[446907]

Hey guys, I was listening to a few songs off of Spotify and Youtube. These aren't the most Hi-Fi for a pair of HD 600's, but I want to relay a discovery with you all. I had grown to wonder why certain videos of live acoustic music sounded crisp and clear with character, while other videos just sounded pitiful, specifically modern recordings. I thought it was just the way things were done, until I came up on a website that had a video that explained what the Loudness Wars were and just how God awful most modern recordings are. I never really knew why music just really did not appeal to me until I got into trying to get clearer sound and jumped into the journey of Hi-Fi headphones. 
 
I gotta ask, is there any haven left where artists actually have descent sound that has not been compressed to the point of looking like a sonic military haircut? Once you hear a descent, unmutilated song or track, you learn just what you were missing on high-end gear. I can't even look at the top 40 any more now that I have seen the truth. Is there a place online where one can go to stream and buy unmutilated tracks?

 

[WraithApe]

This is old news (olds?) dude. DR compression has been going on for years. There's a bunch of other threads on here on the same topic. The solution is to avoid mainstream crap. If you're into artists who aren't bothered about air time, getting on Spotify playlists or shifting enough units to make the top 40, you're more likely to get good production.

 

[hogger129]

You don't necessarily have to avoid mainstream music.  You just need to do your research about the best versions of something on whatever format you like.  DR Database does not tell the whole story about sound quality either.  You can have a good, dynamic CD but it can sound worse than a newer remaster.  
 
Take Eric Clapton's Slowhand for example.  I had the original US Polydor CD.  It has excellent DR numbers per DR Database.  It should sound great, but it doesn't.  It sounds incredibly anemic.  My 1977 RSO LP sounds way better.  Then I bought the MFSL CD which sounds the closest to my 1977 RSO LP but its DR numbers are not quite as good as the original release.  But when you play that MFSL CD on a good stereo system, it comes to life.

 

[446907]

What kind of system do you use with your music?

 

[hogger129]

  What kind of system do you use with your music?

 
Right now my playback chain is through a computer or via my FiiO X1 and Sennheiser HD598 SE headphones.  When I lived at my parents' house, I had my X3 hooked up to my dad's Onkyo receiver which had some expensive floor-standing speakers. I don't recall the brand.  In each case, I found the MFSL CD to sound better than the 80s Polydor one.  My 1977 RSO LP is quite good too.

 

[446907]

Nice set up. I'm currently working with a pair of Senn HD600 and a TEAC HA-P50 DAC/AMP combo. I listen to MP3 and CD quality stuff, and I gotta say, the 600's have started to grow on me. They are nearly pretty good. I'm looking to get a DT 990 Pro to demo out of to compare. I used the DT-800 but that sounded in my own experience, Dead. It was dead, all I could say.

 

[WraithApe]

  You don't necessarily have to avoid mainstream music.  You just need to do your research about the best versions of something on whatever format you like.  DR Database does not tell the whole story about sound quality either.  You can have a good, dynamic CD but it can sound worse than a newer remaster.

 
That's true, you don't - but the fact remains that a lot of mainstream pop (in particular) use brickwall limiters to make the music sound good (i.e. loud) on the lowest common denominator devices: smart phones + earbuds. But yeah, I agree it's not quite as simple as just consulting the DR database; there are other considerations when deciding on the best version of a given recording.

 

[hogger129]

   
That's true, you don't - but the fact remains that a lot of mainstream pop (in particular) use brickwall limiters to make the music sound good (i.e. loud) on the lowest common denominator devices: smart phones + earbuds. But yeah, I agree it's not quite as simple as just consulting the DR database; there are other considerations when deciding on the best version of a given recording.

 
What music today doesn't use brickwall limiting or too much dynamic range compression?  Even remasters of old music, while they are getting better, still don't sound as good as some older discs or audiophile remasters.  With the technology available today, I don't understand how they can't make every CD 'audiophile' quality, i.e. a flat transfer.

 

[435090]

It's not that they can't. It's that the majority of consumers don't care, so the additional cost of making a CD audiophile quality, regardless of how marginal the additional cost is, doesn't justify spending extra for limited amounts. Audiophiles are known for being hard to please, why would someone trying to bring something to mass market give a toss about satisfying the audiophile when 99.9% of people don't even notice a difference?

 

[Elgrindio]

I would like to be able to identify this effect more easily. Is there a way for my to simulate this on my computer. That is, can I use an audio editing program to change a good dynamic recording into a "loudness wars" recording, maybe even exaggerating the effect to recognize it? Thanks for any tips!

 

[domsch1988]

Worst example in recent times i've heard is Ed Sheerans Divide. Great recording smashed to pieces by compression (up to digital artifacts in the recording). Just unlistenable.
Since I've got my wave form going in foobar, the amount of songs just beeing a solid bar from start to finish is staggering. It feels like Bands have lost the skills of trading space and leaving room. And Studios/Recording Engineers/Mastering Professionals just take the constant stream of 110% full power and make it 120% all the time...
But who can fault them for doing so? As we all know, "louder" music sounds "better" because of the way we percieve EQ. Since 99.9% of people listen to music on the crappiest gear one can think of (phones loudspeakers, car stereos, Alexa/Google Home and 10$ BT Speakers/Headphones) and don't care for soundquality, louder songs actually sound "better" to them. Doing a well produced, dynamic song would be quite unengaging in these setups, plus most people have their volume set for maximum compression. A dynamic track would sound to low on the radio or spotify or so.

I would like to be able to identify this effect more easily. Is there a way for my to simulate this on my computer. That is, can I use an audio editing program to change a good dynamic recording into a "loudness wars" recording, maybe even exaggerating the effect to recognize it? Thanks for any tips!

Rather easy. Take a song, put it in a DAW and throw what ever Compressor comes with your DAW on the Track. Crank all the knobs you can find to 11 and there you go, modern pop music production

(Just to be sure, i recognize that there are great technicians and bands producing great music, musically and production wise, these days. Not everything is lost. And higher end headphones get more mainstream thanks to beats and the likes. But the amount of unlistenable productions certainly went up over the years)

 

[JWolf]

What currently recorded pop/rock is actually dynamic? Do any of the mainstream record companies produce any recordings like this or are they all loudness wars victims?