Where the hell did dynamic range go?

[AStar617]

Maybe this has already been said (no time to wade thru all the replies), but well-known mastering engineers have been rebelling against this in recent years, using pseudonyms (or refusing to put their name in the credits altogether) whenever a "compress-the-hell-out-of-this-classic-and-call-it-a-remaster" project is forced upon them by the big studios. :thumbsup:

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
Ok they did get deleted.

Let's try some lounge music.

original

compressed


Neil Young -

original

compressed

OK, wtf, I can't tell any difference between either of those two sets. Do you need really good speakers to test those? I'm using a pair of sony MDR-XD400's right now. Not exactly audiophile quality, but $70 headphones are better than what most people get I would think.

Am I just tone deaf or something? I realize compression is a subtle effect, but I can barely tell any difference between those two.

EDIT:

I should also add that I'm not really a fan of either of those two to begin with, and that even the uncompressed versions didn't sound too dynamic to me.

I have a track off the Gladiator soundtrack that would make a good candidate for this, because it is very dynamic.

Listen to the Neil Young tracks again but focus on the differences between the loudness of the piano compared to the loudness of the vocals at beginning of each song. It might be hard to hear a difference at first if you don't know what differences to look for (kinda like telling someone to find Waldo w/o ever telling them what Waldo looks like).

As far as your earlier Q about "ear fatigue", to me its not a headache, but just a feeling of my ears being tired from listening to the same sound level for an extended period of time. It's kinda like how your eyes feel fatigued after reading a book (or staring at a computer monitor) for a long time 'cause they've been focused on a near by, stationary object for a long period.


Lethal

 

[bobsmith1492]

HDR music I've listened to: - Simon and Garfunkel (Bridge over Troubled Water? I'm always playing with the volume...) - Dan Fogelburg - Gladiator soundtrack
I guess I recognize what it is you're talking about, but then again, these bug me more than anything; I don't like blasting my ears when it gets to the loud part, but I like to hear what's happening in the quiet parts... so, I play with the volume anyway. What exactly is wrong with compression, then? Granted, I usually listen while in my car; if I'm sitting in a quiet room with music on, they're great.

 

[Maluno]

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:

broken links?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
Speaking of all sides - those cheesy, thin-walled enclosures heavily color the sound. A high end loudspeaker cabinet will pass practically NO sound through the cabinet walls. All controlled sound comes from the radiator(s) themselves which can include vents or ports. The air inside those is the effective radiator. Top of the line bass bins feel like granite even when getting driven hard - this kind of craftsmanship never comes cheap though. Try it once! Crank up some hard hitting, thumping bass and feel the sides of subwoofer cabinet.

So true. Put you hand on a well made loudspeaker when it is putting out sound. You'll barely feel it.

Vic,
It isn't modern well made loudspeakers that are the problem, it is the recording/mastering.

 

[Jeff7]

I just got a few new CDs - wow, the dynamic compression is just incredible. It looks like the entire thing was boosted to several times the maximum for a CD, then clipped down.

I've got some Enya CDs too, including Paint the Sky with Stars, which includes a few "improved" versions of a few of her older songs. What'd they do? Dynamic compression to make them sound louder. That's about it. It quieted the vocals too, which I think is really a lot of the reason that people buy Enya's music in the first place.

 

[Rogodin2]

It is like reading. There are two types. 99% of the public can't perceive either.

Rogo

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
What exactly is wrong with compression, then?

KINDA THE SAME THING THAT IS WRONG WITH TYPING LIKE THIS YOU CAN READ WHAT I AM WRITING BUT IT IS NOT THE MOST AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND IT COULD BE HARD TO UNDERSTAND ANY SUBTEXT THAT I MIGHT TRY TO CONVEY BECAUSE ALL OF MY WORDS ARE EQUALLY BIG AND LOUD


LETHAL

 

[Rubycon]

Ok most of the links have been restored and are even in original locations.

Here's some new stuff. The compressor is REALLY high - the BVU hits 20 dB overdrive! :Q

original

compressed

original

compressed

 

[bloodugly]

Most modern "radio" recordings suck as far as dynamic range. I could swear I read an interview with Steve Albini a while back where he talked about this. I've examined a bunch of recent recordings in audio editing software, and the results dissapoint me.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: bloodugly
Most modern "radio" recordings suck as far as dynamic range. I could swear I read an interview with Steve Albini a while back where he talked about this. I've examined a bunch of recent recordings in audio editing software, and the results dissapoint me.

That's normal - quiet during broadcast is waste so compression allows them to be as loud as possible without over deviation (FM).

Some people prefer compression as mentioned earlier. That's fine with me as it can be added later with hardware or even software during encoding for portable audio, etc. Castrating the media released to everyone, however is horrible as there's no way to remove the effects of dynamic compression once applied.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Interesting thread here. And people wonder why the iPod generation is going deaf!

 

[Calin]

Nice music the edmund - the overcomp sounds louder, you can hear better some instruments.
Too bad it sounds broken, seems to put the audio devices in pain (I can hear them suffer).
And I thought the old equipments were so much better than the new ones because the new ones have the "broken" sound... In fact the "music" was the problem (maybe not the only problem, but anyway)
My reference were some >1 meter tall, 30cm wide "library" boxes "fueled" from a portable cassette player, and what I usually compare them to now are usually 2x100 integrated systems (something like this: http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.100-1709.aspx )
As that was long time ago, just after moving to university, there is little now that sounds as good (the only better sounding I've heard in the university campus: some local formation (Compact) was played on a system, but we only heard its sound reflected on another building. Perfect sounding, pauses were totally silent, voices clear as a diamond, every sound could have been easily discriminated, and so many things to make the audition truly extraordinary (that was in the summer of 1992, so no mp3 and things)
Edmund on real audio hardware (maybe from a non-lossy source) could certainly give those memories a run for their money

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn

Originally posted by: bloodugly
Most modern "radio" recordings suck as far as dynamic range. I could swear I read an interview with Steve Albini a while back where he talked about this. I've examined a bunch of recent recordings in audio editing software, and the results dissapoint me.

That's normal - quiet during broadcast is waste so compression allows them to be as loud as possible without over deviation (FM).

Some people prefer compression as mentioned earlier. That's fine with me as it can be added later with hardware or even software during encoding for portable audio, etc. Castrating the media released to everyone, however is horrible as there's no way to remove the effects of dynamic compression once applied.

Just a question here (if you happen to know) - all those "radio edit" editions of music are more compressed than the more normal ones released? Or they are just different in length/content/...?

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Interesting thread here. And people wonder why the iPod generation is going deaf!

This iPod thingie just mimicks what other thingies before him did - portable mp3 players, portable CD players, portable cassette players (Sony Walkman anyone?).
There were excesses then, there are excesses now. Not much has changed

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
What exactly is wrong with compression, then?

KINDA THE SAME THING THAT IS WRONG WITH TYPING LIKE THIS YOU CAN READ WHAT I AM WRITING BUT IT IS NOT THE MOST AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND IT COULD BE HARD TO UNDERSTAND ANY SUBTEXT THAT I MIGHT TRY TO CONVEY BECAUSE ALL OF MY WORDS ARE EQUALLY BIG AND LOUD


LETHAL

The best explanation I've seen
:thumbsup:

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn

Originally posted by: Special K

What is ALC? Can you recommend me a really dynamic track to see how my computer speakers fare?

ALC = Automatic Limit Control.

Try this.

OK, I listened to that clip after you restored all of your links, and while I can definitely hear the dynamic range present, my cheapo speakers did not clip or anything while I was listening to it at a reasonable level.

So it seems that cheap speakers can handle high dynamic range just fine. Is that right?

 

[Calin]

Speakers have nothing to do with the high dynamic range.
An audio system will have a low range, where noise is present (a cheap system will have noise in it when you put the volume to the max - notice this noise might come from many sources like recording quality, hardware quality, RF influence from other sources like power cables)
Also, an audio system has a absolute highest range (limited by the instantaneous power that can be sent to the speakers). Also, there is a lower range where the system might introduce deviations from the original sound (like non-linear response from the woofer - see woofers with active technology)
So, the biggest dynamic range you can have without distortion is between the "base noise" level and the "no distortions max level". If you go higher than that on dynamic range, you start to lose sound in the background noise of the system, or you start to distort the high levels. The worst distortion at high levels I've heard is when the speakers are totally overpowered. For this reason, and for protection, the speakers have some "shortout" circuitry, to divert excess power from the sound generating components to something else (resistors and LEDs usually).
my $.02

 

[bobsmith1492]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
What exactly is wrong with compression, then?

KINDA THE SAME THING THAT IS WRONG WITH TYPING LIKE THIS YOU CAN READ WHAT I AM WRITING BUT IT IS NOT THE MOST AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND IT COULD BE HARD TO UNDERSTAND ANY SUBTEXT THAT I MIGHT TRY TO CONVEY BECAUSE ALL OF MY WORDS ARE EQUALLY BIG AND LOUD


LETHAL

Ok, man, chill out and read the whole post next time...

I guess it was kind of late and I might not have been clear. I was trying to propose the usefulness of compression in certain listening conditions, namely when driving since the road noise provides such a high noise floor.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Vic,
It isn't modern well made loudspeakers that are the problem, it is the recording/mastering.

It was my point that current recording/mastering techniques revolve around the lowest common denominators of modern equipment, i.e. "made for your iPods."
For example, I was talking with a co-worker the other day about the new John Mayer album (she is apparently a huge fan) and she mentioned how she downloaded it off iTunes. I suggested that she buy actual CD's instead, as the compression format iTunes uses reduces sound quality. Her comment was, "Really?" I never noticed," and then looked at me like I was strange

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
What exactly is wrong with compression, then?

KINDA THE SAME THING THAT IS WRONG WITH TYPING LIKE THIS YOU CAN READ WHAT I AM WRITING BUT IT IS NOT THE MOST AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND IT COULD BE HARD TO UNDERSTAND ANY SUBTEXT THAT I MIGHT TRY TO CONVEY BECAUSE ALL OF MY WORDS ARE EQUALLY BIG AND LOUD


LETHAL

Ok, man, chill out and read the whole post next time...

I guess it was kind of late and I might not have been clear. I was trying to propose the usefulness of compression in certain listening conditions, namely when driving since the road noise provides such a high noise floor.

Chill? He's not mad at you, or yelling per se. He used capslock to illustrate the point. Everything in his text is at the "maximum" range for text. You can use subscripts, lowercase, and regular typefont. His text is maximized beyond what it should be, so all dynamic range is lost - it's all loud.
Kind of reminds me of Will Ferrell's voice imodulation skit. Transcript, for lack of video.

iTunes uses reduces sound quality. Her comment was, "Really?" I never noticed," and then looked at me like I was strange

There are people out there who, 1) can't tell the difference between a 60Hz refresh rate and a 120Hz refresh rate. Flickering? Nope, can't see any. , and 2) can't hear a difference between an uncompressed CD audio file and a 64kbps LAME MP3 file encoded at medium quality.

 

[ForumMaster]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Z-5500s?


*giggles*

umm, dude, is there something wrong? all your posts today have been of giggles. is there something you're not telling us!?

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
What exactly is wrong with compression, then?

KINDA THE SAME THING THAT IS WRONG WITH TYPING LIKE THIS YOU CAN READ WHAT I AM WRITING BUT IT IS NOT THE MOST AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND IT COULD BE HARD TO UNDERSTAND ANY SUBTEXT THAT I MIGHT TRY TO CONVEY BECAUSE ALL OF MY WORDS ARE EQUALLY BIG AND LOUD


LETHAL

Ok, man, chill out and read the whole post next time...

I guess it was kind of late and I might not have been clear. I was trying to propose the usefulness of compression in certain listening conditions, namely when driving since the road noise provides such a high noise floor.

Chill? He's not mad at you, or yelling per se. He used capslock to illustrate the point. Everything in his text is at the "maximum" range for text. You can use subscripts, lowercase, and regular typefont. His text is maximized beyond what it should be, so all dynamic range is lost - it's all loud.
Kind of reminds me of Will Ferrell's voice imodulation skit. Transcript, for lack of video.

iTunes uses reduces sound quality. Her comment was, "Really?" I never noticed," and then looked at me like I was strange

There are people out there who, 1) can't tell the difference between a 60Hz refresh rate and a 120Hz refresh rate. Flickering? Nope, can't see any. , and 2) can't hear a difference between an uncompressed CD audio file and a 64kbps LAME MP3 file encoded at medium quality.

60Hz on a computer CRT drives me insane. Likewise, crappy MP3s make my ears bleed.

Originally posted by: ForumMaster

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Z-5500s?


*giggles*

umm, dude, is there something wrong? all your posts today have been of giggles. is there something you're not telling us!?

Someone leaked some laughing gas into his room?

 

[skace]

Random question, those people talking about the horrors of removing dynamic range, do you normalize your mp3s or no? And is normalizing similar to removing dynamic range?

 

[MysticLlama]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: MysticLlama
I've noticed this too, and with a nice sound system it drives me nuts.

The volume level that you can listen to and enjoy on a 1200w RMS system with great speakers without fatigue is far higher than some little crappy system.

Why is this? Shouldn't the same sound level on one system sound the same as the sound level on another? By fatigue, do you just mean a headache from the music being too loud or what?

Originally posted by: MysticLlama
I can listen to things at 10-15db higher easy than my bookshelf speakers in the other room (which are still pretty decent) and have less hearing discomfort.

What exactly do you mean by hearing discomfort? Again, are you just referring to a headache from the music being too loud? It may sound like a dumb question but the only time I could have ever described music as "fatiguing" is if it was turned up too loud and giving me a headache.

No, not a dumb question at all, it's really hard to explain.

Basically, I could take two of the aformentioned CDs back to back, so say the U2 originals vs. the remastered ones.

At the same volume level, as set by an SPL meter, say 95-100db, you'll be able to listen to the better master a lot longer without your ears feeling "scratchy" and bothered.

I think it has something to do with the sound curve of the actual sound produced. The more compressed the signal is, the more blocky the sound curve would be, and the transitions on your eardrum might not be as mellow. (completely guessing here, not a Doctor or anything). A lot of clubs still use Vinyl, which is analog, and even though there are hisses and pops at times, the sound is still more warm and smooth and able to go louder.

This isn't to say that with a great recording you can go as loud as you want, at some point the volume and pressure level is just too high and isn't fun. I had Dire Straights - Money for Nothing up to 111db, and that was just too loud. But at 100 or so, it was loud but fine, newer CDs hurt my ears in the mid-80 range.

Hope that maybe helped a little, I still think it's hard to describe how it actually feels.