[bigshot]

The Mercury Living Presence 1812 Overture has very low level to accommodate the cannon blasts. They warn you on the cover to not turn the volume up too high or you’ll blow out your woofers

 

[Husky]

2. Huh, you know "Morning Glory" is one of the best selling albums of all time? Are you saying that 22 million people bought an album which they couldn't listen to?

• Was it because or in spite of brick wall mastering?
• I know plenty of people (including me) who are very reluctant to buy music that intentionally sounds bad because of clippings (distortion) and compression. I think the music industry digged it's own grave by forcing loudness
• Studies say that content is important for sales, not loudness (see http://productionadvice.co.uk/research-loudness-sales/)

2. In this case, the guy sitting behind the engineer was Noel Gallagher!

In my personal (little) experience with artists they often aren't very interested in the engineering and sound quality details. They simply want to be market compatible, that is loud. The human ear has better frequency response for higher loudness. If you compare a hypercompressed loud version to a quiet raw version, at first glance, it sounds more impressive, if you don't adjust the playback volume to the same perceived loudness. I guess artists (as well as producers/labels and maybe some engineers) are not aware about the need of adjusting the playback volume, so they often prefer the louder version.

It's not clear what exactly that program it trying to measure or how it's trying to measure it. There is no way of measuring compression and "Brothers in Arms" was actually quite heavily compressed for it's day, certainly way more than 1% (although it's meaningless percentage anyway).

• You can see compression in a waveform, so you can measure it
  
• What the program does
  • Excerpt from the documentation:
    Shows the p-quantil of the normal distribution for the cumulated occurence of sample values in relation to dB values. The less the quantil on the left/right margin, the more likely is clipping. According to an analysis by Frank Klemm, see http://www.dsprelated.com/showmessage/72382/2.php
    Normal distribution (pink noise) gives a diagonal. With clipping the left and right border is already reached at small quantils (red area).
    The percentage is a comparison of the Z value to the normal distribution. The maximum value above -25dB. The higher positive the value, the stronger the compression. 0% equals normal distribution.
  • Note: A square wave would show a 100% compression indicator.
• Can you please give me a source/hint/comparison for your claim about heavy compression in "Brothers in Arms"?
  There is an article with statements from the engineer of the album, Neil Dorfsman, about "Money for Nothing", see https://www.soundonsound.com/people/classic-tracks-dire-straits-money-nothing
  "what we heard was exactly what ended up on the record. There was no additional processing on that tune during the mix."
  "The mix of 'Money For Nothing' was pretty straightforward. I put some reverbs on the intro but I left the tune itself fairly dry, and basically it was just a matter of balancing stuff and adding a little delay or chorus here and there"

They feel safer pointing to charts and diagrams produced by apps that don't exactly define what it is they're measuring. (...) It's a lot easier for me to just listen carefully, analyze what I hear, and come up with an opinion on it.

First I listened, then I analyzed. Long time ago I bought a new CD with great music, but it sounded distorted. I thought the player/headphones was defect or the CD scratched/badly pressed, but it wasn't. Finally I ripped the CD and looked at the waveform. It turned out that the problem was clipping. I was very surprised about this kind of faulty mastering. Who would intentionally clip and ruin sound quality? Then I learned about the loudness war.
Without tools like DR and ClippingAnalyzer I would have to first completely listen to all the music myself and make some notes.
So using such tools is simply easier, more precise, reproducible and the result can be documented e.g. in a database for other people.
My experience is that there is a high correlation between those results and my listening. But of course there are tracks that look worse than they sound or vice versa.

 

[bigshot]

There's an infinite number of ways to make music sound bad, and far less ways of making it sound good. With some genres of music, audio purity isn't a goal. I have been told that The Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication was recorded with burned in clipping deliberately. No amount of remastering is going to fix that. Distortion is deliberate in heavy metal. Compression is used in just about every kind of music, especially vocals. If you want natural, clear sound, there are genres that emphasize that... jazz and classical in particular. But I wouldn't wait for an SACD of distortion free Sex Pistols or broad dynamics in current pop music, because that just isn't part of those genres.

The best way to become knowledgeable about the various aspects of different remasterings is to listen carefully to the various releases of the albums you are interested in. Some of the remasters are huge improvements. Some are horrible disasters. It all depends on the particular album. But the first order of business to get better sound quality is to listen to better recorded music. My advice would be, if you are particularly focused on sound quality, you should work on broadening your musical tastes to encompass genres of music that are more typically well recorded. I'd be happy to recommend albums that sound great if you'd like.

 

[Strangelove424]

It's a good point. People try to pretend that 'all peaks are sacred', but there are realities of hearing such as integration time that allow for wiggle room. The worst offender I've found is the somewhat infamous Hartke disc used in the BAS test. The SACD is mastered at about -35dB RMS, and I swear 20dB of that is just for this one 'ping' on a glockenspiel. Been wanting to set up a blind test on that one for some time to see how much can be taken off the top.

It's not so much that the peaks are sacred as the quietness is. Everything is relative, a -30db lull followed by a -5db peak is the same thing as -25db/0db. Hitting peak is not the problem, but if you raise floor enormously, and spend much of the time hitting peak level, than peak starts to lose its meaning. I think the old school way of looking at peak was as an emotional climax point, with the expectation you were waiting for it. The new way is to keep a harmonic presence going throughout the song. There are going to be relative tastes to this, of course, but more traditional tastes in DR (which include most enthusiasts) should be accounted for. Also keep in mind it is hard to compare DR in remastered Dire Straits/Fleetwood Mac to classical or opera.

 

[bigshot]

That looks to me like it just had a little peak limiting and then the track was normalized up. It might not sound that much different at all. It just looks different because it's able to be normalized more. When you play it back, you just wouldn't have to turn the volume up so much. The overall volume would be the same.

 

[Husky]

the rest of the album has plenty of room to normalize up without affecting the dynamics if you leave that one peak out of the equation.

There is 2dB headroom on the 1985 "Brothers in Arms" CD. Track 5 has 15dB headroom. There is no single peak, there are many. By cutting some, you could gain maybe 1-2 dB.
So, individual tracks could be normalized and made louder, but it would change the relative volume of the tracks that I think was chosen for artistic reasons.
But why would you like to do that at all?

It's a good point. People try to pretend that 'all peaks are sacred', but there are realities of hearing such as integration time that allow for wiggle room. The worst offender I've found is the somewhat infamous Hartke disc used in the BAS test. The SACD is mastered at about -35dB RMS, and I swear 20dB of that is just for this one 'ping' on a glockenspiel. Been wanting to set up a blind test on that one for some time to see how much can be taken off the top.

SACD has 120dB dynamics, so why bother about 20dB?

It's quite nonsense in my view to squeeze the sound to gain e.g. 15dB and then the material doesn't use the full dynamic range of the medium.

 

[Husky]

That looks to me like it just had a little peak limiting and then the track was normalized up. It might not sound that much different at all. It just looks different because it's able to be normalized more. When you play it back, you just wouldn't have to turn the volume up so much. The overall volume would be the same.

What tracks and versions exactly are you referring to?

 

[Glmoneydawg]

There's an infinite number of ways to make music sound bad, and far less ways of making it sound good. With some genres of music, audio purity isn't a goal. I have been told that The Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication was recorded with burned in clipping deliberately. No amount of remastering is going to fix that. Distortion is deliberate in heavy metal. Compression is used in just about every kind of music, especially vocals. If you want natural, clear sound, there are genres that emphasize that... jazz and classical in particular. But I wouldn't wait for an SACD of distortion free Sex Pistols or broad dynamics in current pop music, because that just isn't part of those genres.

The best way to become knowledgeable about the various aspects of different remasterings is to listen carefully to the various releases of the albums you are interested in. Some of the remasters are huge improvements. Some are horrible disasters. It all depends on the particular album. But the first order of business to get better sound quality is to listen to better recorded music. My advice would be, if you are particularly focused on sound quality, you should work on broadening your musical tastes to encompass genres of music that are more typically well recorded. I'd be happy to recommend albums that sound great if you'd like.

Lol...The Pistols wouldn't be the same without distortion...trying to imagine it...nope cant do it!Btw if your listening repetoir goes from The1812 Overture to the Sex Pistols,i have to apologise....much cooler than i gave you credit for.

 

[Husky]

Distortion is deliberate in heavy metal. (...) if you are particularly focused on sound quality, you should work on broadening your musical tastes to encompass genres of music that are more typically well recorded. I'd be happy to recommend albums that sound great if you'd like.

There is a huge difference between distortion of a guitar amplifier (sounds great and is modulated by the artist) and distortion by digital clipping (sounds bad and occurs because of loudness war).
If e.g. a great female voice in pop is distorted by clipping, it has nothing to do with the genre (it isn't clipped live!).
Often the sound on pop/rock vinyl masterings is much better than on CD because it is much less compressed and not hard clipped (otherwise the needle would jump). The genre doesn't mean that the CD has to sound bad!
I listen to all kinds of genres. Why should I have to restrict myself to listen to jazz and classical only in order to have good sound quality? Besides, loudness war arrived in jazz as well some years ago.
The 1985 Dire Straits is a good example for a very successful rock album without hypercompression, without clippings. Or do you think this isn't rock because of that?

 

[Glmoneydawg]

There is 2dB headroom on the 1985 "Brothers in Arms" CD. Track 5 has 15dB headroom. There is no single peak, there are many. By cutting some, you could gain maybe 1-2 dB.
So, individual tracks could be normalized and made louder, but it would change the relative volume of the tracks that I think was chosen for artistic reasons.
But why would you like to do that at all?


SACD has 120dB dynamics, so why bother about 20dB?

It's quite nonsense in my view to squeeze the sound to gain e.g. 15dB and then the material doesn't use the full dynamic range of the medium.

There is a huge difference between distortion of a guitar amplifier (sounds great and is modulated by the artist) and distortion by digital clipping (sounds bad and occurs because of loudness war).
If e.g. a great female voice in pop is distorted by clipping, it has nothing to do with the genre (it isn't clipped live!).
Often the sound on pop/rock vinyl masterings is much better than on CD because it is much less compressed and not hard clipped (otherwise the needle would jump). The genre doesn't mean that the CD has to sound bad!
I listen to all kinds of genres. Why should I have to restrict myself to listen to jazz and classical only in order to have good sound quality? Besides, loudness war arrived in jazz as well some years ago.
The 1985 Dire Straits is a good example for a very successful rock album without hypercompression, without clippings. Or do you think this isn't rock because of that?

Have to agree...the first DS album is right at the top for quality of music,writing musicianship and recording quality..2nd album was pretty good too...after that they became an experiment in frequency response and dynamic range..still some good tunes there,but they lost the plot somewhere.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

There's an infinite number of ways to make music sound bad, and far less ways of making it sound good. With some genres of music, audio purity isn't a goal. I have been told that The Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication was recorded with burned in clipping deliberately. No amount of remastering is going to fix that. Distortion is deliberate in heavy metal. Compression is used in just about every kind of music, especially vocals. If you want natural, clear sound, there are genres that emphasize that... jazz and classical in particular. But I wouldn't wait for an SACD of distortion free Sex Pistols or broad dynamics in current pop music, because that just isn't part of those genres.

The best way to become knowledgeable about the various aspects of different remasterings is to listen carefully to the various releases of the albums you are interested in. Some of the remasters are huge improvements. Some are horrible disasters. It all depends on the particular album. But the first order of business to get better sound quality is to listen to better recorded music. My advice would be, if you are particularly focused on sound quality, you should work on broadening your musical tastes to encompass genres of music that are more typically well recorded. I'd be happy to recommend albums that sound great if you'd like.

Agreed!...if you want to hear the human voice in all its dynamic glory go to a church with 1/2 decent acoustics...1 of the best voices i have ever heard was at a friend's wedding,the singer (unamplified) turned out to be a courier driver that delivered daily to our business..no recording medium can capture that!It probably can be done...but its not in anyone's best interest(except music lovers)

 

[bigshot]

But why would you like to do that at all?

It's quite nonsense in my view to squeeze the sound to gain e.g. 15dB and then the material doesn't use the full dynamic range of the medium.

You'd do it because people might have complained that the quiet song was so quiet at normal listening volume they had to turn the volume up and down while the record was playing. I guarantee you, you wouldn't want to hear music that uses the full dynamic range of the medium. You would either have to listen at deafening volume levels or keep turning the volume up and down as you listened. I don't have the CD, so I don't know. But momentary peaks aren't the same as extended loud and quiet parts.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Was it because or in spite of brick wall mastering?
[2] I know plenty of people (including me) who are very reluctant to buy music that intentionally sounds bad because of clippings (distortion) and compression.
[3] Studies say that content is important for sales, not loudness.
[3a] I guess artists (as well as producers/labels and maybe some engineers) are not aware about the need of adjusting the playback volume, so they often prefer the louder version.
[4] You can see compression in a waveform, so you can measure it
[4a] Can you please give me a source/hint/comparison for your claim about heavy compression in "Brothers in Arms"?

1. No idea and in a sense it doesn't matter. "Morning Glory" was really about the first mainstream album that took mastering over-compression to the next level and it was not only the best selling album of the time but one of the best selling albums in the entire history of music recording. It set a precedent that was difficult for others to ignore.
2. How many do you know; 5, 10, 100, .... 22,000,000? And, "intensionally bad" is silly, insulting and a classic example of the ignorant "black and white" statement I mentioned previously. Massively over-driving/compressing and distorting a guitar is "intentionally bad", punk rock was "intentionally bad" (compared to the highly/finely produced big sellers of the day) and there are countless other examples. In the "black and white" world of audiophilia high fidelity is good, low fidelity is bad but that's complete nonsense as in reality, various forms of distortion/lowered fidelity are ALWAYS employed and there would be no rock and roll or any other popular music genres since the 1950's without it.
3. And I'm sure I could make a study which demonstrates that having 4 wheels and a motor is important for car sales and not whether the dash has a hard or soft plastic feel.
3a. Why do you think compression was invented? Why do you think various forms of replay-gain exist? Why do most regions have TV broadcast loudness normalisation laws/requirements? Why does YouTube loudness normalise? Why do you think cinemas and film mix stages are level calibrated? Again, you're making insulting statements without thinking about or having any real understanding of the issue.
4. No you can't! OK, that's not absolutely true, in theory you could see compression and measure it, IF you had an un-compressed channel/track and then compared it with that same channel after compression (and no other processing). Do you have that/those uncompressed and then compressed (with no other processing) channels? No you don't, no one does!
4a. Apart from my ears and knowledge of mixing and mastering, no. However, there are three points: 1. The quote you supplied was talking about the mixing (of just one of the tracks), NOT the mastering of the album. 2. Up until well into the 2000's the term "processing" effectively meant "external processing" (processing done by units external to the mixing desk) but EQ and compression were analogue and built into all studio mixing desks and therefore typically not referred to as "processing". Today, we don't really have mixing desks any more and EQ and compressors are just plugin processors like any other processors and therefore are now typically included in the term "processing". There's still an exception though, fader changes are still generally not included in the term "processing" even though they are processing. 3. It's inconceivable that no EQ or compression was applied to any of the channels during mixing.

G

 

[Don Hills]

... I have been told that The Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication was recorded with burned in clipping deliberately. ...

Clipped and compressed. That was all deliberate, to give that (at the time) unique sound. What many of the subsequent imitators didn't realise was that the (musical) arrangements were also tailored to work well with the processing.

 

[Husky]

you wouldn't want to hear music that uses the full dynamic range of the medium. You would either have to listen at deafening volume levels or keep turning the volume up and down as you listened.

Do you have a volume knob in a classical or jazz live concert (without PA system)? No. And a big orchestra can have >100 dB.
Of course, in a noisy environment or low-end equipment, the full dynamics can't be used because the quiet parts are drowned out by noise. Then some compression is welcomed. But ideally this should be a choice by the listener.