Are Modern recordings optimised for "ipod users"?
Jul 8, 2008 at 4:36 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 35

Ra5cal

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Posts
15
Likes
0
Hi

I read a couple of years back that the trend in today's music world is to optimise recordings for the "ipod generation", sacrificing audio subtlety for volume.

Wish I could find the article but it was in a magazine.

Anyway, now that I am about to reinvest in CDs I was wondering how true this is and if so, what genres, labels, ... heck ... what years were good for CD-quality audio?

FYI, besides rock I listen to a lot of ambient, D&B and elextronica via the site www.epitonic.com

Thanks
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 8:46 AM Post #2 of 35
old recordings have that annoying stereo separation which i can't stand when listening through headphones, but they sound hell of a lot better than the recordings today. however bad old recordings are way worse than bad digital recordings of today.

that volume thing you're thinking of is compression. i'm pretty sure that trend started for radio play, not 'ipod'. but i guess the current generation could refer to it as 'ipod optimized' like how everything in the late 90's was made for 'digital'.
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM Post #5 of 35
If anyone is interested further research (yeah, OK, I'm bored at work) shows the following:

- CDs produced in 1985 had an average (RMS) level of -18dB.
- The average level of CDs in 1990 was -12dB.
- The level was raised to -6dB in 1995.
- In 2000, CDs reached an average level of -3dB.

Since 2000, many CDs have been produced at an average level that's between digital zero and -3db. As the average level of CDs was raised, dynamic range was reduced.

By 2002, this raise in average level was so severe, it caused a big loss in clarity and reduced the overall quality of commercial CDs.

By 2005, it became even worse.

Apparently the classical recording industry has more or less been immune to this practice; but for most other styles (major generalization here) the cut off date for good sound was 1990.

IMHO buying pop/ rock CDs recorded / remastered after 1990 may well be a waste of time and money.
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 11:53 AM Post #6 of 35
*dances* loudness war *dances*

I got a Queenryche album from 1983 and the different in volume compared to any CD, RIAA company or not, pop tunes or 'indie', well known or local artist, today is immense.
Anyway, it's been happening for a long time and the digitalisation of music is more to blame than DAP's.

However I blame the 'Napster generation' for the abundance of poor quality audio files floating around as when Napster was free, vbr mp3 was in it's infancy and in terms of low space file codecs, there was very little good choices back then (vbr mp3 was in infancy back then, ogg didn't exist, FLAC didn't exist...)
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 12:33 PM Post #7 of 35
chinesekiwi,

Queenryche, that's a band I haven't heard in years. Was very into Rush, AC/DC and Metallica

I never paid much attention to this until I nearly gave up listening to music 6 months ago.

I left my hifi and collection of vinyl and cds back home when I immigrated 5 years ago. To keep me company I copied all my cds as mp3s and well, you can guess the rest. Listen to a song for 20 seconds / next track / next track ... urgh... my ears hurt.

Yes, I agree, Napster changed things in a huge way. At the time for me, it was a great way to get hold of tracks I'd left behind - but in time it turned against me.

I'm learning a lot from this site and I plan to make my listening experience as good as it was before I moved halfway across the planet.
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 1:44 PM Post #8 of 35
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ra5cal /img/forum/go_quote.gif
OK, now I found the article in rolling Stone:
The Death of High Fidelity : Rolling Stone



Some of this is just plain wrong. He's confusing the differences between compression as used in recording and as used in mastering an playback media.

Quote:

Rock and pop producers have always used compression to balance the sounds of different instruments and to make music sound more exciting, and radio stations apply compression for technical reasons. In the days of vinyl rec- ords, there was a physical limit to how high the bass levels could go before the needle skipped a groove. CDs can handle higher levels of loudness, although they, too, have a limit that engineers call "digital zero dB," above which sounds begin to distort. Pop albums rarely got close to the zero-dB mark until the mid-1990s, when digital compressors and limiters, which cut off the peaks of sound waves, made it easier to manipulate loudness levels. Intensely compressed albums like Oasis' 1995 (What's the Story) Morning Glory? set a new bar for loudness; the songs were well-suited for bars, cars and other noisy environments. "In the Seventies and Eighties, you were expected to pay attention," says Matt Serletic, the former chief executive of Virgin Records USA, who also produced albums by Matchbox Twenty and Collective Soul. "Modern music should be able to get your attention." Adds Rob Cavallo, who produced Green Day's American Idiot and My Chemical Romance's The Black Parade, "It's a style that started post-grunge, to get that intensity. The idea was to slam someone's face against the wall. You can set your CD to stun.


It's more complicated than this. There is no difference really between bands and record execs wanting their stuff to sound as loud as possible on the radio back in the 1960s and now.

A transistor radio speaker then was on the whole about the same quality as your average computer speaker now. What's changed is the production and playback technology and this is mainly down to everything now being digital.

First off a CD is compressed compared to an open reel master tape by virtue of the format itself. Digital recording formats have different limitations to those of analogue formats but on the face of it they require less skill to master.

When you apply overdrive or similar effects to a guitar you're really adding analogue distortion which is what you want for most rock music. This is the way electric guitars are meant to sound. With an analogue desk and tape recorder you can turn all the gains upto 11 and the distortion from your desk will just add to the distortion from your pedals, the tape won't be able to deal with the peaks so will just naturally compress them adding slightly more fuzz as it overloads. This is the sound of rock, the sound of motown, the sound of most music made before the age of digital recording, the sound many bands today are busy trying to recreate unsuccessfully.

When you try to do this with a digital desk you can't overdrive it because then you get digital distortion which sounds like a CD skipping. So you have to keep the levels to below "Digital 0". Digital zero is not 0dB which is what you see on an analogue VU meter on a tape recorder, rather it's this -20dB. "Digital 0" is actually analogue 0 turned down 20dB and unlike analogue 0dB which with good tape heads you can pass by 10dBs, "Digital 0" is absolute, it allows no "head-room".

What's more on PCM digital distortion increases as amplitude falls. So while CD has .0001 or whatever distortion figures on average much much lower than analogue, this is only the case as long as you keep everything turned up as loud as possible.

When the signal gets down to about -50dBs distortion on a CD is actually more like 1% which is really no better than analogue tape and in many ways far worse as digital distortion isn't a gentle hiss like tape but more of a random static.

The loudness war is something that's been fought since the days of Jukebox's back in the '50s only the tools have changed and while of course it's possible to get amazing recordings on a CD, it's a deceptively simple process and the wider availablility of music making afforded by technology plus the limitations of this format are what's really to blame for your headaches.
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM Post #9 of 35
Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif
First off a CD is compressed compared to an open reel master tape by virtue of the format itself.


Really ? I would be very surprised if that was true. A gooooood quality reel to reel at 30ips using Dolby A *might* do a dynamic range of 80db if it is in tip-top condition and properly aligned and with pristine tapes. But even if it could exceed 96db I would be even more surprised if there were any tapes that actually had that kind of dynamic range recorded on them in the first place
confused.gif


Thus the CD medium is not a limiting factor.
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 3:59 PM Post #10 of 35
Aren't most albums from famous bands like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and the Beatles on master tape, along with everything else that wasn't recorded digitally? How would it make any sense at all for those tapes to not be better quality than the cd that is mastered from them? Come on, think about what you are saying.
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 4:00 PM Post #11 of 35
Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Really ? I would be very surprised if that was true. A gooooood quality reel to reel at 30ips using Dolby A *might* do a dynamic range of 80db if it is in tip-top condition and properly aligned and with pristine tapes. But even if it could exceed 96db I would be even more surprised if there were any tapes that actually had that kind of dynamic range recorded on them in the first place
confused.gif


Thus the CD medium is not a limiting factor.



Zonal 999 on a 1" Studer C37 for starters

see here george.shilling.com

Compared to which CD is band limited 20Hz-20kHz. The 96dB dynamic range of CD is

a) never being used as you have to record loud to overcome low level distortion
b) really only bit of clever marketing anyway based on averaging out distortion figures. Try actually recording something on PCM at -50dB or - 60dB and see how grainy it really is.

However looking at specs like this is only really part of the story as when are you ever going to record something that quiet? You can of course get good fidelity from CD if you don't push it too hard but unfortunately the format almost demands that you do this.
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 4:27 PM Post #12 of 35
I would take a non-compressed 192 kbps mp3 over a compressed straightly-ripped-from-a-modern-cd flac any time from a same song. That is, if there's no other choices. Of course a nicely done and dynamic lossless file is my preferred one.
It's horrible what happens to sound when it's compressed so brutally it's done these days. You don't imagine the distances nor soundstage much. It just sounds like everything comes near to your face.
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 4:30 PM Post #13 of 35
Quote:

Originally Posted by panda /img/forum/go_quote.gif
old recordings have that annoying stereo separation which i can't stand when listening through headphones, but they sound hell of a lot better than the recordings today. however bad old recordings are way worse than bad digital recordings of today.


I can't stand that either, lol...that "hard left/right" panning on things like early Beatles recordings and the like. It makes sense "outside your head", as this was originally done for stereo speakers to give a "John's over there, and Paul's over THERE" effect, but for headphones it's really fatigueing and hard on your brain. I get headaches listening to that stuff without crossfeed, as my brain strains so hard to localize the sounds.

Back to the OP, I think it's more that music fidelity has been pushed to the back burner in the place of (as stated) radio friendly fidelity...it's like in a media player, when you can apply the dreaded "volume leveling"...maybe not just for radio play, but I suppose possibly the portable digital revolution as well. Maybe there was some sort of unconsious decision to "level" recordings for the purpose of carrying around so many files on a DAP without having to have those "quiet...LOUD...quiet" music transitions. This would especially apply to music bought online or through other electronic distribution, I don't know...I'm just guessing here.

I have CD's that go back to the very beginning of the medium, and most earlier recordings and masters are not that great. They got better in the late '80s early '90s, then dipped again in the mid '90s as things got loud, then they seemed to get better again. Lots of newer albums sound great, and some still sound bad. Hell, even some remastered reissues are not all that great, but none of this stops me fom buying, listening, and enjoying music.
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 5:05 PM Post #14 of 35
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dihnekis /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Aren't most albums from famous bands like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and the Beatles on master tape, along with everything else that wasn't recorded digitally? How would it make any sense at all for those tapes to not be better quality than the cd that is mastered from them? Come on, think about what you are saying.


Please read my message carefully. I never once said that a CD made from Analog tape was superior to the tape. I said that the CD format was not a limiting factor because analog tape just does not have that kind of dynamic range and you wouldnt ever have the kind of dynamic range on tape to worry CD anyway. Think about a 1024 x 768 image resampled to 2048 x 1536 it will not be better but it will not lose anything either.
 
Jul 8, 2008 at 5:33 PM Post #15 of 35
Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Zonal 999 on a 1" Studer C37 for starters

see here george.shilling.com



There is no mention of dynamic range or signal to noise ratio in that article. It is a 1960s design I am really skeptical that it can better 70db, can you point me to some specs ?


Quote:

Compared to which CD is band limited 20Hz-20kHz.


This is a bit irrelevant, you said CD was compressed compared to Analog tape, by that you are inferring that it has less dynamic range, you have yet to show that this is true. You did not say it was bandwidth limited, keep that out of the argument please, we can debate that elsewhere.

Quote:

The 96dB dynamic range of CD is

a) never being used as you have to record loud to overcome low level distortion
b) really only bit of clever marketing anyway based on averaging out distortion figures. Try actually recording something on PCM at -50dB or - 60dB and see how grainy it really is.

However looking at specs like this is only really part of the story as when are you ever going to record something that quiet? You can of course get good fidelity from CD if you don't push it too hard but unfortunately the format almost demands that you do this.


I could point you to Mahler's first symphony, Solti (CSO) 1982, a pretty early digital recording that has an opening section that is incredibly quiet yet is rock solid and has very loud crescendos. Also I have many other classical recordings that have really really quiet sections such as Modo Antiquo's medieval music which has really quiet singing.

However in the interest of science I will do some low level (-50/-60db) 16/44.1 recordings at the weekend. But I cannot help thinking you would run into serious noise issues recording at equivalently low levels on Analog tape so I think the point is moot.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top