compression/volume level makes my ears bleed

What has this world come to?

:laugh:

Is that the guy who did a cover of Down With The Sickness for Dawn of the Dead? What's his name?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: radioouman

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Easy- analog recording equipment was used in the 80's and 90's. Digital equipment started becoming standard around 2000. Digital = compression = loss of range.

Digital does not equal compression.

In fact, due to no noise, your signal to noise ratio in digital is virtually infinite, so you can have much better dynamic range out of digital.

But compression is the problem here. Gotta make your song louder than the next person's.

Nobody's going to deal with raw music files when doing digital recording. I've spent a fair amount of time in a studio- the signal does get compressed so the equipment can work with it. If this didn't happen, you'd have to deal with a 100 gig track to mix.

I'm pretty sure you two are talking about different forms of compression... signal compression versus data compression.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Is that the guy who did a cover of Down With The Sickness for Dawn of the Dead? What's his name?[/quote]

Yes it is. That's Richard Cheese and he performs regularly in Vegas and other places.

Originally posted by: nakedfrog


I'm pretty sure you two are talking about different forms of compression... signal compression versus data compression.

Yes and there's lossy and lossless digital compression.

 

[gsellis]

This is just crap engineering. If it were a 'digital' or compression problem, dynamic range on DVDs would suck (which are more compressed and digital). I have had to turn off DR on my DVD player as it was freaking everyone out between over-extend ranges with dialog and explosions being 60db vs about 95db in the room. Of course, they would turn the 60 up to about 75 and when it went boom... the cat looks like a cartoon on the wood floor

Edit - they are spending too much time making it sound like Jessica and Ashlee Simpson can sing and losing the range of the music.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Special K
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but isn't compression used so that you CAN turn the song up louder? The OP's post made it sound like the compressed tracks were the ones he didn't want to turn up louder.

What I mean is, in an uncompressed, highly dynamic song (think of a classical orchestra performance), you will have certain sections that are very loud, and certain sections that are very soft. Because the total volume will be limited by the loudest part of the song, that will force you to hear the quiet parts as quiet, because you don't want the loud parts to be too loud.

On the other hand, if a song is heavily compressed, the volume will be equalized across the entire song, and you can therefore turn it up louder.

Am I right, or am I missing something?

<-- audio n00b

God forbid you should hear the original works as they were intended to be performed.

- M4H

Well today's music isn't just compressed, its compressed and then it's overall amplitude is boosted, right? So that at any given volume level on your audio device, the song will sound louder than one which is not similarly boosted?

The reason why they can't boost an uncompressed track is because the dynamic peaks would clip, right?

Also, don't the original recordings of most pop songs not possess much dynamic range to begin with, even before compression?

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Special K
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but isn't compression used so that you CAN turn the song up louder? The OP's post made it sound like the compressed tracks were the ones he didn't want to turn up louder.

What I mean is, in an uncompressed, highly dynamic song (think of a classical orchestra performance), you will have certain sections that are very loud, and certain sections that are very soft. Because the total volume will be limited by the loudest part of the song, that will force you to hear the quiet parts as quiet, because you don't want the loud parts to be too loud.

On the other hand, if a song is heavily compressed, the volume will be equalized across the entire song, and you can therefore turn it up louder.

Am I right, or am I missing something?

<-- audio n00b

God forbid you should hear the original works as they were intended to be performed.

- M4H

I know what you are saying, but for movies, when you have to turn the volume down to make explosions non-deafening, sometimes the spoken dialog becomes nearly inaudible in the process.

For music I agree with you.

 

[Rubycon]

Compression reduces the crest factor so it can be played louder on most mediocre equipment without the amps clipping or speaker overload.

Think of it this way, just 30 dB of dynamic range means if the lowest level is 1W the loudest is 1000W. Not even Wesley Snipes' ghetto blaster has 1kW! :laugh:

Originally posted by: Special K


I know what you are saying, but for movies, when you have to turn the volume down to make explosions non-deafening, sometimes the spoken dialog becomes nearly inaudible in the process.

For music I agree with you.

That's the beauty of it - realism. A whisper should be a whisper and a grenade should rattle the audience with 135 dB crack and 150 dB of single digit low frequency effect. Few movie houses do this.