[Glmoneydawg]

I judge by 1) the response- digital recordings usually go lower into the sub bass because deep bass was undesirable on LPs, 2) noise- the noise floor on digital recordings is much lower and 3) dynamics- LPs were mixed to be an overall blend of music without overly sharp contrasts. That can be very pleasant to listen to, but I prefer dynamic sound, particularly with drums and classical music.

In classical music, I probably prefer the performances from the analogue era better, because the conductors and soloists had more distinct personalities. But for sound quality, today is better. It's hard to generalize on rock music today because it's become so fragmented into specialty niches. And back in the 70s, some bands were brilliantly recorded and mixed and other ones weren't.

Your preference for dynamic classical music is likely due to the fact that it's actual acoustic instruments n a real space...i like classical, but i love rock music.....unfotunately there is no clear reference for electric guitars,distortion as a musical sound ect.....real instruments in a real space is probably the ultimate test for a music reproduction system as far as true fidelity goes....still not sure i want to hear the full dynamic range of an orchestra in my music room though.

 

[RRod]

[…] still not sure i want to hear the full dynamic range of an orchestra in my music room though.

The problem is more that your neighbors don't want to hear it

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Your preference for dynamic classical music is likely due to the fact that it's actual acoustic instruments n a real space...i like classical, but i love rock music.....unfotunately there is no clear reference for electric guitars,distortion as a musical sound ect.....real instruments in a real space is probably the ultimate test for a music reproduction system as far as true fidelity goes....still not sure i want to hear the full dynamic range of an orchestra in my music room though.

The only recorded music I really wish they would leave more dynamics in is from 2000-present - the bulk of the present Loudness/Density War era. Leave what's already done alone, but start today - relaxing the limiters and compressors, letting the music ebb and flow, hearing the actual snap in a kick drum, the crack! of the snare.

As far as legacy music(pre-1990 and back) goes, all I desire is what was - regardless of dynamic range as released, tonality, spatial placement of instruments and vocals from left to right, etc. Not someone's reimagining of it - be they the artist, the label, the engineers, or whomever - in so-called 'remastered' form. Motown was already compressed or otherwise processed enough back when it was produced 40-50 years ago - it needs no meddling with today's tools, to 'appeal to today's audiences', or for any other reason.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Does the sound necessarily need 'improvement'? Is a remaster always an improvement over the original sound? Or is it just different from the original?
[2] And they all show the thing: The lighter average portion blown up bigger, with much of peaks clipped off/limited, full scale.
[3] Again: remaster? louder? For what purpose? What point?

1 & 3. You've already asked these questions and you've ALREADY been answered in various other threads, including your own!
2. Again, already answered both here and elsewhere. For various different reasons, what a waveform representation looks like in a DAW and what it sounds like are not the same thing!

Why are you asking the same already answered questions over and over? Apparently because:

[1] The only recorded music I really wish they would leave more dynamics in is from 2000-present - the bulk of the present Loudness/Density War era.
[2] Leave what's already done alone, but start today - relaxing the limiters and compressors, letting the music ebb and flow, [2a] hearing the actual snap in a kick drum, the crack! of the snare.
[3] As far as legacy music(pre-1990 and back) goes, all I desire is what was - regardless of dynamic range as released, tonality, spatial placement of instruments and vocals from left to right, etc. ... Motown was already compressed or otherwise processed enough back when it was produced 40-50 years ago - it needs no meddling with today's tools, to 'appeal to today's audiences', or for any other reason.

1. Why? There is already pretty much the same dynamic range in post 2000 music as there was before, why do you want more?
2. The music does ebb and flow, with "unrelaxed" limters/compressors! [2a] What, like an acoustic jazz drumkit of the 1950? Have you any idea what say EDM (or other modern genre) would sound like if the drum sounds were replaced with an acoustic 1950's jazz kit? I'll give you a clue, it won't sound like EDM!

3. And here we come to the answer to why you're just repeating the same thing over and over: "All I desire"! What you personally "desire" does NOT "appeal to today's audiences" and therefore makes no financial/economic sense and again, the music industry is an industry, not a non-profit charitable museum! Again, this has all been explained in some detail previously and much of it is such simple economics it shouldn't even need explaining in the first place!

I don't get what you are trying to accomplish in this sub-forum from just repeating the same thing, which has already been answered and is largely self explanatory anyway?

G

 

[TheSonicTruth]

1 & 3. You've already asked these questions and you've ALREADY been answered in various other threads, including your own!
2. Again, already answered both here and elsewhere. For various different reasons, what a waveform representation looks like in a DAW and what it sounds like are not the same thing!

Why are you asking the same already answered questions over and over? Apparently because:



1. Why? There is already pretty much the same dynamic range in post 2000 music as there was before, why do you want more?
2. The music does ebb and flow, with "unrelaxed" limters/compressors! [2a] What, like an acoustic jazz drumkit of the 1950? Have you any idea what say EDM (or other modern genre) would sound like if the drum sounds were replaced with an acoustic 1950's jazz kit? I'll give you a clue, it won't sound like EDM!

3. And here we come to the answer to why you're just repeating the same thing over and over: "All I desire"! What you personally "desire" does NOT "appeal to today's audiences" and therefore makes no financial/economic sense and again, the music industry is an industry, not a non-profit charitable museum! Again, this has all been explained in some detail previously and much of it is such simple economics it shouldn't even need explaining in the first place!

I don't get what you are trying to accomplish in this sub-forum from just repeating the same thing, which has already been answered and is largely self explanatory anyway?

G

Did you speak to "today's audiences"? Would they even notice the difference between an original relase of something like "Seven and the Ragged Tiger"(Duran Duran) and its remaster? Do they even know or care what 'dynamic range' is?

Without their even knowing it, they're being fed a lie as far as the sound of such legacy matter is concerned. I am not your typical music consumer: I understand and know about musical dynamics and such, and have working knowledge of DAWs. The average buyer does not.

 

[bigshot]

Does the sound necessarily need 'improvement'?

Yes. A flat transfer of a bald multitrack mix down of a bunch of songs strung together doesn't sound great played through as an album. Songs are generally mixed one at a time. You put them next to each other and they can jump around and not flow well.

Remixing if done well can also improve sound, particularly on legacy titles where the limitations of analogue recording and mixing muddied up the sound. A great example is the recent remix of Sgt Pepper. They were working with multiple generations on some songs where the four tracks were bounced down to consolidate tracks. In the remix, they went back and brought each element in separately and mixed them all at once without generation loss. It improved the sound quality a lot.

Remixing and mastering can make stuff sound worse too, but that is a creative mistake completely separate from technical sound quality. Sound can be improved, sound can be mangled... it all depends on the particular creative choices being made. You have to ask people who are familiar with a particular album and ask them which release sounds better. I've found in most cases, the most recent remastering is the best. But there are exceptions to that, particularly with ephemeral pop music.

unfotunately there is no clear reference for electric guitars,distortion as a musical sound ect.....real instruments in a real space is probably the ultimate test for a music reproduction system as far as true fidelity goes....still not sure i want to hear the full dynamic range of an orchestra in my music room though.

Yeah. Rock and pop music is a lot more forgiving because it's completely manufactured in the mix. There is no real space or natural timbre. Generally, the way orchestral music is usually presented in recordings is from a little distance... as if you were sitting in the audience in a concert hall. I have one orchestral recording made from the conductor's position with the orchestra arrayed in a circle around him. It's pretty much unlistenable. It's a violin concerto and the soloist is standing right next to the tympani. Every time there is a tympani hit, it makes me jump out of my chair.

The only recorded music I really wish they would leave more dynamics in is from 2000-present

As far as legacy music(pre-1990 and back) goes, all I desire is what was .

The first sentence is going to be the hardest for you. That music isn't designed to be listened to with high quality stereo equipment. The audience for recent pop music listens with ear buds and phones. The music is optimized for that.

The second one is easy to accomplish- just go buy the LPs. It's not at all hard to find used LPs of rock music in good condition for a couple of bucks apiece at thrift stores. They're packed to the gills with cast off Toto, Boston and Kansas albums. And they all sound exactly like they did in the 70s and early 80s.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Yes. A flat transfer of a bald multitrack mix down of a bunch of songs strung together doesn't sound great played through as an album. Songs are generally mixed one at a time. You put them next to each other and they can jump around and not flow well.

Remixing if done well can also improve sound, particularly on legacy titles where the limitations of analogue recording and mixing muddied up the sound. A great example is the recent remix of Sgt Pepper. They were working with multiple generations on some songs where the four tracks YOUR were bounced down to consolidate tracks. In the remix, they went back and brought each element in separately and mixed them all at once without generation loss. It improved the sound quality a lot.

Remixing and mastering can make stuff sound worse too, but that is a creative mistake completely separate from technical sound quality. Sound can be improved, sound can be mangled... it all depends on the particular creative choices being made. You have to ask people who are familiar with a particular album and ask them which release sounds better. I've found in most cases, the most recent remastering is the best. But there are exceptions to that, particularly with ephemeral pop music.



Yeah. Rock and pop music is a lot more forgiving because it's completely manufactured in the mix. There is no real space or natural timbre. Generally, the way orchestral music is usually presented in recordings is from a little distance... as if you were sitting in the audience in a concert hall. I have one orchestral recording made from the conductor's position with the orchestra arrayed in a circle around him. It's pretty much unlistenable. It's a violin concerto and the soloist is standing right next to the tympani. Every time there is a tympani hit, it makes me jump out of my chair.



The first sentence is going to be the hardest for you. That music isn't designed to be listened to with high quality stereo equipment. The audience for recent pop music listens with ear buds and phones. The music is optimized for that.

The second one is easy to accomplish- just go buy the LPs. It's not at all hard to find used LPs of rock music in good condition for a couple of bucks apiece at thrift stores. They're packed to the gills with cast off Toto, Boston and Kansas albums. And they all sound exactly like they did in the 70s and early 80s.

Your first point: I'm not referring to a 'bald' flat multitrack mix. I'm referring to a two-track stereo master ready either for cutting to LP or CD. It probably has all of the processing baked in and that is what I mean by flat transfer. A flat transfer of a fully mastered stereo master.


Your second to last point: So I guess our playback equipment buying choices have impact over time on how music is produced and engineered. If people listen on miniaturized underpowered crap, then modern music will sound accordingly, like crap!


Your final point: Not just the LPs, but the first release of those albums on CD. Those I find, based on listening, of course, sound as close as possible to those LPs.

 

[Steve999]

I agree with you. It's best not to over-generalize. I do really like the classical recordings for LPs from the late 1970s that have been transferred to digital. My experience is they hit a sweet spot for me. The aesthetic decisions as to dynamic range in those recordings seem to me to be among the best. I do find the DDD recordings frustrating at times. We can talk about the noise floor of the recording, and how great it is, but the noise floor of the listening environment is of more practical concern. Reaching for the volume knob (or the volume control on the remote) between songs is one thing. Reaching for the volume knob or remote in the middle of a classical symphony to hear the very soft passages or not to have an uncomfortably loud passage is downright distracting and frustrating. It can really detract from the enjoyment of listening.

Not necessarily. There's mediocre sounding AAD, and great sounding AAD. Mediocre sounding DDD, and terrific sounding DDD. The difference between all of them is what goes on - from performance to recording and mixing, to mastering.

I also used to think DDD CDs must have been the best, but I've grown in knowledge, since, about what makes the best.

 

[gregorio]

Did you speak to "today's audiences"?

As has ALREADY (!!!) been explained to you: No I have not, it's not my job, it's the job of those who engage my services, the artists and/or record labels!
Did you speak to "today's audiences"? Is it your job to know and understand "today's audiences", does your livelihood depend on it?

I understand and know about musical dynamics and such, and have working knowledge of DAWs. The average buyer does not.

You have demonstrated the exact opposite! That you do NOT understand musical dynamics and do NOT understand the relationship between what one see's in a DAW and what is heard/perceived. Worse still, you continue to demonstrate this lack of understanding even though you've been presented with the actual facts/evidence, more than once!!!

So your response to my accusation is just to repeat EXACTLY what I accused you of!!! How does this make any sense at all, even to you?

G

 

[TheSonicTruth]

As has ALREADY (!!!) been explained to you: No I have not, it's not my job, it's the job of those who engage my services, the artists and/or record labels!
Did you speak to "today's audiences"? Is it your job to know and understand "today's audiences", does your livelihood depend on it?



You have demonstrated the exact opposite! That you do NOT understand musical dynamics and do NOT understand the relationship between what one see's in a DAW and what is heard/perceived. Worse still, you continue to demonstrate this lack of understanding even though you've been presented with the actual facts/evidence, more than once!!!

So your response to my accusation is just to repeat EXACTLY what I accused you of!!! How does this make any sense at all, even to you?

G

Because of statements like this(#124):

"1. Why? There is already pretty much
the same dynamic range in post 2000 music
as there was before, why do you want more?

Which all the DR tools and sites like Dynamic Range Database have, at the very least suggested, the opposite of what you stated, Gregorio: Why don't you contact the developers of the DR meters, and the admins of DR Database, yourself and tell them that they are lying and misleading music fans?

 

[gregorio]

Because of statements like this(#124):
"1. Why? There is already pretty much
the same dynamic range in post 2000 music
as there was before, why do you want more?
Which all the DR tools and sites like Dynamic Range Database have, at the very least suggested, the opposite of

Which AGAIN, has already been discussed, in your own thread, in considerable detail and the actual facts explained to you, with supporting evidence!

So, you have done EXACTLY the same thing yet AGAIN!! "So your response to my accusation is just to repeat EXACTLY what I accused you of!!! How does this make any sense at all, even to you?" Geez!

G

 

[bigshot]

Gregorio, if you're tired of this topic, you could always just change the subject to crossfeed or the high frequency capabilities of vinyl cartridges.

 

[Steve999]

As for what I call "young people music," (I have three teenagers) I agree, and I actually really like to listen to it. It'd be nice to get a more wild and open and live feeling out of it. Some transients to make you jump out of your seat would be cool. And wow, does that music work with a subwoofer. I didn't really feel like I was totally getting what it was about until I got a subwoofer.

It seems like maintstream jazz is recorded really well nowadays.

The only recorded music I really wish they would leave more dynamics in is from 2000-present - the bulk of the present Loudness/Density War era. Leave what's already done alone, but start today - relaxing the limiters and compressors, letting the music ebb and flow, hearing the actual snap in a kick drum, the crack! of the snare.

As far as legacy music(pre-1990 and back) goes, all I desire is what was - regardless of dynamic range as released, tonality, spatial placement of instruments and vocals from left to right, etc. Not someone's reimagining of it - be they the artist, the label, the engineers, or whomever - in so-called 'remastered' form. Motown was already compressed or otherwise processed enough back when it was produced 40-50 years ago - it needs no meddling with today's tools, to 'appeal to today's audiences', or for any other reason.

 

[Steve999]

Yeah, some DDD classical recordings are just plain unpleasant and frustrating. I take solace in many that are a few decades old. And of course you've got to rock out sometimes.

Your preference for dynamic classical music is likely due to the fact that it's actual acoustic instruments n a real space...i like classical, but i love rock music.....unfotunately there is no clear reference for electric guitars,distortion as a musical sound ect.....real instruments in a real space is probably the ultimate test for a music reproduction system as far as true fidelity goes....still not sure i want to hear the full dynamic range of an orchestra in my music room though.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Yeah, some DDD classical recordings are just plain unpleasant and frustrating. I take solace in many that are a few decades old. And of course you've got to rock out sometimes.

And it's not because they're all digital. They are just more likely to be processed in certain way(hyper compression and/or over EQ), so that when people hear the difference they think they are getting the real deal!