[Strangelove424]

I have to admit, It's really distracting for me when you break your comments up like that.

Until the days of cheap DSP, this would not have been simple or cheap to do. Adequate execution of DR compression in the analog world is difficult and expensive, and would require several different settings for different genres. It hasn't been done because it's hard to do well.

But the loudness war was a response to change in consumption due to shift to digital. The increased need for DR compression arose simultaneous to the DSP that could have achieved it.

Speed influenced volume has been done for quite some time, and on some very common vehicles. GM products, late 90s, possibly earlier, had it. Probably many others too, I just owned some of the GM product and used the feature. It' works well, so long as the amount of volume adjustment is selected by the user, there are usually at least 3 levels to pick from. But it doesn't deal with DR, just a volume offset.

I think I read about that in a car magazine once. But DR compression would be more effective by increasing the lowest levels that have to compete with ambient noises like tire roar and aerodynamic drag, without effecting the highest levels that could cause tinnitus.

You're over-thinking the industry quite a bit here.

No, I'm not. Have you ever sat in a meeting with a marketing VP of a large media corporation?

Your issues are with what's on the masters, and that's an issue of creative and marketing choices. You can have that argument, and it's valid, but has nothing to do with the technology. Don't fall into the "vinyl is better" trap, or the "older stuff is better" trap either. There are plenty of instances where the vinyl/oder versions may indeed sound better, but it has nothing to do with the medium. It's all about the choices made in the releases, and their production chains. Place the blame for poor contemporary audio where it belongs: music industry marketing. The technology has been way beyond capable for many decades. You can use or abuse anything.

Did you read my post? That's exactly what I was trying to say. "Nostalgia is myopic." What part of that sentence did you misinterpret? I don't see your opposition, or even a synthesis really. You wag your finger yet agree.

 

[upstateguy]

I'm sure someone brought this up already, but isn't this the old "wire" scam all over again? Instead of copper vs. silver, it's the various flavors of hi-rez vs. 16/44.

 

[Strangelove424]

Believing that bit or sample rates on their own change the sound signature is, in the ballpark of insanity, playing 1st base, and silver (or any other exotic wire) is playing right field. This thread will explain the digital stuff pretty well, and as far as the wire debate is concerned, there's a few threads in sound science on it, but some people believe a higher capacitance of silver will reduce impedance to the driver. If there is any justification to wire theories at all, that would be it, but if you achieve .05 ohms less resistance in your chain, what does that matter to your 8ohm speakers or 300ohm headphones? The difference it makes in the total chain is infinitesimal, and impossible to parse in blind testing. I watched an interview with a speaker engineer that questioned the benefits of silver wire even in a $40,000 speaker. He said there were other optimizations he would prioritize for cost/benefit reasons before spending the budget on silver wire. In a $40,000 speaker!

 

[bigshot]

No, the number in the runout area is the matrix number, essentially the stamper. The purpose was to tie the pressing to the correct label, and to indicate how many pressings came from a given stamper, which were only good for a limited number of pressings before they had to be replaced. It's not a reference to a recording take or master.

You're talking about LPs. I'm talking about 78s. They were cut live on beeswax, The process was destructive to the wax master and they didn't have tape so they recorded extra approved takes at every session. Each master was assigned a matrix that corresponded to the record catalog number and a take number. When the mothers and stampers wore out, they'd release a different take of the same song as the same record. Songs like Whistler & His Dog that remained in print for over a decade went through dozens of different takes. The only way to tell them apart is to refer to the take number in the runout groove.

There is no aspect of the vinyl process that results in better sound.
The best version of your favorite recordings are the bit-perfect copies of the masters you already have.

When we talk about a 50 year old album, the condition of the master tape may have degraded from use and abuse over the years. It's conceivable that a commercial LP might sound better than the bit perfect copy of the damaged master.

By the way, RCA was employing dynamic compression in their recordings in the mid-1930s. I would think that it wouldn't be that complicated to incorporate compression circuitry into car stereos. They also incorporated it into 78 rpm records around the same time to make them play louder on electrical crystal pickups. That would be ground zero for the loudness wars,

 

[pinnahertz]

1. I have to admit, It's really distracting for me when you break your comments up like that.



2. But the loudness war was a response to change in consumption due to shift to digital. The increased need for DR compression arose simultaneous to the DSP that could have achieved it.



3. I think I read about that in a car magazine once. But DR compression would be more effective by increasing the lowest levels that have to compete with ambient noises like tire roar and aerodynamic drag, without effecting the highest levels that could cause tinnitus.


4. No, I'm not. Have you ever sat in a meeting with a marketing VP of a large media corporation?



5. Did you read my post? That's exactly what I was trying to say. "Nostalgia is myopic." What part of that sentence did you misinterpret? I don't see your opposition, or even a synthesis really. You wag your finger yet agree.

1. <heavy sigh> Ok, ok. I hope this is easier for you...

2. Your concept of the loudness war far too limited in scope. The Loudness War began in the 1950s with 45rpm records, and each company trying to get their records to play the loudest, which was a benefit both in personal record players and notably in juke boxes. So bad did it get that juke boxes of that era and forward very often include an Automatic Volume Control circuit, a form of compressor, to even out volumes between records. The War existed on radio since the inception of the Contemporary/Top 40 format with large stations in major markets becoming highly competitive. The War existed in movie trailers since the 1960s, and got so bad there was in industry initiative to control it, which it has to a limited degree. None of that had anything to do with a response to the change in consumption, and certainly nothing to do with digital anything. DSPs only make it easier to adjust and customize, the analog processors available just prior to DSP worked just as well at ruining DR. Very little of what can be done in DSP regarding loudness processing couldn't be done before that in the analog world, but without presets it was a matter of control tweaking, and often that involved adjusting trim pots with a screwdriver.

The Loudness War is and has always been driven by the misapplication of priority on loudness as a key driving factor in listenership. Misapplied because the reality is, which louder might be better in some cases, every user has a volume control and will not hesitate to use it. The exception is in public venues where there is no volume control, but where loudness variation has already been dealt with. That would be radio, restaurant and store background music, theaters, etc. Things have already been leveled there. The only venue where the war ever had any validity was on radio where a station could capture listeners by "standing out on the dial", but once again, the user has a volume control.

3. No argument that DR compression would be more effective. But it would not be understood by users, and would have to be a highly adaptive algorithm with just an on/off control. Otherwise it's adding complicated and not understood features to a product, which doesn't drive sales or customer satisfaction (unless you're Apple).

4. Yes, absolutely, many, many times! And none of those meeting involved concern over what one or two odd individuals might do, it was always about the bell curve, and the center of that. How to bump up the returns by doing things that influenced significant numbers, and excluding the static in the statistics.

5. My, but aren't we snippy? I ready your comments as an expression of your opinion, not as an exposition of the myopic nature of nostalgia. I apologize if that was wrong.

 

[pinnahertz]

You're talking about LPs. I'm talking about 78s. They were cut live on beeswax, The process was destructive to the wax master and they didn't have tape so they recorded extra approved takes at every session. Each master was assigned a matrix that corresponded to the record catalog number and a take number. When the mothers and stampers wore out, they'd release a different take of the same song as the same record. Songs like Whistler & His Dog that remained in print for over a decade went through dozens of different takes. The only way to tell them apart is to refer to the take number in the runout groove.
OK, sorry, I didn't realize you were talking about acoustic 78s.

When we talk about a 50 year old album, the condition of the master tape may have degraded from use and abuse over the years. It's conceivable that a commercial LP might sound better than the bit perfect copy of the damaged master.

By the way, RCA was employing dynamic compression in their recordings in the mid-1930s. I would think that it wouldn't be that complicated to incorporate compression circuitry into car stereos.

OK, sorry, I didn't realize you were talking about acoustic 78s.

50 year old tapes are likely to be just fine if stored in a recording company's vault. Not in every case, but most cases. There are always more than one copy of the final master, so chances are good one of them is ok. And if they have the actual master it could likely beat the vinyl version because those were typically cut from an "equalized master", that contained final EQ and level adjustments needed to re-cut a master if needed. The actual master was played as little as possible, but wouldn't have that EQ, and would be one generation earlier. Make the CD from that, you win.

Yes, there were compressors in the 30s, developed first by Western Electric for film sound, and yes, RCA used them regularly. So did London, and most others, even on classical records. None of that has much to do with a good implementation of a DR compressor in a car stereo. Those things are barely related to analog processors of today being a big rack of tubes etc. DR compression is not a simple thing to do if it's to be elegant and not make the situation worse. Consider that most of the radio is a chip or chip set now. Adding a compressor, if digital, would be an ADC, DSP (with programming) and DAC, which would likely also dictate a complete change in the signal flow and negate the existing chipsets. So, a complete redesign, not an add-on circuit. That would be true if an analog solution were employed too, which would be even more complex and expensive. The comparison doesn't make sense. Then, come up with a way to detect in advance which material needs compression and automate that because a user/driver will never figure that out. Besides, the big push in auto sound is smart device connectivity. Nothing to do with bettering audio quality.

 

[Strangelove424]

1. <heavy sigh> Ok, ok. I hope this is easier for you...

2. Your concept of the loudness war far too limited in scope. The Loudness War began in the 1950s with 45rpm records, and each company trying to get their records to play the loudest, which was a benefit both in personal record players and notably in juke boxes. So bad did it get that juke boxes of that era and forward very often include an Automatic Volume Control circuit, a form of compressor, to even out volumes between records. The War existed on radio since the inception of the Contemporary/Top 40 format with large stations in major markets becoming highly competitive. The War existed in movie trailers since the 1960s, and got so bad there was in industry initiative to control it, which it has to a limited degree. None of that had anything to do with a response to the change in consumption, and certainly nothing to do with digital anything. DSPs only make it easier to adjust and customize, the analog processors available just prior to DSP worked just as well at ruining DR. Very little of what can be done in DSP regarding loudness processing couldn't be done before that in the analog world, but without presets it was a matter of control tweaking, and often that involved adjusting trim pots with a screwdriver.

The Loudness War is and has always been driven by the misapplication of priority on loudness as a key driving factor in listenership. Misapplied because the reality is, which louder might be better in some cases, every user has a volume control and will not hesitate to use it. The exception is in public venues where there is no volume control, but where loudness variation has already been dealt with. That would be radio, restaurant and store background music, theaters, etc. Things have already been leveled there. The only venue where the war ever had any validity was on radio where a station could capture listeners by "standing out on the dial", but once again, the user has a volume control.

3. No argument that DR compression would be more effective. But it would not be understood by users, and would have to be a highly adaptive algorithm with just an on/off control. Otherwise it's adding complicated and not understood features to a product, which doesn't drive sales or customer satisfaction (unless you're Apple).

4. Yes, absolutely, many, many times! And none of those meeting involved concern over what one or two odd individuals might do, it was always about the bell curve, and the center of that. How to bump up the returns by doing things that influenced significant numbers, and excluding the static in the statistics.

5. My, but aren't we snippy? I ready your comments as an expression of your opinion, not as an exposition of the myopic nature of nostalgia. I apologize if that was wrong.

1. It is, thank you.

2. That may be true, but digital is the problem now, hence the thread subject. The iPod players, the increased mobility factor, and the ability to sample songs and purchase them individually set the stage for a loudness competition that still dominates our music. MQA, Pono, HDtracks, and the dizzy struggle for quality mastering, is an effect of that.

3. Cost effective sensors make adaptive implementation far easier today. You can make almost any device sensitive to its environment for relatively low cost.

4. I did not mean concern about who would null their track, and discover their tactics, I know they are shameless about their negligence, I mean basic lack of concern over people's tastes and values. They'll violate standards of broadcast because something is not technically considered a broadcast, and use technology in the most vicious and manipulative ways to lob for more sales. They'll present ideas which are personally repulsive to them, but are willing to inflict those ideas onto consumers for money. I would not be the least bit surprised if this shell game was intentional, or if CDs were intentionally "geared toward a more approachable audience".

5. You created a false representation of my ideas on matters that I feel very strongly about. Snippy is a deflection, but I appreciate your apology nonetheless.

 

[bigshot]

Yes, there were compressors in the 30s, developed first by Western Electric for film sound, and yes, RCA used them regularly.

Compression isn't rocket science. Back in the late 70s I had a dynamic expander/compander in my system. I still have it around here somewhere. It didn't cost a lot and it did

So did London, and most others, even on classical records. None of that has much to do with a good implementation of a DR compressor in a car stereo.

its job well. I'm sure if someone wanted to make a car compressor back then, technology or cost wouldn't have been much of an issue. But it really

Those things are barely related to analog processors of today being a big rack of tubes etc. DR compression is not a simple thing to do if it's to be elegant and not make the situation worse.

doesn't matter. The thread of this conversation has been chopped up into bits and spread so far I don't recognize it any more. It's the argumentative equivalent of finding bits of a dead body in the desert after the coyotes, the sun and time have had their way with it.

 

[pinnahertz]

1. It is, thank you.

2. That may be true, but digital is the problem now, hence the thread subject. The iPod players, the increased mobility factor, and the ability to sample songs and purchase them individually set the stage for a loudness competition that still dominates our music. MQA, Pono, HDtracks, and the dizzy struggle for quality mastering, is an effect of that.

3. Cost effective sensors make adaptive implementation far easier today. You can make almost any device sensitive to its environment for relatively low cost.

4. I did not mean concern about who would null their track, and discover their tactics, I know they are shameless about their negligence, I mean basic lack of concern over people's tastes and values. They'll violate standards of broadcast because something is not technically considered a broadcast, and use technology in the most vicious and manipulative ways to lob for more sales. They'll present ideas which are personally repulsive to them, but are willing to inflict those ideas onto consumers for money. I would not be the least bit surprised if this shell game was intentional, or if CDs were intentionally "geared toward a more approachable audience".

5. You created a false representation of my ideas on matters that I feel very strongly about. Snippy is a deflection, but I appreciate your apology nonetheless.

2. No, digital is NOT the problem now. In fact, it has very little to do with it other than to provide more cheap tools to the hands of the unqualified. The principle of the Loudness War go back 60 years or more, and have not changed at all just because the tools and delivery path is different.

iPod players are not the problem either, in fact, they're part of the solution as SoundCheck is on by default (that's a track volume adjuster like Replay Gain..almost identical..eliminates the ultimate goal of the war). Purchase method has absolutely nothing to do with it either. MQA, Pono, HD Tracks and the rest accomplish nothing to remediate the loudness war. You'd think they would absolutely demand a verifiable remaster, but they don't do that uniformly and consistently, barely at all. Mostly, not at all. I'd go as far as to say that if in fact MQA demands a verifiable remaster, that may be the on upside to it. But "demands" is a big word for a small company swimming with the sharks. The others don't require anything, because they know they couldn't demand anything.

3. Again, you've missed my point completely. The cost of sensors has nothing to do with it. It's the cost of development of an entirely new car stereo architecture with improvements to compelling that the buying public supports the increased cost. However, the general car buying public doesn't even recognize there is a problem. They've demonstrated their apathy by their uniform lack of support of HD Radio, something with the potential to actually improve in car reception and program variety. It's a market failure. Why would a manufacturer build a much more expensive product if nobody cares about the improvements they already have access to?

4. That's not what you said. You clearly implied media companies have great concern for the individual tweak-head null-master. Yes, they have a big concern over peoples tastes. That's about as obvious as it gets!

Media companies do not violate standards of broadcast, of that I can assure you 100%! I have no idea where you get that idea, but it's wrong. But when has using technology to manipulate sales been a new idea? Are you old enough to know what Muzak is/was? Do you know how they collapsed from being the largest background music company on earth to almost nothing? It was because they were percieved as using technology to manipulate! It was partially true, but it nuked them as a company.

I don't think media companies are deliberately engaged in a shell game. I've worked for media companies my entire adult life. They aren't that smart. They're very self-serving, but overall more reactive than predictive and manipulative.

I was in the biz with both feet when the CD was developed. It wasn't geared towards a "more approachable audience" at all, it was geared toward THE audience, everyone, every genre. It met the marketing requirements of a 5 to 10 fold improvement in several aspects: easy of handling, longer life, better quality sound, smaller, track-based control, etc. That's why it penetrated the market faster than expected, not because the media companies were engaged in deliberate market confusion. BTW, that never results in a win. Think Quad/4-channel. A supreme example of market confusion killing the concept.

5. I'm reading your stuff and getting certain messages, they you come back with retorts that indicate I got the wrong idea. I don't usually have this problem with anyone else. Where do you think the variable is? But I'm also first to admit I do screw up. So if I'm not getting you, it could be me. Somehow I find many of your statements wild and unfounded. Perhaps misunderstanding your context is the issue.

 

[bigshot]

Adios!

 

[pinnahertz]

Compression isn't rocket science. Back in the late 70s I had a dynamic expander/compander in my system. I still have it around here somewhere. It didn't cost a lot and it did its job well. I'm sure if someone wanted to make a car compressor back then, technology or cost wouldn't have been much of an issue. But it really doesn't matter. The thread of this conversation has been chopped up into bits and spread so far I don't recognize it any more. It's the argumentative equivalent of finding bits of a dead body in the desert after the coyotes, the sun and time have had their way with it.

So...you're saying compression is simple. I think every single audio processor hardware or plugin designer would take exception with you.

The late 70's consumer compressor/expander...that's the device you want in your car? Dynamic compression has matured just a tiny since your last brush with it. I'm not taking the space here to explain the complexities of audio processing here, but IF we're to have DR compression, I so no point in using the equivalent of a Western Electric RA-1593, even if it's a DSP emulation.

So then the questions become, what kind of detector do we use? RMS, average, peak? What kind of gain control element do we use/model? FET? VCA? Electro-optical? Multiplier? Bipolar transistor array? What kind of control response...linear? Log? What kind of attack/recovery? Single time constant, multiple time constant, variable time constant? What about recovery...fast, slow, variable, release gated? Single band, multiband? Single stage, or cascaded? Every aspect affects how the thing sounds. And if I recall, the music of biggest concern is classical...which hides processor artifacts the least. No, it's not rocket science, but I wouldn't turn a rocket scientist loose on it either.

Adios!

That's one way to solve the problem.

 

[bigshot]

You are funny1 I like you!

 

[Strangelove424]

I don't usually have this problem with anyone else.

Oh, your talents for logical, cordial and productive conversation are evidenced up and down this page. Your posts are littered with mischaracterizing statements, strawmen, irrelevant and out of context points, and it appears to me to be for the sake of stirring up conflict. Argument would be an inaccurate euphemism for your logically strewn and personally motivated statements, which don't represent any clear principle at all. Should masters be identified on media that contains them? Is MQA's business model a fair one? Would intelligent DR be a bad idea for any other reason than the inability of marketing to sell it? I have no idea what you even believe. It's all just a random smattering of irrelevant, out of context, and manufactured condescension.

I have a feeling you could do this all day, and the next day, and the next, and I feel like I am feeding the pigeons. I'm simply not in a position to keep going back and forth with you anymore. I don't believe in talking without meaning or principle. I think I've given you enough of my time, and cannot comprehend this conversation going anywhere productive.

That's one way to solve the problem.

It sure is.

"Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent."

Adios!

 

[bigshot]

...well it is an internet forum after all. It isn't fair to expect it to be anything other than that.

 

[pinnahertz]

Should masters be identified on media that contains them?

No necessarily, but if you're paying for a remaster of purported higher quality that should be declared and be clearly stated how they got there. Ex: a 192/24 copy of an analog tape master is not HiRes, but if the master is even one generation better than what was used for other releases, or has been somehow reprocessed or restored, that would possibly add value where 192/24 of itself would not (yet the implication is that it does). Otherwise, what are you paying for?

Is MQA's business model a fair one?

No.

Would intelligent DR be a bad idea for any other reason than the inability of marketing to sell it?

No, optional intelligent DR control would not be a bad idea. It's a great idea that is difficult and expensive to implement, and difficult for the end user to understand.

I have no idea what you even believe. It's all just a random smattering of irrelevant, out of context, and manufactured condescension.

Hope that helped. Sorry for the chopped up response.

I have a feeling you could do this all day, and the next day, and the next, and I feel like I am feeding the pigeons. I'm simply not in a position to keep going back and forth with you anymore. I don't believe in talking without meaning or principle. I think I've given you enough of my time, and cannot comprehend this conversation going anywhere productive.

My feelings exactly.

"Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent."

Adios!

Your choice. I've responded with accurate and pertinent information to every one of your wild and uninformed premises. If you keep the nonsense coming, I'll keep responding. If you stop, I don't have much to respond to, do I?