CD quality surprise

[Andrewjvt]

While im waiting for tarzan to start id like to add that some music like stevie wonder, it does not matter what the db rating is as it still sounds terrible.

 

[lindsayt]

Get your lugholes round Hotter Than July. Great album.

Listening to it without tapping your feet is like taking the Fruit Pastille non-chewing challenge.

 

[FunkyMonkey]

Regarding dynamic range, talking generally, the dynamic range of a recording is by no means that important for pop music, especially when it is electronic. UNLESS the artist wants it to be.

Low dynamic range just means low difference between quietest and loudest part. This is obviously important in jazz or especially classical, but not necessarily in pop. Then in rock it is probably more important. It just depends.

So that's it. DR discussion over.

Back to the original message: CD is still a great medium.

For you it might not be important.

For me it's vitally important.

I see it as a two pronged thing. Getting a system that preserves as much of the dynamics as possible. Seeking out albums with the greatest dynamic range.

Chaleur Humaine and Die Mensch Maschine are both electronic pop albums with vocals. One has a DR of 5, the other 16. The Kraftwerk album will sound a lot more dynamic than the Christine & the Queens album. And therefore more enjoyable for me to listen to.

I am sick and tired of listening to Red DR rating pop albums. So many of them could be superb recordings if they hadn't been put through the great big Compression Machine.

Red DR rating albums are like eating at McDonalds. OK for a quick fix but not really that satisfying nor nourishing.

Dark Green DR albums are like dining at the Georges V.

Who are you to say a pop record must have high dynamic range? If the artist wants it loud all the way, they can. Dynamic range is not the measure of good music or a even a good sound - it depends on the piece of music. I don't want to get personal, but you sound too angry. Chill and enjoy the music.

Also, I would like to know what the numbers mean on the DR website. Please can you provide a link?

 

[davedotco]

Regarding dynamic range, talking generally, the dynamic range of a recording is by no means that important for pop music, especially when it is electronic. UNLESS the artist wants it to be.

Low dynamic range just means low difference between quietest and loudest part. This is obviously important in jazz or especially classical, but not necessarily in pop. Then in rock it is probably more important. It just depends.

So that's it. DR discussion over.

Back to the original message: CD is still a great medium.

For you it might not be important.

For me it's vitally important.

I see it as a two pronged thing. Getting a system that preserves as much of the dynamics as possible. Seeking out albums with the greatest dynamic range.

Chaleur Humaine and Die Mensch Maschine are both electronic pop albums with vocals. One has a DR of 5, the other 16. The Kraftwerk album will sound a lot more dynamic than the Christine & the Queens album. And therefore more enjoyable for me to listen to.

I am sick and tired of listening to Red DR rating pop albums. So many of them could be superb recordings if they hadn't been put through the great big Compression Machine.

Red DR rating albums are like eating at McDonalds. OK for a quick fix but not really that satisfying nor nourishing.

Dark Green DR albums are like dining at the Georges V.

Who are you to say a pop record must have high dynamic range? If the artist wants it aloud all the way, they can. Dynamic range is not the measure of good music or a good sound. I don't want to get personal, but you sound too angry. Chill and enjoy the music.

Also, I would like to know what the numbers mean on the DR website. Please can you provide a link?

Measuring the dynamic range of a recording is very difficult because the very lowest recorded levels are very difficult to measure, so the DR database makes no attempt to do so.

What it does is use an algorithm (a formular) to measure the difference between the peak levels recorded and the mean (average) levels.

It then assigns a number to this value which is the 'DR Rating', higher numbers showing a higher dynamic range.

There is a suggestion that the 'DR Rating' is the difference between the peak and mean levels expressed in dBs, which would mean that the dynamic range of the recording is roughly twice the DR Rating but when I researched this matter last year, I could find no confirmation of that.

Best to think of it as a number on an arbitary scale, useful for comparison within the data base, but that is all.

On a personal note, I do not have a huge problem with the limited dynamic range of pop and rock material. I find there are far more important issues with the sound quality of such recordings than simple dynamic range limitations.

 

[BigH]

On the drbatabase site if you click on the album it does show the measurements for each track, these are wider than the DR score but not double. DR is only one aspect, I got what I regard as bad albums with quite high scores, like Jeff Healy See the Light. Its true that some music can take more compression than other genres, thrash metal I would not be that concerned with some compression but classical, jazz, folk, vocals should not be overly compressed.

 

[FunkyMonkey]

On the drbatabase site if you click on the album it does show the measurements for each track, these are wider than the DR score but not double. DR is only one aspect, I got what I regard as bad albums with quite high scores, like Jeff Healy See the Light. Its true that some music can take more compression than other genres, thrash metal I would not be that concerned with some compression but classical, jazz, folk, vocals should not be overly compressed.

This is more or less what I said previously.

Also, the DR number is too arbitary. it may give the impression that a score of 15 is 3 times better than a score of 5. Fooey.

 

[BigH]

On the drbatabase site if you click on the album it does show the measurements for each track, these are wider than the DR score but not double. DR is only one aspect, I got what I regard as bad albums with quite high scores, like Jeff Healy See the Light. Its true that some music can take more compression than other genres, thrash metal I would not be that concerned with some compression but classical, jazz, folk, vocals should not be overly compressed.

This is more or less what I said previously.

Also, the DR number is too arbitary. it may give the impression that a score of 15 is 3 times better than a score of 5. Fooey.

However for some music a score of 5 it would be ruined, so yes it can be 3 times or 10 times worse. If something ruins your enjoyment of the music then thats it. This has been cover before but a lot of music is compressed by record companies because most buyers play it in the car or on move in noisy enviroments, its not marketed for hifi buyers who are a very small proportion of record sales.

 

[davedotco]

As I said earlier, it is a number derived from the analysis of the track by a specific method (algorithm). There is no explanation that I have found that describes what this number means, we do not know if the scale is linear or logarithmic, just that higher is better and that it is consistent across a range of samples.

To be quite clear, I was told that it was the difference in level between the mean and peak levels, expressed in dB but I am unable to find any confirmation of this.

If this was the case, then the dynamic range of the track would be roughly twice the DR rating, so 'good' recordings with a DR rating of 15, would have a dynamic range of around 30dB, which seems about right to me.

 

[BigH]

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/112690

Here is one, its the difference between peak and RMS. But the DR score is about 2 less than the difference.

 

[andyjm]

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/112690

Here is one, its the difference between peak and RMS. But the DR score is about 2 less than the difference.

It is hard to find a decent definition of the approach. Googling brings up all sorts of nonsense. Some suggest the whole track is averaged to find average RMS - but that makes no sense as it would include the fade in and fade out, and depending on their length could skew the result. Others suggest there is a rolling RMS window and the top 20% of measurements get averaged. Peak on a CD should always be at 0dBfs - so that shouldn't be controversial, but again there seems to be disagreement.

Whatever the measure is, it isn't 'dynamic range' in a way that an engineer would understand. Probably the best description would be 'peak to loudness ratio'

 

[lindsayt]

Who are you to say a pop record must have high dynamic range? If the artist wants it loud all the way, they can. Dynamic range is not the measure of good music or a even a good sound - it depends on the piece of music. I don't want to get personal, but you sound too angry. Chill and enjoy the music.

Also, I would like to know what the numbers mean on the DR website. Please can you provide a link?

It's not for me to say. I never said it was.

I simply stated what I prefer listening to and why, when it comes DR ratings of albums.

How much say do the artists actually have over compression? And how much of it is down to the music company executives? And how much down to a stupid fashion?

Why is it that the best selling albums of each year of the 1960's to the 1980's all have higher DR ratings than all the best selling albums of the 2000's to 2010's?

If Chaleur Humaine had been made 35 years ago it would have been less compressed, had a higher DR rating and sounded significantly better for it.

 

[BigH]

Who are you to say a pop record must have high dynamic range? If the artist wants it loud all the way, they can. Dynamic range is not the measure of good music or a even a good sound - it depends on the piece of music. I don't want to get personal, but you sound too angry. Chill and enjoy the music.

Also, I would like to know what the numbers mean on the DR website. Please can you provide a link?

It's not for me to say. I never said it was.

I simply stated what I prefer listening to and why, when it comes DR ratings of albums.

How much say do the artists actually have over compression? And how much of it is down to the music company executives? And how much down to a stupid fashion?

Why is it that the best selling albums of each year of the 1960's to the 1980's all have higher DR ratings than all the best selling albums of the 2000's to 2010's?

If Chaleur Humaine had been made 35 years ago it would have been less compressed, had a higher DR rating and sounded significantly better for it.

Its mainly down to the record companies although I have read some artists have requested it to sound louder. Re 1960-80s v 2000s its a different market now, I think that is the reason.

 

[lindsayt]

Yes, it is a different market now. Downloaded singles dominate music sales by volume, but not by value.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the ubiquitous low DR ratings in the 21st century???*scratch_one-s_head*

 

[pauln]

Regarding the DR database, it's very simple: listen to two different releases of the same CD, one would be an original pressing with a high DR value and the other would be a newer remastered version with (99% of the time) a significantly lower DR value. The difference is clear and personally, I prefer the high DR value version. I look for older CD's with high DR values on ebay and am very happy with what I find. No way would I ever buy a remastered version with a low DR value.

As already said, the database is best used as a means of comparison, not any kind of absolute measurement.

 

[davedotco]

Regarding the DR database, it's very simple: listen to two different releases of the same CD, one would be an original pressing with a high DR value and the other would be a newer remastered version with (99% of the time) a significantly lower DR value. The difference is clear and personally, I prefer the high DR value version. I look for older CD's with high DR values on ebay and am very happy with what I find. No way would I ever buy a remastered version with a low DR value.

As already said, the database is best used as a means of comparison, not any kind of absolute measurement.

At least, not in my esperience.

Generally speaking I prefer the original releases when it comes to older recordings, usually with a higher DR rating, but with pop and rock it is simply one of several factors that make a difference.

I do not seek out 'well recorded albums' but then, and perhaps more importantly, I avoid anything that involves digital clipping, that is one thing I can not handle and it is so obvious, far more unpleasant than even the most severe compression.

 

[BigH]

But don't you find that the more compressed albums tend to have more clipping as well?

 

[BigH]

By different market I meant its more mobile now as mp3 on cheap headphones outside or cds in the car, in the 70/80s it was vinyl on a turntable on a system at home in a quieter enviroment. 90s is a bit in between but still mostly played at home.

 

[lindsayt]

True, BigH. But in the 1970's to 1980's compact cassette tapes accounted for large parts of pre-recorded music sales. They would have often been used in cars, Walkmans, ghetto blasters.

Whilst most pre-recorded cassettes would have had lower DR ratings than the vinyl versions, in general they would still have a higher DR rating than the sea of red 21 st century CD's.

It's clear to me that dynamic compression bothers some of us more than others. That's fine. We can all have different tastes.

 

[BigH]

Yes probably bothers old foggies like us rather than the youth who know little else and often complain they can't hear it if its not loud.

 

[davedotco]

Yes probably bothers old foggies like us rather than the youth who know little else and often complain they can't hear it if its not loud.

No, I can clearly see that I am in fact an old fogie...

Fortunately I have absolutely no interest in any modern pop that comes under the all inclusive hip-hop genre so fortunately I miss out on much of the worst of the compression/clipping issue.

I often listen to classic jazz and (not so mainstream) rock and they are often available in different 'versions', variously labled and it is interesting to hear the differences. Just one example, the 'Rudy van Gelder' remasters of some classic jazz albums tend to trade dynamic range for improved clarity, sometimes this works well, sometimes not, in my opinion of course.

Very occasionally I get recommended a moden pop (in the widest sense) recording and it usually takes seconds to tell whether it is going to be worth listening to or not.

 

[BigH]

I listen to similar music. But I have found some RVG remasters are too bright for me.

 

[davedotco]

I listen to similar music. But I have found some RVG remasters are too bright for me.

In many cases this is the only way to increase 'clarity' which seems to be his primary aim. As I said, some of his releases work, many do not, well not on a hi-fi system anyway.

Another example presented itself last evening, the 2009 remastered version of Autobahn. In this instance the recording was ruined by 'excessive' clarity, strands of music and 'effects' that were originally quite deep in the mix were lifted to really annoying levels, the mesmeric, rhythmic quality of the piece completely lost.

 

[TrevC]

But don't you find that the more compressed albums tend to have more clipping as well?

No reason why they should.

 

[MajorFubar]

Another example presented itself last evening, the 2009 remastered version of Autobahn. In this instance the recording was ruined by 'excessive' clarity, strands of music and 'effects' that were originally quite deep in the mix were lifted to really annoying levels, the mesmeric, rhythmic quality of the piece completely lost.

Conversely I was listening to the Computer World album from the same re-mastering sessions and I was very disappointed to find that the engineer doesn't seem to have taken the time to align the playback EQ correctly, with the result that NR pumping is very evident in places dulling and damping the sound, which they've then tried to correct during mastering by brightening it. Very shoddy remasters IMO. Give me a tape machine and the master tapes and I reckon I could have done a better job.

 

[lindsayt]

But don't you find that the more compressed albums tend to have more clipping as well?

No reason why they should.

It's possible that in transferring from the original master to the CD master, the engineer in charge did not pass it through a compression machine. They simply whacked up the gain too much during the transfer. Resulting in CD's that have clipping and are also therefore dynamically compressed.