Quote:
Inaudible? Certainly not. I can clearly tell the difference between mp3's, MD's recorded at Type R and the CD itself. Shouldn't dynamic and data compression go hand and hand with the use of Hardrives to back up the recording process?
Ok, dynamic compression, i don't think engineers are screwing up at all or poor master tapes were used presently. It's done on purpose to catch the listener's attention (like your average pop album). I'm thinking albums are purposely mastered to stay peeked with little or no fluctuation so the listener rarely has to get his/her arse out of the seat (or grab the remote) to change the volume. Just look at FM radio, everything sounds compressed and LOUD all the time, for what reasons? To grab the listeners attention so they'll run out and buy the album. So the engineer is sacrificing sound quality for volume. Sucks doesn't it? |
that is why i put "inaudible" in quotes. i disagree with the non-audiophile software developers (whom i have worked with) who claim the information removed in their codecs is inaudible. perhaps inaudible on their crappy computer speakers, but not to my ears. the best compression schemes i have heard yet are atrac type-r for 2 channel and dts for multi.
i would put dynamic compression under "engineers screwing up". yes, they do it in purpose, but it is still a mistake. i don't think anyone here will disagree with that. btw, the main reason for maxing the cd volume and compressing the dynamic range is it sounds better on cheap equipment with poor amplification, and when it is played on a changer, if it sounds louder than the other cds to most people louder=better. the audiophiles lose again. also, some of the first cds were mastered from tapes intended for records, which tend to be very bright to compensate for lp wear over time. of course, cds don't wear down like lps, so you get that "perfect[ly awful] sound, forever!"
Quote:
If you can't hear any psychoacoustic compression artifacts you need not complain about any data compression they are using... |
what you can't hear can't hurt your wallet, eh joe?
darkangel,
i agree with your timeline for the most part. i do have some early chandos ddd cds (mid 80's) that sound very good. prokofiev's 6th symphony with jaarvi conducting for example: superb dynamics and clarity, with even a touch of warmth. some companies seem to have been doing it right from the beginning. some early dg and archive classical recordings are very edgy.
for the most part ddd rock recordings are hard to find. peter gabriel's "security" is one of the few decent sounding ddd rock recordings i've heard--huge dynamics. studios still prefer to master in analog, and my guess is it is simply 30ips analog master tapes just have a much higher resolution (yeah i know, apples and oranges, but you get the gist). the reason i have been
given by studio engineers i've talked too is, there is a slight delay in analog tape that musicians are used to, vs. digital where it is harder to get the beat right.
another reason i've heard is that analog tape introduces harmonic distortion into the sound which our ears find pleasing. personally i don't buy either one. i think analog mastering is the preferred format because it sounds better. besides, what are we going to do with all those redbook ddd recordings now that high resolution digital is here? upsample them? i'll bet there are some people who now wish they had used an analog master.
by the way, exactly when did record companies realize that aad, add, and ddd was essentially meaningless and drop them? also, does anyone remember the warnings on early cds that went "the music on this compact disc was originally recorded on analog equipment... due to it's high resolution, however, the cd can reveal limitations of the source tape." while valid in some cases, this warning seems like a put-down against analog, which coincidentally the cd format was competing with...