1a. You stated that your opinion is based on your personal experience and what you've read on consumer forums. As that's exactly what most misinformed audiophile opinion is based on, how is your opinion any different?
1b. No, we don't know for sure what was done between the mastering and the playback/re-recording but we do know for sure what wasn't done. We know for sure that the compression/limiting applied to the digital recording is the same as to the vinyl version because it's the exact same master (and compression/limiting cannot be "undone")! Yes, it would be interesting to measure it with ClippingAnalyser, although I expect a similar result to the DR meter.
2. Then we have a problem, neither is usable as one is apparently "unwieldy" and the other inaccurate and misleading.
4b. If you know how instruments sound for real then surely it should be quite easy to tell the difference between real instruments and real instruments which have been heavily compressed?
4b1. I didn't define it because it could mean a number of different things and additionally, they're all pretty much relative. For example, 6dB of compression could be "heavy" compression on some material, while on other material it might be virtually inaudible. It all depends on what material you have to start with and what you want it to sound like when you're finished, a fact you seem intent on eliminating from your understanding of the issue.
4c. Again, this comes back to the same answer as 4b and 4b1. I'm evading an accurate/precise reproducible definition because the truth of the matter is that there is not and can not be one. However, you apparently do not believe and/or cannot understand this truth and you therefore just keep asking and asserting the same thing over and over again, regardless of what information you're provided with!
4d. Again, you clearly haven't read or understood what has already be posted! Your question is nonsense, so I'll try one last time using a fictional but typical example: Let's say we've recorded a drumkit (kick, snare, hihat and toms), a vocal, a bass and a lead guitar. The kick will be compressed by some amount, let's say 8dB (although it might be much more with some genres), the snare compressed by say 4dB, the toms by say 6dB and the Hihats by 2dB. All these (already compressed) instruments will then be routed through a drumkit sub-group, which has another compressor (and/or limiter) with somewhat different parameters and let's say adds another 5dB of compression. What parameters and amount of compression could I suggest you apply if all you had was the drumkit mix and could not unmix it? Of course though, that's just the start. The guitars are plugged into guitar amps and speakers, both of which deliberately add massive distortion (inc. over-compression), both of which have significantly different (and non-linear) parameters and both of which are significantly different for each of the guitars (bass and lead) and, this is before we even record them! Once we've recorded them, then more compression will be added during mixing, a quite different compressor to the compression added prior to recording and a compressor likely to have quite different parameters to the ones used on the drumkit. Then we have the vocal, which may have been recorded with a type of compression (vocalist moving closer and further from the mic for example) and then more compression added during mixing, around 6dB would be common and again, probably quite different parameters to any of the other compressors employed on any of the other instruments and sub-groups. Furthermore, any of the parameters (inc. the overall amount of compression) of any of the compressors/limiters on any of the instruments may well change throughout the piece (say between verses and choruses for example). How is your compressor going to emulate all these different amounts and parameters of compression at the same time? How is it going to apply say 13dB of compression to the kick but only 6dB to the vocal without "unmixing" the mix (separating the vocal from the kick)? What (desirable) non-linear distortion/compression was caused by the guitar amps/cabs and how can your (or any) compressor emulate that? Even if all the parameters of all the compressors/limiters were known throughout the piece, how could I provide you with a single set of parameters/settings which could even vaguely emulate all of this? Surely you must see that your question is nonsense and that it could only be asked by someone ignorant of the recording and mixing processes?
5b. On the contrary, I do like figures and measurements. There's only one thing I dislike more than no figures and measurements and that's figures and measurements which are incorrect and misleading, those types of figures and measurements I hate with vengeance! And that's what we've got here, a measurement of 0% compression which doesn't mean 0% compression, which in fact doesn't give any reliable measurement of the percentage of applied compression at all. A measurement of say 10% compression, could in fact be no compression at all or it could be quite a lot, it's clearly inaccurate and highly misleading!
5b1. What example would you like me to upload? Maybe an electric guitar before it's been recorded or even plugged into an amp/cab, how am I going to upload something before it's been played and recorded? How about a recording of the vocalist with their head in a clamp? Maybe you'd like an "unmixed" mix? Even if what you wanted were possible (which obviously it isn't!), still I couldn't give it to you, it's not my material to distribute.
5c. Yes, I do finally get the point now, but to be honest I got the point quite some time ago and that point is: You have little/no idea what the recording, mixing and mastering processes actually are or what, how and when compression and limiting are applied.
5c1. No, you are not reading or not understanding what's been posted! I can determine loudness quite accurately, both subjectively and with measurement tools. I can also determine the amount of compression which has been added but only subjectively and only very vaguely. However, I can calculate the amount of compression I need to add to a particular mix during mastering in order to match a required level of loudness. The amount (and other parameters) of compression/limiting I actually apply in mastering is entirely determined by ALL of the following: 1. The amount of compression/limiting appropriate for the genre, 2. The amount of compression/limiting already applied during mixing and 3. The loudness (and other sonic characteristics) required by the client. - Because of these factors, +1dB of compression/limiting during mastering could be "inappropriate over-compression" while in another case +12dB might also be "inappropriate" but because it's not enough!
5d. And I gave you an example (in the previously linked video), "where measures and visuals (incl. the waveform) clearly show differences between more or less compressed/limited/clippped tracks" but where we know for certain that the amounts of compression/limiting are in fact identical. So no, I obviously "don't think so" and neither would any other rational mind!
6. And in some cases there are higher DR values in the most recent years, which is the exact opposite of what you've stated. However, I agree that overall there is "no clear tendency in DR", but this fact contradicts your repeated assertion, as there would be an obvious tendency towards significantly lower DR if classical music recordings were subject to the loudness war! You've got no practical knowledge/experience of how classical music is recorded, mixed or mastered and the only indicator we have (the DR Database) contradicts your belief and yet you keep asserting and defending that unsupported belief, even in the face of someone who has considerable professional experience of classical music recording. How is this any different to the audiophile who keeps asserting and defending an audiophile myth?
9c. I've no idea what you're trying to say here. A genre is defined by a "herd", without a herd there is no genre, just a single piece of music which is unlike any other. A music "genre" is a significant number of pieces by a number of different composers/creators which have a number of specific traits in common.
10a1. What I think is irrelevant, what's relevant is what my clients (artists, labels, etc.) think. What they "think", I do, or I attempt to do depending on the mix I've been given to master.
10a2. No! Most likely you are listening to "good sound quality" but on inappropriate equipment and/or listening circumstances. Bigshot's post #166 explains that. What about his post did you not understand?
10b. Agreed! In my defence though, what could I have written which would convince someone who clearly has erroneous, strongly held beliefs and refuses to accept the actual facts or be convinced?
10c. There's always an alternative. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you buy a recording.
10c1. You have some evidence to back up that assertion do you? Again, clearly some genres depend on loudness. You've never answered the question of what we would be left with if we removed loudness/heavy compression/distortion from heavy metal. You are making a simple assertion which does NOT fit the actual facts and you get round that problem by simply ignoring those facts!
10c2. Firstly, how do you know what reaction there is in the industry, you're not privy to the industry? And secondly, your characterisation of my reaction is a lie, at least try not to be so ridiculous about it! For example, how can it not be obvious that I don't always react that it "is appropriate", did you not read that I felt the CD version of Death Magnetic was "inappropriate"?
11. Already asked and answered.
11a. That you and a very significant number of other consumers define exactly what you mean by "better sound quality" and that you all will more than cover the cost of it.
G
1. a)
Personal experience and tests, talks with artists (one of them produces himself professionally), several forums, all kind of articles and papers from the internet and from consumer audio journals, TV shows where they produce a song, talks with friends, etc., but no direct discussion with an engineer until this one.
It seems you don't like people who dare to criticize what engineers do to the sound and try to trivialize by calling them misinformed audiophiles.
1. b)
Yes, compression/limiting cannot be "undone" (because we can't reproduce all the steps backwards and parts of the signal may be lost by clipping), but there are tools like
http://www.perfectdeclipper.com/
4.
Thanks for your more detailed explanation. I understand that it's difficult to generalize and simplify a complex work to some exemplary settings.
Often I have the impression there is done rather too much to the signal, where I think the music would benefit from more life and naturalness from less compression/limiting.
4. c)
I fully understand that there is no reproducible definition. In fact that's exactly my opinion and what I wanted to hear from you, because in effect I think it means a genre doesn't dictate a certain well defined amount of compression/limiting. So there is some freedom (for whoever is able to vote or decide about it) and it would be great to use it for transparent, natural and lively sound.
4. d1)
With compression by XdB, do you mean the difference in RMS of the edited part?
4. d2)
I've found a drum kit on an old CD from a magazine, where compression was shown from "uncompressed" to "compressed 1:16" (RMS difference is 0.5 in total, 7dB on some strokes). Now I'd like to apply some of the compression steps you mention on the "uncompressed" track. Let's assume the drum kit was recorded without compression. What could be typical settings (threshold, ratio, etc.)?
I have some additional questions:
4. e)
Here you tell about recording and mixing only. In your 5.c1 the mastering engineer gets the mix and often adds some compression/limiting on it without "unmixing", right? What's your experience here, if you'd try to tell an average over all, e.g. in pop music, how much is added? Maybe you could tell me some typical settings here?
4. f)
Let's assume in 5 years a label boss wants to re-release albums with less loudness than the original release, typically would it be possible (without any tricks like expander or declipper)?
Would it be necessary to do the mix again to get a quite noticeable improvement (e.g. DR6 -> DR12)? If yes, typically are the original recordings stored for a long time (e.g. 20 years)?
5. c)
Well, obviously I'm not a mixing or mastering engineer, but a consumer with some knowledge, who has tried to understand why exactly the sound quality has gotten worse, learned about the loudness war and looked for means to analyze and document it.
5. c1)
On the bottom line it's about personal taste (of the involved people and of what they think would sell) and loudness targets (so we end in the loudness race...).
5. d)
The amount of compression/limiting is identical in the master, not in the tracks. There is analog distortion added to the master on the vinyl track, in a way that DR (RMS) is lowered, flat areas aren't flat anymore. As a result, it sounds different. That's what clearly can be seen on the waveform. So, in this example the waveform alone simply doesn't tell us the reason - does it come from a different master or from what happened afterwards up to the recording from the turntable.
6.
Maybe there are only some outlier and maybe classical is the only big genre with no loudness war. I hope so. Can you say that you haven't heard of anybody who wanted to increase loudness in classical (compared to earlier releases)? Would be calming.
10. a2)
Ah, it's my problem, because to enjoy your good sound quality I'd have to sit in a noisy car and listen via AM radio. Listening at home are inappropriate circumstances, using good headphones is inappropriate equipment. Well, then we really have a very different definition of good sound quality.
To find the music (not genre!!) that is mixed and mastered in a way that is suitable for listening at home or with good equipment then is not only the trick, as bigshot wrote, but a very big, time consuming and nearly unsolvable problem!
And regarding the equipment: when I look at all the people walking around with big headphones, the raise of noise cancelling, the good sound quality of current mobile devices, maybe the target audience isn't that different.
10. b)
The question was, what have you done and could you do personally as an engineer to end the loudness war and set the goal on better sound quality.
You answered you'd attempt to educate clients and potentially consumers.
My answer was, that I can't exactly imagine how you'd do that convincingly regarding what you've written so far.
Meaning, how can you educate to end the loudness war and move towards better sound quality (appropriate to listening at home or with good equipment). So, do your clients have erroneous, strongly held beliefs and refuse to accept the actual facts or be convinced?
I think you don't have to educate me in order to end the loudness war and set the goal on better sound quality, do you?
10. c)
Yes, the alternative is not to pay for affected recordings. (Doesn't mean not to listen to it as long as the musical content outweighs the bad sound quality). Very frustrating.
10. c1)
Besides of the posts here, you may look at
http://productionadvice.co.uk/research-loudness-sales/
10. c2)
It's the reaction I've already heard (myself) and read the most.
Death Magnetic is a really extreme example. Amy Winehouse as well, you wrote that you wouldn't have done it the same, so I guess you agree that it was "inappropriate". When I ask you about Adele (e.g. Skyfall): appropriate or not?
Or let's assume I listened to a record you engineered and thought it's too blurry and distorted, and would tell you that I think there is too much compression/limiting. Wouldn't you argue that there is an appropriate amount?
11.
See above. Yes, I'd be willing to pay for it. But not gold-plate it (because I feel too robbed by the music industry in the past).
And as already proposed, to solve the conflict between sound quality targeted at lowest-cost equipment in very noisy environment vs. good equipment in quieter environments, the consumer could be given the choice between two versions of a piece.
The industry was able to promote high-res formats despite the minimal to non-existent audible differences, so why not promote a high-dynamics version where the differences are quite audible?
