[71 dB]

Compression in pop music is one part stylistic and one part practical. The attitude of “play it loud” is a big part of a lot of pop music, particularly hip hop. Pop music is designed to be played on kids’ phones on trains and busses. Other types of music have different styles of recording and practical compromises. Classical music is the opposite side of the spectrum, and it can have as much as a 50dB range.

Agreed. I do listen to commercial pop music because it's fun, uplifting, energizing and easy to listen to. I know it is not dynamic music and I accept that. Despite of limited dynamic range, modern pop music can be surprisingly sophisticated for it's sound design and finetuned to perfection. Sometimes however I want to hear intellectual dynamic music and pop is changed to for example classical music or perhaps some marginal non-commercial electric music.

No we don't, some of us are acutely aware of its limitations.
Additionally the defence of 16bit is irrational and has no purpose. Digital has moved on. Welcome to 2017.

The purpose of defending 16 bit audio is to make people aware of how additional bits don't make a difference in sound quality. The only reason why digital has moved on is money. 24 bit files make it easier to milk ignorant people once again...

 

[71 dB]

What are those limitations?

You can't record butterflies between 270 kW pumps making 119 dB of A-weighed noise.

 

[bigshot]

The biggest limitation of CD sound is that it isn't hip with the cool kids. 16/44.1 is SO 1982! Get with the times! Double the numbers is double the fun!

 

[TheTrace]

You can't record butterflies between 270 kW pumps making 119 dB of A-weighed noise.

The biggest limitation of CD sound is that it isn't hip with the cool kids. 16/44.1 is SO 1982! Get with the times! Double the numbers is double the fun!

Lmfaoooo

 

[TheSonicTruth]

I’d be happy to explain that to you. When a record is mixed, the balances are judged in a best case scenario- on the calibrated monitors of a professional recording studio. In the early days of CDs, mastering for the limitations of LPs was no longer necessary. And the people who owned CD players were mostly people with nice stereos. The market for CDs in the 80s skewed older and more affluent than the market for digital music today. Mastering engineers today are working to get around the limitations of the equipment their customers use. Ear buds and cell phones require a different sort of mastering than high end stereos do. CD sales are plummeting. Streaming is where the market is. Mobile is where they’re listening. That means more compression is desirable. It may not suit your purposes as well, but audiophiles are now a niche market. There are specialty retailers for that. This is what I meant by practicality. You serve your demographic.

"Mastering engineers today are
working to get around the limitations
of the equipment their customers use.
Ear buds and cell phones require a
different sort of mastering than high
end stereos do. CD sales are plummeting.
Streaming is where-"flush!!!

I wonder why CD sales are plummeting and why LP sales are resurging. Hmmmm. And it has little to do with streaming services, and everything to do with the more capable format(redbook digital audio) getting the short shaft in the mastering suite - regardless of who calls the shots or pays the bill.

And I also see what side you're on, denying that "content is where it begins", when content is everything!

I also have yet to hear any difference between 16 and 24bjt versions of the same recording, unless some monkey at the controls of the mastering DAW creates a difference - internally or with plugins to the daw.

Compress on, bigshot, brickwall on, squash on! I've already updated 90% of my CD collection, replacing excuses for remasters with original/first-run CDs. Why? Because they sound better! Not just because of the higher DR values, etc.

Next time you're sitting in the porcelain library, feast your eyes here:

https://m.facebook.com/2016SaveOurMusicNoRemasters/?ref=content_filter

 

[amirm]

Training your ears instead of your brain just involves turning up the volume at the right spot.

No, that is not remotely training. Training is the same as being a critical listener. At the same volume and conditions I can hear distortions that others cannot due to that training//ability.

What you describe is a tool. There is a difference between that and skill.

I realize this is a foreign concept for you so think of a more ready example: people who taste ice cream, beer, hot sauce, wine, etc. at the end of an assembly line. They know what to taste for. They don't rely on some other than you and I would for their jobs.

Ultimately unless you apply yourself and learn what training is about, and develop ability to hear audio impairments, you will be lost in this topic with no intuition.

 

[bigshot]

A critical listener understands music and how it is structured and balanced to optimize clarity and expressiveness. Just listening for noise and artifacts doesn't require training. That just requires paying attention to stuff like that. If you're going to wrap your ego around passive perception then make sure your brain and ideas are involved. Focusing on schmutz isn't thinking and you shouldn't expected to elicit awe from those around you for that.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

The biggest limitation of CD sound is that it isn't hip with the cool kids. 16/44.1 is SO 1982! Get with the times! Double the numbers is double the fun!

Lmfaoooo

I know. I really crave over-compressed heavily limited DR7 music in a high res format.

 

[bigshot]

I wonder why CD sales are plummeting and why LP sales are resurging. Hmmmm. And it has little to do with streaming services, and everything to do with the more capable format(redbook digital audio) getting the short shaft in the mastering suite - regardless of who calls the shots or pays the bill.

I think you're confusing the result with the cause there. People are embracing streaming because it's more convenient for them. They haven't stopped buying CDs because they sound bad. They've stopped buying them because a more convenient format has replaced it. Also, if you look at my post, you'll notice that I was referring to pop music when I talked about compressing for the audience's intended use. Classical and Jazz are still mixed and mastered pretty much the same as they always have been. In fact, the introduction of multichannel sound has ushered in a whole new level of audio quality.

This really isn't anything new. In the days of record albums you could buy two kinds of records... LPs and 45s. The LPs were mixed and mastered for listening on a good speaker system in the home. 45s were designed for jukeboxes and radio airplay. Each of them had their own mixing and mastering to suit their intended purpose. 45s were generally more compressed for radio airplay and they had fuller bass for jukeboxes. The higher speed of 45s gave them an edge in the bass and the slightly wider grooves allowed for more volume. Some groups like The Beatles in their later albums sounded better on LPs. Others like the Rolling Stones were better served by 45s. It's all a matter of matching the engineering to the purpose of the music.

I realize that everyone wants the music industry to serve their own personal interests, but music is a business and it serves the market. Audiophiles aren't the market. They're a niche. I know I do my part to support the market for that niche, but I'm just one person.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I am sorry but I don't know how any of this translates to a precise measurement of dynamic range of music we all have.
[2] I took a random high-res track from my library, the "Broadway" track from David Chesky's Jazz in the Harmonic album, which is in 32 bit format at 192 Khz.

1. It doesn't and that's my point! There is no precise definition of dynamic range and therefore there cannot be a precise measurement of it. This is true of a lot of what we perceive when we listen to music/audio, we cannot measure soundstage for example. Musicians define dynamic range as the quietest note to the loudest note. You appear to be defining it quite differently, the highest peak transient level to the digital noise floor.
2. Case in point! I'm sure we could hear the noise floor of 32bit, if we concentrated only on some latter part of a fade to digital silence and amplified it greatly. However, leave the amplifier at that level, play the whole track and if you had a system which could actually reproduce that dynamic range (which obviously you don't) then it would literally kill you! Assuming an amp and speakers/headphones add zero noise, a 0dB listening environment, a 0dB recording environment, mics and mic preamps which add zero noise, the instruments and musicians make zero noise and instruments which can actually produce such a dynamic range, then we can only reproduce a maximum of 21 bits of dynamic range any way. What are the extra 11 bits for? And of course, all those qualifying assumptions simultaneously are hardly "real life".

I notice you ignored every single one of the 4 questions I asked, which seems to be a trend in your responses!

[1] Who on earth are we protecting here? Almost all of us have the capability to play at > 16 bits /44.1 Khz.
[2] There is no royalty or any cost associated with playing high resolution content. So what is the purpose here?

1. I'm not sure if my system will output 120dBSPL at my listening position, I've never tried and would never want to!
2. Really, all your hi-res content cost the same as the 16/44 versions? I don't think that matches the experience of most here.

As I just explained, I ask for 24 bits because that is what is used to create the music in the first place.

No, it's not! Typically today and for a number of years it's created at 64bit float and before that it was typically created in 32bit float or 56bit fixed. I don't know of a time music was created in 24 bits but it must have been more than about 20 years ago.

Your literal interpretation of 6dB is rather sad ...

So you quote 6dB and the MSB all over the place and then say it's sad I interpret your statements literally as 6dB? How else should I interpret a figure you've repeatedly quoted? Are you saying that when you state 6dB I should interpret that as anything from say 3dB up to 30dB?

G

 

[71 dB]

No, it's not! Typically today and for a number of years it's created at 64bit float and before that it was typically created in 32bit float or 56bit fixed. I don't know of a time music was created in 24 bits but it must have been more than about 20 years ago.

I think amirm means the tracks that are imported to DAW are 24 bit, not the internal processing bit depth of a DAW.

 

[Cutestudio]

I think you're confusing the result with the cause there. People are embracing streaming because it's more convenient for them. They haven't stopped buying CDs because they sound bad.

I think you're confused.
Since I discovered that CDs and digital downloads/streaming (the media is irrelevant) were engineered with horrific distortion built in I stopped about 95% of my new purchases and started instead scouring the second hand and foreign markets for less mangled product.
Apple knew this too which is why they spent millions on 'Mastered For iTunes' so they could sell non mangled product, but hey, what does Apple know eh?

Selling mangled, clipped and highly distorted product as CD quality is simple fraud and has obviously impacted sales. I know of many people who won't touch new masters with a barge pole. What really puzzles me however is your appearance on a HiFi forum to justify the selling of these fraudulant LoFi product which clearly is 'Not As Advertised' and arguably break a number of consumer laws related to merchantable quality and expectations of the quality of the waveforms within them.

Today it's impossible to buy most modern pop without severe clipping distortion and a dynamic range (Ratio of Peak to RMS in this case) of around 10dB. Tracing the original non-remastered music reveals the missing 6dB odd of signal that has been butchered.

Classical and Jazz are still mixed and mastered pretty much the same as they always have been. In fact, the introduction of multichannel sound has ushered in a whole new level of audio quality.

Norah Jones's The Fall is jazz/blues and probably has the worst clipping damage of any modern tracks today.
The 'whole new level' of audio quality on multichannel sound is due to a simple lack of attention (and therefore mangling) of the source.

This really isn't anything new. In the days of record albums you could buy two kinds of records... LPs and 45s. The LPs were mixed and mastered for listening on a good speaker system in the home. 45s were designed for jukeboxes and radio airplay.

You are not listening. The existence of the 45rpm single cannot and does not rationalise mastering damage to digital music 50 years later.
Radio today have a bank of compressors and have NO NEED for a compressed source. Think about it: They have a guy shouting straight into a microphone every 10 minutes, why on earth would they need the digital tracks pre compressed?? You think they can't compress and limit themselves LOL?

Many car stereos today have features to repair poor quality digital music, if the record industry had released a non-damaged product they'd have put a compression setting there instead. As it is the choice now is between 'mangled' and 'heavily mangled' in the car.

It's all a matter of matching the engineering to the purpose of the music. I realize that everyone wants the music industry to serve their own personal interests, but music is a business and it serves the market. Audiophiles aren't the market. They're a niche. I know I do my part to support the market for that niche, but I'm just one person.

Compression and clipping is turning people away from music in droves. It's now a commodity. The self-harm of the record companies actually spreads MP3 pirating because people today can't tell the difference between mangled lossless and mangled lossy music, indeed encoding through mp3 may even smooth some of the worst clips out.

Makers of MP3 players would be free to add compression and limiting as required to their devices, the blanket ruining of the sound lowers everyone to the same low standard, Audiophiles are the canary that is now dead in the cage. Your claim to be on the side of audiophiles is belied by all of your posts which push the mangled product in 16bit format and tell anyone who objects that they are wrong and unimportant.

The record industry has serious issues with quality of product that in my view is fraudulent misrepresentation and harms their own business model. When I see people defend this practice on HiFi forums I realise that sound quality will continue to fall and the companies will eventually go bust. Already bands have been reduced to vocals and lyrics only with young talentless singers and part of this is due to the mangling of the product, the instruments have no character, dynamics are ironed out and all we have left is a dumb 12 year old singing vacuous dirges for radio muzak.

HiFi used to be something people aspired to because it sounded good. The industry was never that careful about the source but the novelty of the CD and the old engineering skill to avoid clipping lasted for quite a few years until todays Master Manglers. With EVERYTHING TURNED UP TO A CONTINUOUS NOISE SO AN ACOUSTIC GUITAR STRING IS THE SAME LEVEL AS A SNARE DRUM PEOPLE DON"T NEED TO BOTHER WITH HIFI OR MUSIC COLLECTIONS, I MEAN WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT WHEN ALL THE MUSIC IS THE SAME MANGLED WALL OF NOISE THAT NO ONE CARES ABOUT ANYMORE?

Have you got it yet?
You are defending the slow suicide of the entire HiFi and music industry on a HiFi forum.
Why?

 

[reginalb]

...I wonder why CD sales are plummeting and why LP sales are resurging...

Because hipsters like turntables. Why do you think one of the big sellers of vinyl is Urban Outfitters? It has absolutely zilch with the mastering on CD's.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

I think you're confused.
Since I discovered that CDs and digital downloads/streaming (the media is irrelevant) were engineered with horrific distortion built in I stopped about 95% of my new purchases and started instead scouring the second hand and foreign markets for less mangled product.
Apple knew this too which is why they spent millions on 'Mastered For iTunes' so they could sell non mangled product, but hey, what does Apple know eh?

Selling mangled, clipped and highly distorted product as CD quality is simple fraud and has obviously impacted sales. I know of many people who won't touch new masters with a barge pole. What really puzzles me however is your appearance on a HiFi forum to justify the selling of these fraudulant LoFi product which clearly is 'Not As Advertised' and arguably break a number of consumer laws related to merchantable quality and expectations of the quality of the waveforms within them.

Today it's impossible to buy most modern pop without severe clipping distortion and a dynamic range (Ratio of Peak to RMS in this case) of around 10dB. Tracing the original non-remastered music reveals the missing 6dB odd of signal that has been butchered.


Norah Jones's The Fall is jazz/blues and probably has the worst clipping damage of any modern tracks today.
The 'whole new level' of audio quality on multichannel sound is due to a simple lack of attention (and therefore mangling) of the source.



You are not listening. The existence of the 45rpm single cannot and does not rationalise mastering damage to digital music 50 years later.
Radio today have a bank of compressors and have NO NEED for a compressed source. Think about it: They have a guy shouting straight into a microphone every 10 minutes, why on earth would they need the digital tracks pre compressed?? You think they can't compress and limit themselves LOL?

Many car stereos today have features to repair poor quality digital music, if the record industry had released a non-damaged product they'd have put a compression setting there instead. As it is the choice now is between 'mangled' and 'heavily mangled' in the car.


Compression and clipping is turning people away from music in droves. It's now a commodity. The self-harm of the record companies actually spreads MP3 pirating because people today can't tell the difference between mangled lossless and mangled lossy music, indeed encoding through mp3 may even smooth some of the worst clips out.

Makers of MP3 players would be free to add compression and limiting as required to their devices, the blanket ruining of the sound lowers everyone to the same low standard, Audiophiles are the canary that is now dead in the cage. Your claim to be on the side of audiophiles is belied by all of your posts which push the mangled product in 16bit format and tell anyone who objects that they are wrong and unimportant.

The record industry has serious issues with quality of product that in my view is fraudulent misrepresentation and harms their own business model. When I see people defend this practice on HiFi forums I realise that sound quality will continue to fall and the companies will eventually go bust. Already bands have been reduced to vocals and lyrics only with young talentless singers and part of this is due to the mangling of the product, the instruments have no character, dynamics are ironed out and all we have left is a dumb 12 year old singing vacuous dirges for radio muzak.

HiFi used to be something people aspired to because it sounded good. The industry was never that careful about the source but the novelty of the CD and the old engineering skill to avoid clipping lasted for quite a few years until todays Master Manglers. With EVERYTHING TURNED UP TO A CONTINUOUS NOISE SO AN ACOUSTIC GUITAR STRING IS THE SAME LEVEL AS A SNARE DRUM PEOPLE DON"T NEED TO BOTHER WITH HIFI OR MUSIC COLLECTIONS, I MEAN WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT WHEN ALL THE MUSIC IS THE SAME MANGLED WALL OF NOISE THAT NO ONE CARES ABOUT ANYMORE?

Have you got it yet?
You are defending the slow suicide of the entire HiFi and music industry on a HiFi forum.
Why?

Why? Because he works in the business, turning what his clients are paying him to. If I were in bigshot's shoes, I'd be collecting government support because as an engineer I would not be willing to destroy music that way for the sake of sheer loudness! Why do you think M.E. Bob Katz has such a 'select' clientele? Because he won't turn out and sign off on sh_t, that's why! I'm proud to say I shook Katz' hand at the AES convention in New York a couple years ago. I'd love to sit him and bigshot down in a room together and see what transpires.

If you, as an engineer, know that doing certain things to a music project is bad, and you demonstrated that to your client, and you do it anyway, you are just as implicit as that client in promoting loudness and distorted clipped GARBAGE.

And for his information, rips from my first generation classic rock, jazz, classical, and rap CDs sound just fine and 'translate' well on my portable players without any additional limiting or compression to make them louder(remastering), thank you very much!

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Because hipsters like turntables. Why do you think one of the big sellers of vinyl is Urban Outfitters? It has absolutely zilch with the mastering on CD's.

Can you prove that? I get lots of customers on a daily basis who say 'nothing, not even CD, sounds quite like vinyl'. You must be a squasher-ehem, cough! - 'mastering' engineer also. (facepalm!)