Jump to content
IGNORED

Article: Dynamic Range: No Quiet = No Loud


Recommended Posts

I agree totally on the compression problem...I find that too on vinyl as well as CD, but it is not has prevalent...which is why people seem to be gravitating back to old vinyl. Good CDs sound much better than vinyl, but compressed CDs sound worse.  IMHO vinyl is more forgiving to weak recording technique than is CD.   I have found remixed blu-ray audio discs excellent ...at least for the dozen or so that I have listened to.

Link to comment

One of the best pieces I've read at this site, and one of the most depressing too!

- Mark

 

Synology DS916+ > SoTM dCBL-CAT7 > Netgear switch > SoTM dCBL-CAT7 > dCS Vivaldi Upsampler (Nordost Valhalla 2 power cord) > Nordost Valhalla 2 Dual 110 Ohm AES/EBU > dCS Vivaldi DAC (David Elrod Statement Gold power cord) > Nordost Valhalla 2 xlr > Absolare Passion preamp (Nordost Valhalla 2 power cord) > Nordost Valhalla 2 xlr > VTL MB-450 III (Shunyata King Cobra CX power cords) > Nordost Valhalla 2 speaker > Kaiser Kaewero Classic /JL Audio F110 (Wireworld Platinum power cord).

 

Power Conditioning: Entreq Olympus Tellus grounding (AC, preamp and dac) / Shunyata Hydra Triton + Typhoon (Shunyata Anaconda ZiTron umbilical/Shunyata King Cobra CX power cord) > Furutec GTX D-Rhodium AC outlet.

Link to comment

Par for the course for Mitchco.  Of course Mitcho is playing from pro tees and par is a darned good result.  Very nice article as usual. 

 

In my limited experience recordings are not too terribly compromised when you get DR12 (yes a generalization).  Yet they are in a condition where you can enjoy them in a moving car or similar conditions.  Of course they get better when you start getting DR15 scores.  Your writing makes me think that is more or less in agreement with your thinking on this.

 

Thanks for the work that went into the article.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

I've been ranting about this for a while now. I've occasionally recorded friends' bands, knowing they'll first complain it isn't loud enough, then trying to please them without hurting my ears too much. Of course I keep the original version also...

 

Declippers aren't entirely useless though. Obviously they can't remove compression per se, but so many CDs have heavy clipping, that with *some of those* one can restore a few dB to the kick. Sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes any change is lost in the sonic muck. But occasionally, with a little tweaking, something that had DR before being clipped cleans up remarkably. Your guess is as good as mine how close it may be to the original waveform. 

Link to comment

Wow. Great article as usual Mitch! Really appreciate you sharing of experience as well as the pictures of the Old-Skool gear from the studio. Nice to see the old PCM vs. tape comparisons!

 

It really is sad how unfortunate it has become that music production has over time stooped down to truly the very lowest "common denominator". The unsophisticated concept of "louder sounds better" presumably for just the psychological reason of catching people's attention between songs on radio (and streaming these days). Such desperation for whatever perceived "edge" this gives that whatever joy and value the music itself could have truly expressed becomes sacrificed on the altar of misguided popularity. Even if this worked (ie. the loud mastering gets a number of folks to click "Buy" on their iTunes for 99 cents), it would be yet another example of short-term gain at the expense of long-term enjoyment. It really is a sad reminder of how disposable music has become and such disrespect for the art form.

 

I also like your reminder that music production takes skill and experience. After 20+ years of MAKE IT LOUD ALL THE TIME music, there are a lot of studio conventions/habits to overcome I suspect! Just like how gradually the sound has shifted over the years, it might take the next generation of audio engineers as well as assertive musicians, and educated consumers to work together to turn this around. Who knows, given the cycles in society, maybe we're finally due for artists/producers/engineers to step forth and rebel against the ugly practices of so many years in the rock/pop/blues/alt/metal/country genres.

 

Sadly, with all the high-resolution equipment we have at our disposal these days, the blatant disregard for quality reminds me of the proverbial casting of "pearls before the swine". Not only could this be fueling the rise of the LP (not in itself a bad thing per se... just not really high fidelity by digital standards...), but perhaps ultimately also the inexorable decline of the recording industry for not producing engaging music by their self-inflicted degradation of the very product they're peddling.

 

By the way... Anyone tried the automated mastering software LANDR? Any chance a machine can be taught to be judicious and spare the dynamic range? :-)

 

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Archimago said:

Wow. Great article as usual Mitch! Really appreciate you sharing of experience as well as the pictures of the Old-Skool gear from the studio. Nice to see the old PCM vs. tape comparisons!

 

It really is sad how unfortunate it has become that music production has over time stooped down to truly the very lowest "common denominator". The unsophisticated concept of "louder sounds better" presumably for just the psychological reason of catching people's attention between songs on radio (and streaming these days). Such desperation for whatever perceived "edge" this gives that whatever joy and value the music itself could have truly expressed becomes sacrificed on the altar of misguided popularity. Even if this worked (ie. the loud mastering gets a number of folks to click "Buy" on their iTunes for 99 cents), it would be yet another example of short-term gain at the expense of long-term enjoyment. It really is a sad reminder of how disposable music has become and such disrespect for the art form.

 

I also like your reminder that music production takes skill and experience. After 20+ years of MAKE IT LOUD ALL THE TIME music, there are a lot of studio conventions/habits to overcome I suspect! Just like how gradually the sound has shifted over the years, it might take the next generation of audio engineers as well as assertive musicians, and educated consumers to work together to turn this around. Who knows, given the cycles in society, maybe we're finally due for artists/producers/engineers to step forth and rebel against the ugly practices of so many years in the rock/pop/blues/alt/metal/country genres.

 

Sadly, with all the high-resolution equipment we have at our disposal these days, the blatant disregard for quality reminds me of the proverbial casting of "pearls before the swine". Not only could this be fueling the rise of the LP (not in itself a bad thing per se... just not really high fidelity by digital standards...), but perhaps ultimately also the inexorable decline of the recording industry for not producing engaging music by their self-inflicted degradation of the very product they're peddling.

 

By the way... Anyone tried the automated mastering software LANDR? Any chance a machine can be taught to be judicious and spare the dynamic range? :-)

 

I tried it just to see how it works.  I didn't much care for it. However, if you read my comments in the other DR article, friends recorded a CD and got back their acoustic Christmas music with a DR 5 first time around.  Now they eventually communicated to the guy what they wanted and got something good with reasonable dynamic range.  Compared to his first mix however, dropping it into LANDR would have been about 3 times better sounding.  I just wonder how many people who don't know about stuff record for the first time and just assume the Pro guy knows what he is doing.  Heck LANDR would be an improvement.  Plus I am sure LANDR could be altered for however you want the end product to be. 

 

Now this is my only experience, if it has become entirely typical in this business, lots of people should just record, hand it off the LANDR and be done with it. I hope in general that is really not the case.  Even more odd, when this guy turned his head around on it, he did some fabulously good mixing.  He really made it sound nice.  I couldn't have done what he did.  Maybe he has gotten used to most bands not appreciating his work and just knocked out a cookie cutter version that usually makes people happy. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, esldude said:

Par for the course for Mitchco.  Of course Mitcho is playing from pro tees and par is a darned good result.  Very nice article as usual. 

 

In my limited experience recordings are not too terribly compromised when you get DR12 (yes a generalization).  Yet they are in a condition where you can enjoy them in a moving car or similar conditions.  Of course they get better when you start getting DR15 scores.  Your writing makes me think that is more or less in agreement with your thinking on this.

 

Thanks for the work that went into the article.

Thanks and good to hear from you Dennis. I agree.

Link to comment

There is a lot of debate about cables and MQA in these parts at he moment.  Nothing wrong with that I guess.  However, reading michco's article serves as a fine reminder of where the real arbiter of sound quality lies very often lies, in the recording studio.  Do you need controlled ABX testing to decern the difference between a good and bad master?  Not really.  This is stating the obvious for most folk on here I know, but I'm sure I'm not alone in finding that this excellent article has done a lot for clarifying my thoughts on the matter.

 

Will this issue change anytime soon?  Personally I doubt it, but changing attitudes in this area is just too bigger prize for any of us to give up on.

 

Good stuff!

Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade.  Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mitchco said:

Thanks @jimf42, @svrit-hvitt, @PeterG for your comments. @Mike27, agreed, I have had similar declipping results from a peak limiting perspective. Unfortunately, it seems like everything is also (over) compressed.

Los Lobos' "Good Morning Aztlan" perked up nicely. But that was well mixed, and sounds like someone took a fine mastering job and cranked it to +6 dBFS. 

Link to comment
23 hours ago, Archimago said:

Wow. Great article as usual Mitch! Really appreciate you sharing of experience as well as the pictures of the Old-Skool gear from the studio. Nice to see the old PCM vs. tape comparisons!

 

It really is sad how unfortunate it has become that music production has over time stooped down to truly the very lowest "common denominator". The unsophisticated concept of "louder sounds better" presumably for just the psychological reason of catching people's attention between songs on radio (and streaming these days). Such desperation for whatever perceived "edge" this gives that whatever joy and value the music itself could have truly expressed becomes sacrificed on the altar of misguided popularity. Even if this worked (ie. the loud mastering gets a number of folks to click "Buy" on their iTunes for 99 cents), it would be yet another example of short-term gain at the expense of long-term enjoyment. It really is a sad reminder of how disposable music has become and such disrespect for the art form.

 

I also like your reminder that music production takes skill and experience. After 20+ years of MAKE IT LOUD ALL THE TIME music, there are a lot of studio conventions/habits to overcome I suspect! Just like how gradually the sound has shifted over the years, it might take the next generation of audio engineers as well as assertive musicians, and educated consumers to work together to turn this around. Who knows, given the cycles in society, maybe we're finally due for artists/producers/engineers to step forth and rebel against the ugly practices of so many years in the rock/pop/blues/alt/metal/country genres.

 

Sadly, with all the high-resolution equipment we have at our disposal these days, the blatant disregard for quality reminds me of the proverbial casting of "pearls before the swine". Not only could this be fueling the rise of the LP (not in itself a bad thing per se... just not really high fidelity by digital standards...), but perhaps ultimately also the inexorable decline of the recording industry for not producing engaging music by their self-inflicted degradation of the very product they're peddling.

 

By the way... Anyone tried the automated mastering software LANDR? Any chance a machine can be taught to be judicious and spare the dynamic range? :-)

 

Hey Arch, good to hear from you and thanks. One has a slightly different view when sitting in the mixing or mastering chair, especially when comparing ones own mix/master to other competitive mixes/masters. Also, our ears seem to be attracted to compression like candy. But too much and one gets sick.

 

Bob Katz's AES article on An Integrated Approach to Metering, Monitoring, and Levelling Practices has everything one needs to produce a dynamic mix and master. I think it makes good sense and my sound reproduction system is calibrated in this way. Not sure why the industry has not adopted en masse, as the process will produce a better quality and more dynamic sound for the music lover.

 

Keep up the good writings Archimago.

Link to comment

Very, very good article and indeed slightly depressing. One of the reason why I was constantly searching in the past for old releases for CD (cheap), which are much better than reissues. Same goes for my recent hobby which is vinyl records - reason to buy vinyl is that mastering is usually better than for the same release on CD or download available on the web! It is easy to find download done possibly in 24/96 or 24/192 with DR7 - which to me is complete bummer! Take a look at the recent Rolling Stones, Sting, Metallica, etc albums - all are compressed as hell! Why, that's not what I can understand!

--

Krzysztof Maj

http://mkrzych.wordpress.com/

"Music is the highest form of art. It is also the most noble. It is human emotion, captured, crystallised, encased… and then passed on to others." - By Ken Ishiwata

Link to comment

Nice article Mitch.  I find that most music  be it rock, blues, 'POP is being mixed to satisfy the smart phone ear bud crowd which outnumbers the lowly audiophile types. The studios are mixing for the masses for all things sales a.k.a. dollars.  .

The Truth Is Out There

Link to comment

Excellent article.  Now I understand many of the individual demons that sometimes all make it onto a single album.  After the earlier dynamic range piece, I was curious and looked at my replay history, and then checked out the DR of albums and cuts I seem to listen to a lot.  In jazz, bluegrass, country, alternative rock, not a single album was average DR below 12.  A few got into the 16 range. I also checked out a couple albums that I bought because I really like the music, but hardly listen to - like the Alabama Shakes.  DR as low as 3, averaging around 6. Hm.  I love loud music.  I don't love it compressed.

 

Out of curiosity I decided to check out an album that I expected to find down around 6 or worse - MC5 Kick out the Jams. That song was a 9 according to JRiver on my system (I think my CD is a German rip off of the US album), on vinyl a 10 according to the DR database, but other songs on that album (whose sound quality is, um, not great, but it accurately reflects what an MC5 concert sounded like) they had a couple DR 11 cuts.  Their studio albums came in averaging 12 or better (on the versions I have.) That, from a band that prided itself on sheer relentlessly crushing volume.  

 

Proving I think the initial statement: If there's no quiet, there's no loud. 

Link to comment

@Booster MPS Thanks for your comment. That was one of my goals. @mkrzych yes, crying shame man. @mav52 - thanks mav, in the  Obsession with Compression article, "there is no evidence of any significant correlation between loudness (& implied compression) and commercial success"  Given the success of Back In Black referenced in the article, which is not hyper-compressed, one has to wonder what is going on in in the recording, mixing and mastering industry...

Link to comment
On 4/5/2017 at 9:56 AM, mav52 said:

Nice article Mitch.  I find that most music  be it rock, blues, 'POP is being mixed to satisfy the smart phone ear bud crowd which outnumbers the lowly audiophile types. The studios are mixing for the masses for all things sales a.k.a. dollars.  .

I think that this is actually what keeps the compression bias going.  On ear buds, you really don't have a great speaker, a great seal, so anything other than top of loudness sounds like a drop out.  When I'm traveling, the majority of what I see are $6 ear buds being used for listening to music.  Just like how DR compression really got its legs - anticipating bad listening conditions.

 

If I'm remembering this right, DR compression really got going when AM radio was the primary means of "streaming." Songs were checked on crappy little AM radio speakers in the mixing process to make sure you'd hear the song over the wind and car noises and sounded OK through the crackly 5 inch speaker. Listen to a Phil Spector production.  Motown had a reputation of putting everything up at 10.  But I've seen a lot of data showing the problem has gotten much, much worse since the 1980s. Maybe it is the rise of $6 earbuds.

 

Radio stations often used compression to try to sound "more exciting" on peoples' radios, either by requesting records with more compression, or adding it themselves.  Compression on top of compression.  Some also stations used to tweak the speeds of their turntables to be a tiny bit faster, which made music sound "brighter" and more exciting to listeners and made other stations sound sluggish. I used to have a tape I'd play for people of the same song from three stations (from FM, where many stations did the same thing) and then recorded off of my carefully calibrated turntable.  The most extreme station was a full pitch higher than the album. Between compression and speed tweaking, you were listening to the radio station marketing guy's idea of a song, not the musicians' intent.

 

I can mostly tolerate the low DR stuff on speakers as background or turned up loud for an energy boost, but can't listen to that stuff at all on good headphones or CIEMs.  It's like being assaulted.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, ednaz said:

I can mostly tolerate the low DR stuff on speakers as background or turned up loud for an energy boost, but can't listen to that stuff at all on good headphones or CIEMs.  It's like being assaulted.

Good sum-up of the history and current situation.  Before the late 80s much of the compression was left to the providers (like radio stations) with the DR of the master tapes still in the 12 to 15 range. Now much of the what the labels release is under a DR10.  Even new "High Definition" remasters of the great old classics get squashed from there original dynamic sound. Witness my old thread on Jackson Brown - Running On Empty and compression linked below.

Shame the industry couldn't get together and agree on a standardized compression level. Something that could be reasonably accurately undone at the user end if desired. Even back in the "good ole days" many, including myself, were using things like Bob Carvers AutoCorrelator system to replace missing dynamics and reduce noise from LP's and tape. But of course that would never fly since much of the idea is also to make provider A sound "better/louder than the provider B.  >:(

 

"The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information?"

Peter Aczel - The Audio Critic

nomqa.webp.aa713f2bb9e304522011cdb2d2ca907d.webp  R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

Link to comment
On 4/9/2017 at 9:11 AM, Sal1950 said:

Good sum-up of the history and current situation.  Before the late 80s much of the compression was left to the providers (like radio stations) with the DR of the master tapes still in the 12 to 15 range. Now much of the what the labels release is under a DR10.  Even new "High Definition" remasters of the great old classics get squashed from there original dynamic sound. Witness my old thread on Jackson Brown - Running On Empty and compression linked below.

Shame the industry couldn't get together and agree on a standardized compression level. Something that could be reasonably accurately undone at the user end if desired. Even back in the "good ole days" many, including myself, were using things like Bob Carvers AutoCorrelator system to replace missing dynamics and reduce noise from LP's and tape. But of course that would never fly since much of the idea is also to make provider A sound "better/louder than the provider B.  >:(

 

I wasn't aware of what DR on old masters would be like, but that explains a lot about the re-releases coming out of Blue Note.  I know some musicians who recorded in Rudy Van Gelder's place and the stories of his insane pursuit for the perfect capture are funny.  But, stuff he recorded in the 60s comes out cleaned up, sometimes remixed or re-mastered, and it's some of the best sounding HD out there. Says volumes about whether he figured out the perfect capture. I've got some LPs of those original 1960s releases and they don't sound as good.  All of them are in the DR 10-15 range. And with spooky realism.  If there's any conversation on a track, my dogs leap out of a sound sleep trying to find the intruder in the house. Which scares the crap out of people.

 

I've even had some things recorded in the 1950s that after the re-master and re-release come out sounding deeper, more engaging, more real, than a fair amount of what's being recorded today. I wonder if there's some DR expansion going on...

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...