-
Is OLED burn-in a problem? We want your input on one of TV’s hottest topics!
lindsayt said:
Hi Lindsay, there isn't any clipping to speak of, believe it or not. Everything looks completely squared off because you're looking at the waveform of an 8 minute song compressed into the width of a monitor screen. It's all been 'carefully' maximized/compressed/limited. Not too difficult to do with software such as ProTools or Logic (which I use) with just stock plugins. Any pro mastering engineer producing clipped masters should be shot tbh (ok I'll settle for sacked). Even I don't do that and I only produce music as a hobby.
That's interesting Major. So it's not like some careless idiot just did the 2nd transfer with the gain from the original master set too high - which would result in a lot of clipping.
It's more deliberate than that. They've whacked the gain up and used some sort of fancy compressor-limiter, that pulls all the peaks that would have gone over 0dbs (and by the looks of it there are hundreds, maybe thousands of them on this track) and they've limited them to some uniform level at or below 0dbs (looks like it's very close to 0dbs from your screenshots?).
As you said, that's gonna sound horrible. That's a really bad form of distortion of the original. Maybe not as bad as the mega digitally clipped route, but still really bad.
Maybe we should all start writing to the record companies when we buy CD's (or records) like this and ask for our money back, because they are not really fit for purpose - ie listening to them as a form of entertainment...
It's more deliberate than that. They've whacked the gain up and used some sort of fancy compressor-limiter, that pulls all the peaks that would have gone over 0dbs (and by the looks of it there are hundreds, maybe thousands of them on this track) and they've limited them to some uniform level at or below 0dbs (looks like it's very close to 0dbs from your screenshots?).
As you said, that's gonna sound horrible. That's a really bad form of distortion of the original. Maybe not as bad as the mega digitally clipped route, but still really bad.
Maybe we should all start writing to the record companies when we buy CD's (or records) like this and ask for our money back, because they are not really fit for purpose - ie listening to them as a form of entertainment...
@Anderson:
(I cannot quote your original post, I get a smap filter block. Is this the most user unfriendly forum on the planet????)
I am confused hence the question.
I understand clipping in the analogue domain, where 0dB is the maximum available voltage. The dynamic range is then set between the noise floor at 0V and Vmax. In the digital domain, the loudness is determined by the data within the 16 bits, i.e. it's an instruction, not an electrical signal. The clipping mode and other DSP features in media players work on altering the volume data in those 16 bits. That is not the same as a fixed 0dB limit, it's simply resetting the min / max volume. The bit I don't understand is how a DAC converts the volume data into the analogie signal. I understand that if the original recorded data is clipped then there is nothing you can do. If I think I understand what is happening, it's that the dynamic range is compressed at the ADC mastering process?
(I cannot quote your original post, I get a smap filter block. Is this the most user unfriendly forum on the planet????)
I am confused hence the question.
I understand clipping in the analogue domain, where 0dB is the maximum available voltage. The dynamic range is then set between the noise floor at 0V and Vmax. In the digital domain, the loudness is determined by the data within the 16 bits, i.e. it's an instruction, not an electrical signal. The clipping mode and other DSP features in media players work on altering the volume data in those 16 bits. That is not the same as a fixed 0dB limit, it's simply resetting the min / max volume. The bit I don't understand is how a DAC converts the volume data into the analogie signal. I understand that if the original recorded data is clipped then there is nothing you can do. If I think I understand what is happening, it's that the dynamic range is compressed at the ADC mastering process?
Wow to be honest some of that went over my head! I'm not an expert. But my understanding is the same as you concluded, the fault lies with the mastering, its been compressed to hell before you've popped the CD in your system. So there's no way for you and I to restore the dynamic range, the damage can't be undone.
So to clarify dynamic range compression applied during mastering > ADC > CD Pressing > Us complaining at the lack of musicality.
You see very little dynamic range in most pop music. You only have to listen to the top 40 to get an idea of the issue.
There's some excellent videos on YouTube on the subject for further study.
You see very little dynamic range in most pop music. You only have to listen to the top 40 to get an idea of the issue.
There's some excellent videos on YouTube on the subject for further study.
None of it is done from ignorance. Record companies and studios do it intentionally because loudness sounds very good on lo-fi gear like apple earbuds, car audio, laptop speakers, bluetooth portable speakers, soundbars etc. When you calculate how many music lovers enjoy their music without hi-fi gear, this butchering of musical fidelity is justified.
The mastering engineer has a copy of one properly mastered recording and one that is compressed for digital distribution. When they publish vinyl editions or some high-res SACD, DSD etc. digital verison, they just sell us (the audiophile niche) a well mastered file at premium prices.
The mastering engineer has a copy of one properly mastered recording and one that is compressed for digital distribution. When they publish vinyl editions or some high-res SACD, DSD etc. digital verison, they just sell us (the audiophile niche) a well mastered file at premium prices.
Vladimir said:
The problem is of course that you can't buy these uncompressed masters on the medium that is very well suited for it: the humble redbook CD.
In the 1960s there were releases of different masters in mono and stereo. Back then the record companies gave cosumers a choice. If only the record companies would have started releasing different masters on CD noone would have been bothered by the loudness wars.
iMark said:
Not a problem for someone who pays 500 pounds for a DAC powered by a phone charger or 100 quid for wire.
Covenanter
Well-known member
- Jul 20, 2012
- 96
- 50
- 18,620
It's not just "pop" music either, at least not on radio. Classic FM uses Dynamic Range Compression on FM because a lot of its listeners listen in their cars. BBC R3 uses much less compression and I believe none in the evenings.
Chris
Chris
Wouldn't it be great if we could all buy the mutlichannel digital recording files as they were recorded as they hit the mixing desk. With no compression nor other production malarkey done to them.
Then we could feed these files into multi-channel DAC's and a stereo mixer and then into our hi-fi systems.
Only trouble is that it would make it too easy for unscrupulous artists to rip-off other people's work...
Then we could feed these files into multi-channel DAC's and a stereo mixer and then into our hi-fi systems.
Only trouble is that it would make it too easy for unscrupulous artists to rip-off other people's work...
SteveR750 said:
I think AM radio has nothing to do with it today.
Notice the hardware I accented in bold letters. Loudness is added due to mass consumers hardware limitations, regardless if the source comes from CD, mp3, dab/am/fm/sat, flac/alac/aac/wav... If the ipod+earbuds go to 10, you want your track to make them sound like going to 11.
lindsayt said:
There is a huge amount of work goes into producing a proper mix. It's a fine art and a craft. There's also the issue that to a certain extent you HAVE to use compression most of the time, to a degree. Even if just on a track-by-track basis in your mix to level instruments and vocals that have too wide a dynamic range to sit comfortably in the mix. On the whole, recordings would sound rubbish without any production whatsoever, and without any compression at all to the final mix, they would often be unlistenable in a domestic environment. Particularly recordings of acoustic instruments.
The loudness wars has been going on for decades: Ken Scott admitted he used to secretly whack-up the gain on the limiter by a dB or two above EMI's recommendations to make Beatles singles sound louder. Back then there were two insurmountable obstacles which governed how ridiculous they could go: (1) the tape machines the music was tracked and mastered on, and (2) by far the biggest factor: vinyl records. If you cut a record too loud or with too much bass then some carts won't track it. Also the louder you cut it and the more bass it has, the less time you have per side, because you have to cut the grooves wider. With digital recording starting to usurp analogue tape machines in the late 70s, and with vinyl largely out of the equation for the last 25 years, since then it's just been a matter of who can make the loudest in yer face masters.
steve_1979
Well-known member
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
MajorFubar said:
+1
The mixing is usually fine. It the mastering where the damage is usually done.
lindsayt said:
no. Just like MF says.
It would sound awful. I take it you've never heard a dry mix before then?
What people think they want, and what they actually want are usually 2 very different things.
Similar threads
- the record spot
- Hi-Fi
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram