[TheSonicTruth]

why is frequency response always exactly half of sample rate? and how come when
i lower the sample rate (which therefore lowers the frequency responseto half)
it also lowers the bitrate? is any bitrate WITHIN the remaining part being lost, or
just the discarded part?

Study up on Shannon-Nyquist theorem. Digital Audio 099(not even 101!)

 

[71 dB]

Study up on Shannon-Nyquist theorem. Digital Audio 099(not even 101!)

A lot of people don't have the attention span or intellectual capacity to study Shannon-Nyquist theorem. Those people are almost doomed to layman's logic where more is better: 24 bit is better than 16 bit and 96 kHz sampling frequency is better than 48 kHz sampling frequency and so on… …that is unless someone who actually understands Shannon-Nyquist theorem can explain it in simplified form using layman's terms.

 

[old tech]

A lot of people don't have the attention span or intellectual capacity to study Shannon-Nyquist theorem. Those people are almost doomed to layman's logic where more is better: 24 bit is better than 16 bit and 96 kHz sampling frequency is better than 48 kHz sampling frequency and so on… …that is unless someone who actually understands Shannon-Nyquist theorem can explain it in simplified form using layman's terms.

Most people can follow this explanation.
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[OmniscientNihilist]

mastering is more important then resolution level

i would rather sites like hdtracks focus more on mastering and dynamic range then high res.

be nice if they were pushing the companies to do higher dynamic range mastering.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

mastering is more important then resolution level

i would rather sites like hdtracks focus more on mastering and dynamic range then high res.

be nice if they were pushing the companies to do higher dynamic range mastering.

Or, to do less dynamic range reduction and makeup gain in mastering.

 

[bigshot]

I realized something today. 20 kHz and above is technically called "ultrasound". I think it might be helpful to start using the actual term instead of 30kHz etc. It would probably be clearer to people when asked: "Are you saying you can hear ultrasound?" than "no one can hear 30kHz." etc.

"super audible frequencies" sounds like a superhero! It doesn't matter that frequencies above 15kHz are pretty much irrelevant.

 

[gregorio]

be nice if they were pushing the companies to do higher dynamic range mastering.

"Nice" for whom, a tiny number of audiophiles who falsely believe that no dynamic range reduction must always be better or, nice for everyone else? I'm certainly not condoning the hugely over-compressed content (that is the result of the loudness war) just pointing out that some amount of compression is nearly always beneficial (and therefore nearly always applied) and that in practice it's very difficult to define "over" compressed. This is because what maybe an entirely reasonable amount of compression for one song, genre or playback scenario may be completely inappropriate for another.

G

 

[TheSonicTruth]

"Nice" for whom, a tiny number of audiophiles who falsely believe that no dynamic
range reduction must always be better or, nice for everyone else? I'm certainly not
condoning the hugely over-compressed content (that is the result of the loudness war)
just pointing out that some amount of compression is nearly always beneficial (and
therefore nearly always applied) and that in practice it's very difficult to define "over"
compressed. This is because what maybe an entirely reasonable amount of compression
for one song, genre or playback scenario may be completely inappropriate for another.

G

I for one am not that extreme: I see reasonable amounts of DRC as the glue, along with good EQ carving technique, that pulls a (good)mix together.

However, as you stated, apples-to-apples, and oranges-to-oranges, it should be obvious, just by listening, that music from the same genre, IE: pop, from the 2010s, has had more DRC and other processing applied to it than equivalent pop from the 1980s. DAWing both tracks just confirms it.

Secondly, and since I recently have read this from like minds who feel the same way, I see zero reason, despite what you and bigshot might try to sell us, for applying DRC and/or limiting, during reissue/remastering, on top of what was applied already when the legacy album or song was first released decades ago.

 

[OmniscientNihilist]

DR15 was the norm in the 80's

DR5 is the norm now

there are a thousand older bands whose sales dropped around 1995 right when the brickwalling started

alot of popular music now doesnt even use drums. Like pop, hip hop, electronic, etc... whats the point when u cant feel the drums anymore anyway

without drums and dynamic range the vocals stand out more. no wonder there is such a huge rise in the use of autotune.

the human brain is so adaptable it can adapt around anything. remove the drums and add more electronic sounds that cant be brickwalled.

synthwave has managed to bring back the 80's feel despite being brickwalled

 

[bigshot]

I'd like to see the BIS label use more compression. Some of their recordings are unnecessarily broad in dynamic range and hard to listen to.

 

[71 dB]

1 --- DR15 was the norm in the 80's. DR5 is the norm now

2 --- no wonder there is such a huge rise in the use of autotune.

3 --- synthwave has managed to bring back the 80's feel despite being brickwalled

1 --- Yes, but 80's music was created for DR15 while today's music is created for DR5. Today's pop music uses the limited dynamic range skilfully so that it doesn't sound as flat as a 80's track sounds compressed to DR5. So, for modern pop DR5 is not a problem at all, but for older music which is designed to have larger dynamic range DR5 certainly is a problem.

2 --- Autotune is a tool just as guitar distortion, delay effect or compressor. Autotune is used for two purposes: To finetune/fix the singer's performance and to create a sound effect. You are not supposed to notice the first one, but you are certainly supposed to hear the latter one. The latter purpose was very popular in pop music about a decade ago and is used less these days.

3 --- Is that a surprise when synthwave is inspired by the 80's sound? Again, if your sound design is based on small dynamic range DR5 is not an issue.

 

[OmniscientNihilist]

1 --- Yes, but 80's music was created for DR15 while today's music is created for DR5. Today's pop music uses the limited dynamic range skilfully so that it doesn't sound as flat as a 80's track sounds compressed to DR5. So, for modern pop DR5 is not a problem at all, but for older music which is designed to have larger dynamic range DR5 certainly is a problem.

2 --- Autotune is a tool just as guitar distortion, delay effect or compressor. Autotune is used for two purposes: To finetune/fix the singer's performance and to create a sound effect. You are not supposed to notice the first one, but you are certainly supposed to hear the latter one. The latter purpose was very popular in pop music about a decade ago and is used less these days.

3 --- Is that a surprise when synthwave is inspired by the 80's sound? Again, if your sound design is based on small dynamic range DR5 is not an issue.

my whole point is that the artists have had to adapt AROUND the brickwalling

because louder creates a temporary illusion that its better

perhaps its because they are all going deaf haha

if wave compression wasnt done to increase loudness then the music would not be brickwalled. it would be flatter but not brickwalled. but 95% of the time it is brickwalled. which shows they are just trying to increase loudness.

top track picture is what audio would look like if wave compression was not done just to increase loudness

bottom is what it almost always looks like. proof they are doing it just to increase loudness

compressing the wave the less the speaker moves. the more you can hear the sound in your head but less in the body. creates more of a head banger effect, over a 'i feel like dancing' effect

the music looses its 'spirit'

 

[bigshot]

Your illustrations look like normalizing levels with the same degree of compression. Turning the volume up and down would accomplish the same thing. It's very hard to judge compression just by looking at waveforms. There are a lot of different kinds of compression and they look different in waveform view. The best way to judge is by listening to how the compression is applied. Almost all commercial music is compressed to some degree. It's just a tool that can be used well and can be used poorly. Pop music is where hot mastering is a problem. It isn't much of a problem in other genres.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

I'd like to see the BIS label use more compression. Some of their recordings
are unnecessarily broad in dynamic range and hard to listen to.

I would expect such a statement from you.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I for one am not that extreme: I see reasonable amounts of DRC as the glue, along with good EQ carving technique, that pulls a (good)mix together.
[2] However, as you stated, apples-to-apples, and oranges-to-oranges, it should be obvious, just by listening, that music from the same genre, IE: pop, from the 2010s, has had more DRC and other processing applied to it than equivalent pop from the 1980s. DAWing both tracks just confirms it.
[3] Secondly, and since I recently have read this from like minds who feel the same way, I see zero reason, despite what you and bigshot might try to sell us, for applying DRC and/or limiting, during reissue/remastering, on top of what was applied already when the legacy album or song was first released decades ago.

1. People who are extreme rarely realise they're extreme. They tend to think they're normal because on one side there are ultra-extremists (people even more extreme than they are) and on the other side is everyone else, who're just wrong/misinformed.

2. Huh? You speak about "apple to apples" and "oranges to oranges" but then go off with an "apples to oranges" comparison! Pop music from the mid 1990's onwards does NOT have an equivalent to pop music from the 1980's. There was no popular: Rap, NuMetal, EDM, Hip-hop, Drum and Bass, new R&B, etc., in the 1980's, it either just didn't exist yet or was underground and in it's "infancy". Your "same genre" assertion is False! Modern popular music genres do have more compression/limiting because they're specifically designed to have more!

3. What bigshot and I have "tried to sell" is the facts, while what you're trying to sell is your personal (and other "like minded" extremists') preferences! Also, is it really true that you "see zero reason"? How's that possible when reasons have been given and explained to you repeatedly? So what you really mean is that you've decided to deliberately ignore the reasons because they contradict your personal preferences/opinions/agenda!

Are you really going to go through all this from the beginning yet again?

[1] DR15 was the norm in the 80's ... DR5 is the norm now
[2] there are a thousand older bands whose sales dropped around 1995 right when the brickwalling started
[3] alot of popular music now doesnt even use drums. Like pop, hip hop, electronic, etc... whats the point when u cant feel the drums anymore anyway
[4] without drums and dynamic range the vocals stand out more. [4a] no wonder there is such a huge rise in the use of autotune.
[5] ... remove the drums and add more electronic sounds that cant be brickwalled. ... synthwave has managed to bring back the 80's feel despite being brickwalled

1. That's an over exaggeration and also, the DR figures relate to crest factor more than dynamic range, although there's not doubt that popular music is louder now than it was in the 1980's.

2. There's always "a thousand older bands whose sales dropped", especially during periods when new genres/sub-genres arise and become mainstream. What evidence do you have that it was specifically because of "brickwalling" rather than because of the emergence of new genres or some other reason?

3. Again, I don't see the correlation. Sure, a lot of today's popular music genres like hip-hop, electronic, etc., don't use drums, they use drum samples or synth drums but that started in the 1970's and by the 1980's mainstream pop was absolutely packed with drum machines rather than actual drums. Additionally, even actual/real drums were generally so heavily processed even by the 1970's, that they barely sounded like real drums anyway.

4. No, actually the opposite is typically true! Although it's generally not that simple because it's also about arrangement/orchestration and conflicting frequency ranges.
4a. Again, that's a false correlation. There were many reasons for "such a huge rise in the use of autotune" and compression/limiting was just about the least among them! For starters, autotune was far cheaper, far more precise and generally far quicker than the alternatives, for example, doing say a 30 takes and trying to manually edit together a single in tune version.

5. I don't understand what you're trying to say. Firstly, electronic sounds can be brickwalled, why do you think they can't? Secondly, as synthwave brings back the 80's feel by using electronic sounds on their own (and to replace drums), exactly as 80's music did, then how can it be "despite being brickwalled" if electronic sounds can't be brickwalled? Your two sentences seem to completely contradict each other.

[1] my whole point is that the artists have had to adapt AROUND the brickwalling
[2] if wave compression wasnt done to increase loudness then the music would not be brickwalled. it would be flatter but not brickwalled. but 95% of the time it is brickwalled. which shows they are just trying to increase loudness.
[3] top track picture is what audio would look like if wave compression was not done just to increase loudness, bottom is what it almost always looks like. proof they are doing it just to increase loudness
[4] compressing the wave the less the speaker moves. the more you can hear the sound in your head but less in the body. creates more of a head banger effect, over a 'i feel like dancing' effect ... the music looses its 'spirit'

1. No, it's the other way around. As has always been the case with pop music from about the 1960's onwards, the technology is created and then artists experiment and find out how to take advantage of/abuse it. This was the case even with vintage analogue compressors/limiters back in the late 70's/80's, why shouldn't current artists be allowed to do the same with today's technology?

2. I don't understand how that's a bad thing if the track has been designed/constructed to be made louder/brickwalled? If you constructed a track to be heavily limited/brickwalled but then didn't heavily limit/brickwall it, it would sound terrible, maybe even unlistenable!

3. Sorry but that's not proof! Those two pictures are both graphical representations of sample data, so firstly they do not show inter-sample peaks, secondly it could just be a different zoom setting (you can make pretty much any recording look like it's brickwalled simply by zoom out, even one without any compression at all!) or thirdly, as bigshot pointed out, it could be the same zoom setting but a different normalisation level.

4. Again, I don't see the correlation. EDM genres are typically one of the most compressed genres out there but at a big EDM gig you'd have to be dead not to hear/feel it in your body. I was at an EDM gig fairly recently where not only could I feel it but the speakers were moving so much air that my jeans were flapping! And, if it doesn't make you feel like dancing, why is it called Electronic DANCE Music?

G