or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Zero Audio - ZH-DX200 Carbo Tenore | ZH-DX210 Carbo Basso (Carbon & Aluminium IEM) thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Zero Audio - ZH-DX200 Carbo Tenore | ZH-DX210 Carbo Basso (Carbon & Aluminium IEM) thread - Page 199

Poll Results: Which one would you order??

 
  • 73% (274)
    Carbo Tenore
  • 26% (97)
    Carbo Basso
371 Total Votes  
post #2971 of 5963
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post
 

 

Those are screenshots from my original and remastered CDs. :-P hehe.

 

And no, I would say that ironically they don't sound as drastic as the charts suggest. In volume? Maybe. In dynamics? I think that would depend on the listener. I hear the difference easily, but I'm very familiar with the effect and have a lot of experience comparing CDs of all different compression levels. Not to mention I use compressors (for different reasons) in audio mixing. I think most people with a good ear for "differences" in general would hear it.

 

In reality, the remasters aren't very heavily compressed compared to most modern CDs. So I can completely understand why someone would hear them and think they sound excellent. But that doesn't mean they sound "as" excellent as the originals :-P And I apologize if my original post on compression came off poorly. It's late, and I'm sure you can guess how I look at the subject. ha Let me find a more drastic example...

Can you tell us if you hear excellence or not, or see it on the time domain?  If you hear it as excellent and look at the time domain, does it change your mind as not so?

I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase it?

post #2972 of 5963
The original mix looks pretty hot to me but of course the mastered one is even hotter. Looks like quite a lot of transient attack has been truncated on the mastered tracks therefore it will be perceived to be louder after processing through multi-band limiters on the mastered tracks.

Normalisation is generally not a good idea.
Edited by Francisk - 6/20/14 at 11:44pm
post #2973 of 5963
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post
 

I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase it?

I'm just asking, if without looking at the time domain of the samples, would it be so easily to notice the compression, but I think you've answered that.  You've stated it's possible some could sound good still.  I know lots of the modern recordings are crap especially pop, I'm guessing they are heavily compressed?  Have you heard of RCA Living Stereo?  Some of the best recording.  

 

Hear this, this is amazin.

 

post #2974 of 5963

How about a different example still? Speaking of Fagen, here is the waveform of the IGY song we so love compared to the song Wildflower by Cee Lo Green. IGY is from 1982, Wildflower is from 2010. Personally I love the new Cee Lo album musically, but the production is complete crap. The songs are really taken down in terms of enjoyment because of the poor mastering. It sounds like the mixing engineer did a good job and then the mastering engineer sat on the compression level or something. The top is IGY the bottom is Wildflower.

 

This is a very very common problem with CDs after roughly 2000. They got louder and louder and louder. But not every artist has fallen into this bad mastering trap. Look at the latest album from Steve Wilson in 2013 mastered by Alan Parsons (oh yeah!)

 

And this isn't just a genre problem. There are metal bands that have awesome masters and other metal bands that are compressed to hell. Unfortunately, the large majority of post 2000 CDs suffer from increasing levels of compression. Only somewhat recently are musicians starting to fight this trend. Musicians like Alan Parsons, Tom Petty, etc. Take a look at Ben Folds (I love his work). His fans were so angry that he compressed the album "way to normal" so much that he rereleased it with less compression as "stems and seeds":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Way_to_Normal

 

It's sad that he even had to do that. He should have known better. But I'm guessing the label and publisher had more to do with it than he did.

post #2975 of 5963
CDs from Chesky are good example of tracks retaining the original dynamics of a recording. Record companies are normally the culprit of the loudness war due to the fact that they want their music to be the loudest on radio...not the artistes. In fact the artistes are victims to this crazy loudness war
Edited by Francisk - 6/20/14 at 11:55pm
post #2976 of 5963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francisk View Post

CDs from Chesky are good example of tracks retaining the original dynamics of a recording

This Amber Rubarth Album is the most realistic, detailed, dynamic, spacial(binaural), recording I've ever heard, and oh yeah, his other ones sound good too.  :D

 

post #2977 of 5963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francisk View Post

The original mix looks pretty hot to me but of course the mastered one is even hotter. Looks like quite a lot of transient attack has been truncated on the mastered tracks therefore it will be perceived to be louder after processing through multi-band limiters on the mastered tracks.

Normalisation is generally not a good idea.

 

Normalization is fine if it is done within the limits of the audio headroom. There is no audible difference between a normalized CD and an original CD if the volumes are matched with your output player. This has been proven mathematically and with double blind testing. Unless you have some really crappy software that has a poor normalization algorithm or something, but that would be pretty unheard of.

 

If you were referring to MJ's bad album, the original isn't hot at all as an overall track, the drum transients are definitely kept at a consistent level, which might look like they're clipped, but the difference between the highest peaks and lowest sounds is still very wide. This was pretty clearly an artistic "limit" of the drums, and isn't heard as "compression" in the mix. If the drums were left completely un-limited you might have a snare here or there that jumped out way too much and would ruin the coherence of the mix. As you can see, the peaks are "limited" so none of them go above the threshold they set, but the difference between the bottom of the snare hits and the top of the snare hits is very great. This can be heard by the fact the the snare drums sound very snappy and dynamic. But yes the drums have been limited.

 

But compression isn't necessarily a bad thing if it is used in the mixing process to get a certain artistic "sound". Compression becomes a problem when it is used "after" the sound is already achieved by the artist. Compressing after that point is simply making the sound they achieved less dynamic. Compressing a drum while mixing is a way to allow the drum to sit in the mix a certain way so other instruments can be heard in the right proportions. This can't be done after the final mixdown, so further compression then only hurts the sound.

 

Before mixdown it can be used as an artistic choice, after mixdown it only degrades the dynamics.

 

But you can see in the waveform that the other sounds below the drum peaks are all pretty varied and not compressed at all.

post #2978 of 5963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francisk View Post

CDs from Chesky are good example of tracks retaining the original dynamics of a recording. Record companies are normally the culprit of the loudness war due to the fact that they want their music to be the loudest on radio...not the artistes. In fact the artistes are victims to this crazy loudness war

 

Indeed. Most artist lose control of their albums. I think that is changing slowly with more indie labels and whatnot, but the artist usually has no say in the mastering compression or a release unfortunately...

post #2979 of 5963
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francisk View Post

CDs from Chesky are good example of tracks retaining the original dynamics of a recording

This Amber Rubarth Album is the most realistic, detailed, dynamic, spacial(binaural), recording I've ever heard, and oh yeah, his other ones sound good too.  :D

 

 

Yes, I've heard that. That album sounds really incredible. Good binaural recordings are amazing. It's too bad they don't translate the same to speakers. Not that they sound bad, but man, that album on the tenores is the $h1t. :-P

post #2980 of 5963
To me normalization is always kept as a last resort. I'd prefer not to unless I really don't have any other option. As for the MJ original mix tracks you can tell that there's already some form of compression going on there. No human can ever keep the drum transients so consistent. Yep you're right there's some limiting on the drums but be aware that limiting can actually kill dynamics as well...that's why all the peaks have been squashed to a certain extent. I'm very sure that a small amount of compression is being used while tracking the drums. Parallel compression is very often used in the mixing process too.
Edited by Francisk - 6/21/14 at 12:18am
post #2981 of 5963
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post
 

 

Yes, I've heard that. That album sounds really incredible. Good binaural recordings are amazing. It's too bad they don't translate the same to speakers. Not that they sound bad, but man, that album on the tenores is the $h1t. :-P

That album proves why recording has such high importance when it comes to sound quality.  You can have the best gear, and if the mastering is crap, it's going to output crap.  Why do modern recordings don't sound as detailed as the older ones?  Especially the pop albums?  Is it because of compression?  Is there not alot of engineers like Chesky around?  Who are some other engineers that are really good?

 

Is the Eric Clapton Unplugged recording raw? No touch-ups?  If so, I prefer raw recordings, I like the realism and the details.


Edited by SilverEars - 6/21/14 at 12:06am
post #2982 of 5963
Most pop music fighting for airplay have the life squashed out of them already. The reason why Chesky stuff sounds good is because they're never interested in fighting the loudness war. They're more concerned about sound quality so loudness is not their priority...that's why they sound good without squashing the life out of their music and of course they have good engineers to start of with.
Edited by Francisk - 6/21/14 at 12:29am
post #2983 of 5963
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

Indeed. Most artist lose control of their albums. I think that is changing slowly with more indie labels and whatnot, but the artist usually has no say in the mastering compression or a release unfortunately...

Yes I totally agree with you on this. It's very sad indeed...everything's dictated by the record companies, even what songs to record right up to the type of music arrangement.

Oh btw guys if you like some kick ass bass check out this guy...Victor Wooten...one of my fav bassist....even the bass heavy Tenores will enjoy this biggrin.gif


Edited by Francisk - 6/21/14 at 1:09am
post #2984 of 5963
Enjoying my tenore, playing sepultura - beneath the remains album.. smily_headphones1.gif
post #2985 of 5963

Found a way to make my bass heavy Tenore sound good....changed the medium stock tips to large tips with just the right amount of medium to shallow insertion and bam....the bass is under control. The Tenore truly benefit from amping and I'm actually enjoying them for the first time. I was rather disappointed  with the sound on the day it arrived and was totally put off by the excessive bass initially and had no time to play with it until now. In fact I just ordered 2 pairs of Philips SHE3590 for the tips (not the IEM)...lol. I'll try the Philips tips once it arrive. Thanks for the useful tips Luisdent. If this turns out well then the Tenore will be a keeper.


Edited by Francisk - 6/21/14 at 5:03am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Zero Audio - ZH-DX200 Carbo Tenore | ZH-DX210 Carbo Basso (Carbon & Aluminium IEM) thread