Where the hell did dynamic range go?

[KRandor]

I've noticed this sort of thing with a lot of cd's too - and I don't don't buy/listen to many these days as it is anyway - (certainly not pop music anyway). I mean, the last Ray Charles CD had full-on DISTORTION on it at any level simply because some stoopid guy mastered it too high (glad I borrowed it from the library first instead of buying it). Thankfully, most of the cd's I've bought haven't been too bad - (mainly celtic stuff like Altan/Davy Spillane, and some Jools Holland (big band) stuff...

I know my ears are pretty good - so I tend to notice things others don't, but if that Ray Charles CD is an example of the sort of stuff people are trying to do these days - then count me out, lol. (I'll just sit here and write my own moosic instead (though I could still so with a few lessons on mixing and mastering)).

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Raduque

as someone said above, god forbid you listen to the audio recording the way the artist or composer intended you to :roll:

Personally, I can't stand this trend towards over-compressed music with no dynamic range. I bought a country cd, COUNTRY (yes, shut it) and it sounds horrible due to having no dynamic range. The highs are clipped, and the lows are simply pretty much non-existent.

I have some pretty decent vintage (mid-late 70s) equipment that I use for stereo listening, and while it's far from being "teh best", it still qualifies as miles better then what probably 90% of people listen on. I'd like to have music that lets my gear sound it's best, and not give me a headache.

Don't kid yourself. Some of the audio gear from the 70s is still to this day some very, very good stuff.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
Ok let's listen to some Hendrix.

First the original.

Now compressed.

YUCK!

Please tell me that is some kind of joke? Please? the second one is just nasty.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: spidey07

YUCK!

Please tell me that is some kind of joke? Please? the second one is just nasty.

No it demostrates the castration of music with crest factor reducing compression which has NOTHING to do with lossy data compression.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn

Originally posted by: spidey07

YUCK!

Please tell me that is some kind of joke? Please? the second one is just nasty.

No it demostrates the castration of music with crest factor reducing compression which has NOTHING to do with lossy data compression.

Is the compression on the masters? If so then I guess there isn't anything we can do about it.

I remember when "some" recordings just sucked in the 90s but for the most part they were pretty decent. Some were even great. Now adays you are guaranteed of a crappy recording and can't find a decent one, let alone a good/great one. Even some of my SACDs are pretty crappy recordings.

 

[Vegitto]

Beautiful song, the compression raped it. What I want to know is why people buy vinyls. If the master tapes suck, why won't the vinyl version suck, too?

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Is the compression on the masters? If so then I guess there isn't anything we can do about it.

I remember when "some" recordings just sucked in the 90s but for the most part they were pretty decent. Some were even great. Now adays you are guaranteed of a crappy recording and can't find a decent one, let alone a good/great one. Even some of my SACDs are pretty crappy recordings.

Well obviously it isn't on Little Wing.

Yes some stuff is compressed the downmix to stereo is complete. So no matter the format, your listening experience will just be as bad. Sadly most of the music doesn't even utilize the dynamic range of 16/44.1. The ones that do need proper dithering so the quietest passages aren't falling into the cracks of digital oblivion but this occurs WAY before any program material that was compressed so dither on these castrated recordings of today is moot.

Interest detected in signature by: Vegitto

I am against piracy, please don't attack any innocent ships .

I definitely concur.

 

[Vegitto]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn

Interest detected in signature by: Vegitto

I am against piracy, please don't attack any innocent ships .

I definitely concur.

:thumbsup:

 

[spikespiegal]

What I want to know is why people buy vinyls.

For the same reason they put spinning hub caps on their cars. Compensation for small sexual organs.

You cannot improve the quality of the original source recording, which is made in the studio. If the engineeers apply a dynamic compression algorithm, then it doesn't matter if the copy you buy is vinyl, 16-bit CD, downloaded off the internet, or SACD. If it's mastered well - it will sound good. Vinyl fanatics live in this delusional world where they think they can improve the sound by introducing more distortion.

If vinyl where such a remarkable medium, then studio engineers would be using it for masters. They don't, but instead use either tape for analog or straight digital sampling.

 

[Vegitto]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

What I want to know is why people buy vinyls.

For the same reason they put spinning hub caps on their cars. Compensation for small sexual organs.

You cannot improve the quality of the original source recording, which is made in the studio. If the engineeers apply a dynamic compression algorithm, then it doesn't matter if the copy you buy is vinyl, 16-bit CD, downloaded off the internet, or SACD. If it's mastered well - it will sound good. Vinyl fanatics live in this delusional world where they think they can improve the sound by introducing more distortion.

If vinyl where such a remarkable medium, then studio engineers would be using it for masters. They don't, but instead use either tape for analog or straight digital sampling.

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought it was weird, too. Nonetheless, I've got some vinyls and turntables of 50's and 60's classics. They sound awesome, but I think that's because they were bought in the 50's and 60's . I should rip them to my PC sometime.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

What I want to know is why people buy vinyls.

For the same reason they put spinning hub caps on their cars. Compensation for small sexual organs.

You cannot improve the quality of the original source recording, which is made in the studio. If the engineeers apply a dynamic compression algorithm, then it doesn't matter if the copy you buy is vinyl, 16-bit CD, downloaded off the internet, or SACD. If it's mastered well - it will sound good. Vinyl fanatics live in this delusional world where they think they can improve the sound by introducing more distortion.

If vinyl where such a remarkable medium, then studio engineers would be using it for masters. They don't, but instead use either tape for analog or straight digital sampling.

Well a lot of the good vinyl comes from good analog masters (tape). That's just one of the reasons it sounds so good.

If it's mastered well then vinyl/SACD will blow away a CD. That's a fact. Ever listened to reel-to-reel? Fabulous.

 

[Staples]

I find that the highs are too damn high in most songs these days. In my car I have the radio set to -1db hi, +4db mid, +4db low. I have midgrade Pioneer front and rear speakers.

What I find interesting is that when I had a hearing test earlier this year, it determined that I can't hear the level of highs that a person my age should be able to hear when it is still the highs that bother me.

Edit: and apparently I am talking about something different than what people in the thread are talking about.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
Yes - compression brings up the soft parts and reduces the louder parts so the entire program can be normalized and will play much louder. TV adverts do this and that's why they come blaring through to get your attention.

A CD will always have 96dB of dynamic range however using the medium for most music nowadays is like buying a ten ton truck to drive to work. Hey that seems to be getting popular too!

Unfortunately for them, the only "attention" that loud commercials receive is the Mute button. That is, assuming I even SEE the commercials in the first place. I like my PVR card.

 

[Rastus]

If Bose wasn't so popular, we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Mono FTW

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: Rastus
If Bose wasn't so popular, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Because their stereo blows! :laugh:

Another example of compression:

original

compressed

You would be surprised at the number of people that choose the compressed file because it's louder! :roll:

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn

Because their stereo blows! :laugh:

Another example of compression:

original

compressed

You would be surprised at the number of people that choose the compressed file because it's louder! :roll:

I was annoyed actually by the apparent volume changes of CDs over the years. 80's CDs sound so quiet compared to new CDs. However, with my discovery of FLAC's lovely Replaygain, and a nice program called MP3Gain, it's not a problem anymore.
I just like being able to go from Enya's "The Longships", from 1988, to, perhaps, "White and Nerdy" without having to adjust the volume.
I guess normalization was all I was really after in that case.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

I was annoyed actually by the apparent volume changes of CDs over the years. 80's CDs sound so quiet compared to new CDs. However, with my discovery of FLAC's lovely Replaygain, and a nice program called MP3Gain, it's not a problem anymore.
I just like being able to go from Enya's "The Longships", from 1988, to, perhaps, "White and Nerdy" without having to adjust the volume.
I guess normalization was all I was really after in that case.

eeeeeeeeeeeek! Quiet is GOOD! It preserves headroom for FF (fortissimo!). Making the quiet CD's louder with gain dulls the brazen crescendos and weakens the effect of crushing wavefronts of properly recorded bass attacks. Music is life and compression takes the life out of it. Without life there is death and that's what's happening here.

Now if a recording is just low there is nothing wrong with a 0dB normalize - this will bring the peak level to the max without hurting dynamic range.

 

[thomsbrain]

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

compression makes it seem louder without having the peaks go higher. you have to turn up an uncompressed recording higher to achieve the same "perceived" volume. the uncompressed recording has the potential to distort your stereo earlier because the peaks at a given "perceived" volume are higher, and may be more than your speakers or amp can handle. so you can achieve similar "perceived" volume with less overall power if you compress. however, at identical stereo settings, the compressed recording will distort more because you're demanding more overall power over time. but it's also "louder," so you wouldn't have it that high in the first place. basically, compression makes it seem loud even when it is quiet. the downside to this is dramatically reduced clarity and quality, and dramatically increased ear fatigue.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn

Originally posted by: spidey07

YUCK!

Please tell me that is some kind of joke? Please? the second one is just nasty.

No it demostrates the castration of music with crest factor reducing compression which has NOTHING to do with lossy data compression.

An exagerrated demonstration right?

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: Staples
I find that the highs are too damn high in most songs these days. In my car I have the radio set to -1db hi, +4db mid, +4db low. I have midgrade Pioneer front and rear speakers.

What I find interesting is that when I had a hearing test earlier this year, it determined that I can't hear the level of highs that a person my age should be able to hear when it is still the highs that bother me.

Edit: and apparently I am talking about something different than what people in the thread are talking about.

actually, you are talking about the same thing! one of the artifacts of ultra-compression is that it forces the recording to sound more "toppy," or have a higher ratio of highs to lows. we like music to have more lows than highs, so we mix it that way. but thanks to multi-band compressors, meaning compressors that make each frequency range as loud as possible, the master ends up with highs that are super-boosted, while the lows ended up being cut. compression fvcks the EQ on the mix, and the result is a tinny, thin-sounding recording with lots of treble.

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: gsellis
If you guys want something to compare to, buy Boston's first album on CD and listen to it. It will blow you away. The guys are MIT electrical engineers and know sound. The invented a whole cabinet of stuff and mixed to take advantage of it.

Tom Scholz is the only MIT graduate.

And Third Stage sounds like crap, even on MFSL.

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: tk109
One of the best main stream recordings around is Guns n Roses Use your illusion Albums. Amazing sounding.

I have a lot of other ones but I love that release. REd hot chilli peppers are absolute crap. Most horrid amount of compression ever.

Listen to Mother's Milk on MFSL. sounds great.

I think everything up to One Hot Minute was OK IIRC...

 

[Pepsi90919]

and with all this mention of Mobile Fidelity, i should note that they are taking preorders for Yes' Fragile CD which should be shipping soon

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: Staples
I find that the highs are too damn high in most songs these days. In my car I have the radio set to -1db hi, +4db mid, +4db low. I have midgrade Pioneer front and rear speakers.

What I find interesting is that when I had a hearing test earlier this year, it determined that I can't hear the level of highs that a person my age should be able to hear when it is still the highs that bother me.

Edit: and apparently I am talking about something different than what people in the thread are talking about.

actually, you are talking about the same thing! one of the artifacts of ultra-compression is that it forces the recording to sound more "toppy," or have a higher ratio of highs to lows. we like music to have more lows than highs, so we mix it that way. but thanks to multi-band compressors, meaning compressors that make each frequency range as loud as possible, the master ends up with highs that are super-boosted, while the lows ended up being cut. compression fvcks the EQ on the mix, and the result is a tinny, thin-sounding recording with lots of treble.

So what's your reference point to make the claim that the stereos have exagerrated highs? I used to think the same as you when all I've heard was cheap speakers. Bass creates a more fun sound to the more immature listener. But once I listened to a few high end audio setups, I realized that there's a lot more music than a fun beat.
Now I find stereos to be quite the opposite to what you feel. The bass is usually waaay overexaggerated at factory neutral settings for most consumer audio products. I think my Etymotic ER-4S with amp earphones and listening to my neighbor's $15k audiophile setup is a good reference frame. My 99' miata(with tweeters), or my mom's 2004 camry has pretty muffled highs. I have the treble cranked up +2 to compensate, and the bass is uncontrolled and boomy. I have the bass -2 on my miata, and -5 on my mom's camry.

Seriously, people here are getting way worked up over this compression issue. It may be more of an issue for audiophiles. But on your cheap setup, you have a lot more to worry about than a small degree of compression.