new CD mastering techniques compress Dynamic range
Mar 26, 2006 at 8:41 AM Post #47 of 71
insomnia sucks
very_evil_smiley.gif
 
Mar 26, 2006 at 2:32 PM Post #50 of 71
Quote:

Do audio DVDs suffer from this pheonomenoa as well?


You folks do realise that all DVDs have the sound track MPEG-4 encoded (compresssion) and is not a .wav like a music CD right ?



.
 
Mar 26, 2006 at 4:03 PM Post #52 of 71
There are available, albums done "direct to disc" where the performer plays, and twenty-five or fifty lathes each cut a single record...not even RIAA crap...just expensive, and when the performer drops his bow against his chair, well...

There were, in the early eighties, "compander" units one could buy that would expand compression back to nearly correct response, if you were careful to adjust them correctly. They really helped with the simple and small amounts of compression applied back then, unless you purposely "overjuiced" them. I wish I had bought one then - I would be using the heck out of it now. I think that tweaks didn't buy them because they were at that time trying for the minimal "handling' of the signal path, and they had trouble adjusting them for each song or album. I know they worked well when adjusted correctly - I auditioned several. But, The PITA factor worked against the average joe. They cost a lot of money, money that could be spent on other upgrades. that's the way most went.

It just got to be too much, Sliding the album out of its rice paper antistatic slipcover (purchased separately), putting them in a disc cleaner of your budget and choice (purchased separately), putting it on the turntable anti-vibration mat (P.S.), turning on the vacuum clamp or placing the clamp on the spindle (P.S.), using a Zerostat to null any residual static charge (P.S.), brushing the stylus, Checking for correct speed, lowering the tonearm to the record surface, lowering the Faraday cover over the turntable, turning up the volume after cautioning the others in the room that they should not be moving around too much (flexing the floor) , etc, etc,.

(Shakes himself out of the reverie)....There are also some fine Master Fidelity Sound Labs, or other boutique remasters done from the original tapes, you just gotta find them. I know that all my "good records" have been wonderful over the years, and intend to keep them till I go to my reward.

While I personally frown on the practice, it is almost understandable when someone has to go to the lengths they do (and there are a few here who even Brag about the practice) to tape performances at concerts. They get a real, atmospheric, non-equalized recording. Probably better in some respects than what is available at your local bits store.

Solution: go to live performances...support the artist as directly as it is possible.
 
Mar 26, 2006 at 4:56 PM Post #54 of 71
Quote:

There are available, albums done "direct to disc" where the performer plays, and twenty-five or fifty lathes each cut a single record...not even RIAA crap...just expensive, and when the performer drops his bow against his chair, well...


Don't get me started man ! This thread title was "CD" mastering or I would have gone off on my main beef with digital for music in general which is that it is NOT what was played by the musician but a Sample of what was played !
No matter what the science says or what the experts spout on about and show their pretty figures to "prove" digital is better no way any human convinces me a sample of a thing is as good as the whole thing ! (why you think they use analog master tapes to make the best CD masters hmmmm ?
tongue.gif
)

Compression ? Hell without it we would have CDs full of square waves from all the peaks going over 0dB and as for the "lie" of 120dB dynamic range,no way.Not even close when you consider you LOSE bits as you get closer to the noise floor and that the only way digital even works for low evel signals is TO PUT FKN NOISE INTO IT INTENTIONALLY to dither the lowest bits so they do not sound like what they actually are-CRAP !

OK.Rant over.I feel better now so back to topic
icon10.gif


Quote:

There were, in the early eighties, "compander" units one could buy that would expand compression back to nearly correct response, if you were careful to adjust them correctly.


companders only truly worked well in a "closed system" such as the dBx compression/expansion devices for recording and that because you can not have an accurate recreation unless you know exactly what the compression ratio used was and this being variable across the board for each individual instrument/vocal the "all or nothing" type of expander would raise not just the parts that were actually compressed but those that were not as well.
That is why you no longer see such devices in the hands of us civilians.We have no clue how to use them correctly mostly and if we did do not have enough information to recreate the original event.

Now a peak unlimiter is a totlly different kettle of fish
wink.gif


Quote:

It just got to be too much, Sliding the album out of its rice paper antistatic slipcover (purchased separately), putting them in a disc cleaner of your budget and choice (purchased separately), putting it on the turntable anti-vibration mat (P.S.), turning on the vacuum clamp or placing the clamp on the spindle (P.S.), using a Zerostat to null any residual static charge (P.S.), brushing the stylus, Checking for correct speed, lowering the tonearm to the record surface, lowering the Faraday cover over the turntable, turning up the volume after cautioning the others in the room that they should not be moving around too much (flexing the floor) , etc, etc,.


You just nailed it.Trouble free cheap music for the masses with zero setup and since everyone got exactly what they asked for,"perfect music forever" that can be played back on any sound system from the worst to the best why cry about it twenty five years later ?
Why blame the recording engineer for doing his job and offering a product that reaches the widest audience ? Anyone here ever actually see what kind of speaker groups CDs are mastered on ? Know that one of the stereo pairs MUST be crap to test the CD for performance to the lowest common denominator ?

I play CDs and in fact buy CDs but to be honest my LP's and 45's kick their a*s up and down the sidewalk all day and all night.It was work and it was not cheap when all aspects of it are added in and the "gotchas" are weighed but if performance is the goal there it is.That and 1/2 inch analog tape at 15 IPS (or hell,even my Cassettes sound better than my CDs if "flesh and blood" added to the bones of the music means anything !)

Quote:

(Shakes himself out of the reverie)....There are also some fine Master Fidelity Sound Labs, or other boutique remasters done from the original tapes, you just gotta find them. I know that all my "good records" have been wonderful over the years, and intend to keep them till I go to my reward.


tender loving care in the process aimed at the music lover and worth every penny....BUT !

From "master tapes" is the key.Maybe we are coming at the whole deal backwards ? Taking what is already great and making it almost as good ?

Quote:

While I personally frown on the practice, it is almost understandable when someone has to go to the lengths they do (and there are a few here who even Brag about the practice) to tape performances at concerts. They get a real, atmospheric, non-equalized recording. Probably better in some respects than what is available at your local bits store


Do a binaural stealth recording if you really want to rock your world and shatter concepts !
No dynamic range to speak of,limited frequency response and everything according to current thoughts on recording DEAD WRONG but will will startle you when played back over headphones.

My personal opinion is there is a lot more going on than just simple compression because even old 70's era rock LPs were compressed heavily yet sound better than the CD version on a good vinyl playback system.Maybe it is they took the heart and soul of music when they "sampled" it ?

Would you be happy sampling dinner tonight or would you maybe still be hungry when they snatched the plate away before you were done eating ?
very_evil_smiley.gif
 
Mar 26, 2006 at 7:22 PM Post #56 of 71
Quote:

You folks do realise that all DVDs have the sound track MPEG-4 encoded (compresssion) and is not a .wav like a music CD right ?


I don't thinks so. I believe some DVDs have PCM audio tracks.
 
Mar 26, 2006 at 9:17 PM Post #58 of 71
I was just listening to Norah Jones' first album. Would have been a good album if the engineer hadn't butchered it. It makes me physically ill that even blue note records would resort to squashing their albums for the sake of radio play. Won em a boatload of grammy's, though. The amount of clipping in "Don't Know Why" makes me think that everyone involved in the production of the album must have tin ears. Maybe they only listened to it on their car stereos.
 
Mar 27, 2006 at 10:31 AM Post #59 of 71
Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42
No it actually does not.Both extremes are bad for music reproduction in the home


One is easy to deal with, both in software and hardware. One isn't.

Quote:

every recording ever made has "messing" unless it was one of the original Edison Wax cylinders and there the dynamic range was limited by the piuckup device anyway so natural compression !


Oh, please. That's hair-splitting. You should know very well I meant lots of range compression, screwy EQ, etc..

Quote:

Because it COSTS to add a compressor and if these buget minded persons with crappy systems could afford a good compressor why not then a good system instead ?


Why does one need a good compressor? I use one that was under $10 brand new retail, for movies with too much range to be comfy. If put in the devices themselves, I would find it hard to believe it would be more than a few grand of R&D, and 0 to the actual unit production cost. Almost nothing that does audio or video sold to most people within the last 15 years (maybe longer) has failed to have a DSP in it with some kind of cheesy effects.

Quote:

We can have our cake and eat it too.it is called audiophile versions of the mass market crap and if you want a quality system you need to pay the price just as if you want quality music you need to pay a premium over and above the standard fare.


If that existed for everything made, and did not end up costing as much as the system to play it on, sure. Does it? Can you* take something that didn't range range from the very early stages, and add it back in? (anyway, AFAIK: no, maybe, no)

Quote:

WE are nothing compared to the sheer numbers of music consumers who have low standards for playback gear and it is us,the minority who need to adjust to the reality of economics whether we are happy about it or not


Forget quality of gear. It's as bad coming from a TV's integrated speakers, or the average stock car stereo, as it is anything else.

If it was done right once, then it could be mangled later, and not be a problem. No matter the technology, there is distorted and missing information. At this point, we are unable to fully replicate what was played back. With current technology, the audio signal from some microphones is all we've got. It aught to be made decent to listen to.

* a consumer, without a super powerful computer, since it may be possible in theory, and maybe even practice
 
Mar 27, 2006 at 2:22 PM Post #60 of 71
Quote:

Are there any good threads with recommendations for particularly good sounding/less compressed music regardless of genre or artist? If not maybe we can start a thread.


Go to the Steve Hoffman forums: www.stevehoffman.tv. Just do searches on your favorite artists/slbums and you'll get good (though rarely agreeing) recommendations about which CD version to look for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top