Bring back dynamic range in music recordings

[admin_exported]

Thought some of you guys might like to have a look at this.

http://www.turnmeup.org/index.shtml

I for one am fully supportive.

Appologies if this is a re-post.

 

[Anonymous]

Personally, I find this sort of thing very silly: Being a music studio engineer in my spare time, I can say that compressing a pop song improves it no end, and if we didn't it would sound horrible. The production quality of pop music today is far higher than it ever has been.

 

[fatboyslimfast]

Maybe it works for the "created" stars of today, but there are a lot of scenarios where the same compression robs the music of it's emotion and impact.

I fully agree with songs destined for commercial radio and the like needing compression, but please, lets leave the music with real instruments with as little compression as possible.

I also disagree with your statement about music being better produced now rather than the past.

More produced, maybe - but better...? Don't try and tell me that Coldplay have a better standard of production than the Beatles..

 

[Anonymous]

fatboyslimfast:Maybe it works for the "created" stars of today, but there are a lot of scenarios where the same compression robs the music of it's emotion and impact.

I fully agree with songs destined for commercial radio and the like needing compression, but please, lets leave the music with real instruments with as little compression as possible.

I also disagree with your statement about music being better produced now rather than the past.

More produced, maybe - but better...? Don't try and tell me that Coldplay have a better standard of production than the Beatles..

It's all relative, because Coldplay produce music intentionally like they do; I have met a guy who used to work on Coldplay albums - they use over 70 compressors for each track to give their music that warm, almost 60s sound to it. The Beatles did not try to do this, they strived for the best quality they could get their hands on.

 

[fatboyslimfast]

My point wasn't coldplay per se but modern pop in general. I find that with a lot of modern pop recordings there is a wave of amalgamated sound rather than a collection of individual sounds/instruments - something that was not so common in the "olden" days...

I would challenge modern artists to release two versions - one for "mp3 players" (compressed) and one for "hifi players" (as little compression as possible)...bet they won't - even in download form...

 

[Anonymous]

welshboy:
Thought some of you guys might like to have a look at this.

http://www.turnmeup.org/index.shtml

I for one am fully supportive.

Appologies if this is a re-post.

Seconded. CDs are capable of far superior sound to anything vinyl could ever manage but you wouldn't think so if you listen solely to the far too loud distorted crud that is prevalent today.Intentional compression is fine but clipping due to too high levels is unacceptable.

 

[chebby]

Grimly Fiendish: CDs are capable of far superior sound to anything vinyl could ever manage but you wouldn't think so if you listen solely to the far too loud distorted crud that is prevalent today.

I have 40 year old vinyl that slays even my better CD recordings (including a recent MFSL Roy Orbison Gold CD).

I have just picked up some excellent Miles Davis & Dizzy Gillespie vinyl. At this rate most of my Jazz CDs are going to end up in my daughter's collection. (She doesn't mind, she loves some of this stuff.)

I have also just got hold of a mint Du Pre/Barbarolli Elgar cello concerto on Vinyl (from about 1965) that sounds way better than the identical CD recording. I am after the Du pre/Barenboim version of the same concerto on LP now.

As for modern Pop, I don't really do it. Don't understand the need unless one is a teenager. Got some Killers ('Sawdust') on vinyl recently and that is pretty good but I have only heard the same CD on a different system where it did not really engage me. They just seem to do covers fairly well. Not exactly rushing out to buy more of their's. The originals are better.

A Ting Tings CD I bought for my youngest sounded pretty dire but she likes it so thats OK. She is 15. She listens to everything on an iPod so I ended ended up looking after the CD after she ripped it.

 

[DistortedVision]

Grimly Fiendish:

Seconded. CDs are capable of far superior sound to anything vinyl could ever manage but you wouldn't think so if you listen solely to the far too loud distorted crud that is prevalent today.Intentional compression is fine but clipping due to too high levels is unacceptable.

I'm sorry but that's complete rubbish and thats coming from someone who owns a £6000 SACD / CD player.

Vinyl is analogue and is a true representation of the recording. CDs and digital formats involve quantisation which is a deletive process. Vinyl has much wider bandwidth than CDs has sounds warmer and natural. CD players suffer from jitter which compromises the sound and you do not have this problem with turntables.

You'll find far better and detailed explanations than I can provide.as to why vinyl is better than CDs using Google. However, take a look at this video by turntable designer Simon Yorke:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yQrXvYZv1zQ

Also have a look at this article in the Guardian by Tim Anderson:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jan/18/pop.music

and also this by the same author.

http://www.itwriting.com/blog/106-when-vinyl-is-better-than-cd.html

 

[Anonymous]

Grimly Fiendish:

Seconded. CDs are capable of far superior sound to anything vinyl could ever manage but you wouldn't think so if you listen solely to the far too loud distorted crud that is prevalent today.Intentional compression is fine but clipping due to too high levels is unacceptable.

Wouldn't agree with that, see here http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

 

[Anonymous]

Personally I find Hughes123 comment above very silly. The loudness wars deserve a lot more publicity. I wonder if WHF has a view on it.

A trashy pop song may benefit from compression as its poorly recorded poop to begin with, thus anything which masks its dynamic range and detail will be a plus.

 

[Anonymous]

This isn't really one issue, it's a whole host of issues as there are a great many different types of music which are mastered with high compression in order to achieve different results. In some cases it is successful, and in some cases not.ÿ

If you think about it, when music was recorded using analogue tapes, it actually *was* compressed. Bands recorded "in the red" which acted to compress the dynamics of the sound. So in some cases compressing the final output is a good think and really warms up some recordings. With pop music the issue is moot, most of it isn't going to sound any *better* without the compression.ÿ

However there are a lot of CDs coming out now that personally I think are way overproduced (compare coldplays most recent album with their second album "rush of blood to the head"). To me they don't sound like a band, a performance, hi-fi or anything really. ÿ

ÿ

 

[matthewpiano]

This is a really big issue for me. We spend so much time honing our expensive hi-fi systems only to be let down by the poor quality of some modern recordings. The use of compression in modern pop music doesn't really bother me because I rarely listen to most of it, but I think there is a much wider issue in terms of overall engineering and production standards. All my favourite classical recordings come from the 60s and 70s when people like Walter Legge were still working and the money was actually being invested in producing top class recordings. Some are still well recorded today, mostly by the independents such as Chandos, Hyperion and (preversely given their budget price) Naxos, but many of the releases from the major record companies lack depth and fail to provide the experience of listening to a performance. I find the Deutsche Grammophon label particularly guilty in this repsect.

In relation to popular music, I think the down turn in recording quality goes hand in hand with the reign of MP3 players and the ipod. Why produce high quality recordings if the majority of the audience is going to listen in awful bit-rates on poor equipment?

Currently listening to Sir Colin Davis' recording of Handel's Messiah from 1966 and it sounds fabulous.

 

[Anonymous]

DistortedVision:Grimly Fiendish:

Seconded. CDs are capable of far superior sound to anything vinyl could ever manage but you wouldn't think so if you listen solely to the far too loud distorted crud that is prevalent today.Intentional compression is fine but clipping due to too high levels is unacceptable.

I'm sorry but that's complete rubbish and thats coming from someone who owns a £6000 SACD / CD player.

Vinyl is analogue and is a true representation of the recording. CDs and digital formats involve quantisation which is a deletive process. Vinyl has much wider bandwidth than CDs has sounds warmer and natural. CD players suffer from jitter which compromises the sound and you do not have this problem with turntables.

Apart from a few gems recorded yonks ago, especially the Du Pre Elgar, that needed more care from EMI when mastering the CD version, it's absurd to suggest that vinyl in general is a superior format and I'm a big vinyl fan. I could argue that more recent vinyl has to undergo more processing than CD.

 

[Anonymous]

Grimly Fiendish:
DistortedVision:Grimly Fiendish:

Seconded. CDs are capable of far superior sound to anything vinyl could ever manage but you wouldn't think so if you listen solely to the far too loud distorted crud that is prevalent today.Intentional compression is fine but clipping due to too high levels is unacceptable.

I'm sorry but that's complete rubbish and thats coming from someone who owns a £6000 SACD / CD player.

Vinyl is analogue and is a true representation of the recording. CDs and digital formats involve quantisation which is a deletive process. Vinyl has much wider bandwidth than CDs has sounds warmer and natural. CD players suffer from jitter which compromises the sound and you do not have this problem with turntables.

Apart from a few gems recorded yonks ago, especially the Du Pre Elgar, that needed more care from EMI when mastering the CD version, it's absurd to suggest that vinyl in general is a superior format and I'm a big vinyl fan. I could argue that more recent vinyl has to undergo more processing than CD.

Without fueling this debate too much, I also agree that CD is superior to vinyl. Some may say that vinyl is better because the sampling rate is, in theory, much higher. That is, in theory, true. However, with dust, scratches, wow, flutter, needle condition, vibrations, warps, feedback, end-of arm distortion, over processing in production and electrical inteference; in practise, its not so good!

I have found - after extensive listening - that for a £250 CD player, you would need a £2000 turntable to beat it on recording accuracy alone.

 

[Anonymous]

Nice to see I've sparked a healthy debate here.

FWIW - bearing in mind that I have a budget system. CD is far superior to LP. I don't think all you LP fans should forget that the recording on an LP is subject to RIAA correction in order to allow a reasonable track length per side. Now this correction is a form of compression and your phono stage has to undo it. That means that the studio that makes the LP has to follow the RIAA equalisation standard exactly as does the firm who makes your pre-amp. That's not easy to do in practice. Then there are the mechanical transducer issues that have been mentioned so I would agree that at the budget end of the market CD beats LP.

Now don't get me wrong I like the sound of vinyl but oddly I've found that most of this quality is preserved as I've been digitising all my old vinyl onto HDD (using fairly cheap software too!!)

The real issue for me is the recording compression beloved of modern engineers and I only have one question. Why do it as the norm? I can fully understand it on current pop records but why do established artists and re-masterings of old classics need to be loud? These recording are hardly likey to be pumped out on radio one and MTV so why do we need the compression?

 

[chebby]

Hughes123:However, with dust, scratches, wow, flutter, needle condition, vibrations, warps, feedback, end-of arm distortion, over processing in production and electrical inteference; in practise, its not so good!

What are you doing to your vinyl?!

I don't have - and don't buy - scratched or dirty LPs. Dust is only a problem if you put it there. I put my albums back in their sleeves as soon as they are finished playing and use a carbon fibre brush. I also regularly brush the stylus. Good habits that only take seconds.

I have no warped records. What is 'end-of-arm' distortion? Electrical interference - if a problem - is not going to single out turntables. It will affect entire systems. It is not vinyl specific.

 

[Anonymous]

chebby:Hughes123:However, with dust, scratches, wow, flutter, needle condition, vibrations, warps, feedback, end-of arm distortion, over processing in production and electrical inteference; in practise, its not so good!

What are you doing to your vinyl?!

I don't have - and don't buy - scratched or dirty LPs. Dust is only a problem if you put it there. I put my albums back in their sleeves as soon as they are finished playing and use a carbon fibre brush. I also regularly brush the stylus. Good habits that only take seconds.

I have no warped records. What is 'end-of-arm' distortion? Electrical interference - if a problem - is not going to single out turntables. It will affect entire systems. It is not vinyl specific.

He meant end of side distortion, as you probably know. I can think of a few examples of this. Father and Son on Tea for the Tillerman by Cat Stevens (the original 1970 Sterling mastered one) Joan Armatrading, last track on side one, I think it's called Save me, Andy Pratt Deersong from the Epic album. I also remember being unable to source a copy of Wish you Were Here without crackles all the way through it. Add to that all the off-centre pressings and you have a far from ideal format. Also it's true that electrical interference is more of a problem on vinyl because the signals being amplified are much smaller.

 

[Anonymous]

Grimly Fiendish:
chebby:Hughes123:However, with dust, scratches, wow, flutter, needle condition, vibrations, warps, feedback, end-of arm distortion, over processing in production and electrical inteference; in practise, its not so good!

What are you doing to your vinyl?!

I don't have - and don't buy - scratched or dirty LPs. Dust is only a problem if you put it there. I put my albums back in their sleeves as soon as they are finished playing and use a carbon fibre brush. I also regularly brush the stylus. Good habits that only take seconds.

I have no warped records. What is 'end-of-arm' distortion? Electrical interference - if a problem - is not going to single out turntables. It will affect entire systems. It is not vinyl specific.

He meant end of side distortion, as you probably know. I can think of a few examples of this. Father and Son on Tea for the Tillerman by Cat Stevens (the original 1970 Sterling mastered one) Joan Armatrading, last track on side one, I think it's called Save me, Andy Pratt Deersong from the Epic album. I also remember being unable to source a copy of Wish you Were Here without crackles all the way through it. Add to that all the off-centre pressings and you have a far from ideal format. Also it's true that electrical interference is more of a problem on vinyl because the signals being amplified are much smaller.

Yeah Chebby...see! (Stands with arms folded next to Mr.Fiendish.)

 

[the record spot]

Hughes123:
I have found - after extensive listening - that for a £250 CD player, you would need a £2000 turntable to beat it on recording accuracy alone.

With respect, rubbish.

Allowing for the fact that a substantial number of albums have their sound futzed around with, recording accuracy is moot. Thereafter, a £250 CD player will do an adequate job, but against a Mchell Orbe? Please. It's a non-starter. A P3 will whup a comparably priced CD player hands down - I've heard plenty over the years. A well set up record deck and well cared for LPs are a musical experience to enjoy.

CD players are fine, but for all the criticism of LPs potential media flaws, a poorly cared for CD will skip, or simply not play. Cyrus apparently don;t read some discs of a certain size, hang on, my record deck will play 7", 10" and 12" discs - not versatile? Oh dear....

In practice, vinyl - supposedly dead in the water years ago - is more than a match for CD, is very often far better than CD and for all its' supposed faults is still the medium to beat.

And modern pop recordings are how good? Production facilities might be of a high standard, it doesn't however mean that the resulting output matches the promise of the studio gear; anyone who's heard recent releases from Genesis, Sugababes, Rush and Metallica will presumably testify to this. "It's too loud man"!

 

[Anonymous]

Grimley fiendish wears a coat thats black and long you know!

For what its worth as i havnt got my long players out for quite some time, Ive got quite a collection of 70's heavy rock eg Deep purple, Rainbow, Led zep and There no questuon they sound better on vinyl They just dont rock as hard on cd they sound a bit flat and boring

 

[DistortedVision]

I'd like to remind you that while CD sales have been falling over the last 5 years, vinyl sales have been increasing.

 

[Anonymous]

DistortedVision:I'd like to remind you that while CD sales have been falling over the last 5 years, vinyl sales have been increasing.

According to the RIAA statistics in the USA, vinyl sales were down year-on-year for every year from 1998 until 2007. In that year, vinyl bucked the trend and showed a 36.6% rise. CD sales have shown no such trend-bucking and are down 17.5% in 2007. However, the numbers show just how different the sales of CD and vinyl really are. There were 511.1million CDs sold, against 1.3million LP sales, in 2007, which means CD sales outstrip vinyl by almost 400:1.

Now, back to the OT. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with dynamic range compression; it's the gross use of DRC, coupled with pushing the gain to the amplitude limits of the format, which is the contentious issue. It undermines the dynamic range of the end product and because the recording is 'louder' at any given volume level, there is a potential hearing damage issue, although this is often over-stated by those fighting the 'loudness war'.

The reason why this works for the music business is the louder recording sounds initially exciting and 'punches above its weight'. The reason why this periodically appears on the hi-fi enthusiast radar is albums pushed to the limits of the amplitude of a format either compromises the dynamic range of the recording or pushes the peaks of the recording into clipping. Or both. This can sound truly awful through a system capable of delivering a decent dynamic range but paradoxically, not bad through a pair of iPod earphones... and that's the problem.

Sadly, the likes of Bob Katz and his decades of experience in mastering says nothing to an A&R man who wants to get a hit record out.