• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Are we getting the emphasis wrong?

Wes

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
3,843
Likes
3,788
How would you measure compression artifacts without the original recording as a reference?

just compare the different releases and see if some are suspicious


and BTW, McD's has good frites
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
Wow, Dusty Hill gone.

Looks like I'll be having a few drinks and a loud tribute night tonight.
ME TOO, Thank God It's Friday!
Oh wait, I'm retired and the day doesn't matter.
Ah whatever, I'm rolling one up and popping the top now. :cool:
 

virtua

Active Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Messages
108
Likes
153
It is a good thing that "normalization" by the streaming services put some limits on the worst brick walling practices but if you read down in the comments it appears the goal is still "be the loudest possible to stand out" and now they are "gaming" the normalization algorithms. The problem is these "normalization" algorithms are becoming a source of changed/ degraded sound quality themselves. I was doing some ABX of CD vs lossless streaming of some older dynamic recordings which I am fairly certain are the same mastering's and was surprised I could actually ABX some of them. As mentioned by others if new music is compressed on purpose great, but compressing older music to a modern "standard" is where I have a problem. To me these "normalization" algorithms make all music, even from different eras and different mastering styles, sound the same. If we are trying to encourage people to appreciate more dynamic mastering styles but they can't hear any difference on the streaming services I don't think we will get anywhere.

I think you have the wrong idea, compression is not being used for normalisation the vast majority of the time. The only thing that changes is the gain at which a song plays at. Your older more dynamic songs will be volume adjusted upwards so that they meet loudness targets whilst preserving their original transients (in spotifys case, they preserve 1db of headroom to avoid encoding artifacts) More brickwalled songs will be lowered in volume. What happens is your dynamic music will have peaks closer to 0dbFS while the more compressed music will have peaks nowhere near that level. The only thing people are going to get from brickwalling their songs now is their songs being turned down so perceptually they are at roughly the same level as more dynamic recordings.

In Spotifys documentation for example they have explained that they will only increase the gain of more dynamic music to the point where the original transients are hitting -1db, as to avoid encoding artifacts, even if that doesn't mean they are reaching -14 LUFS. So yes, anything that was originally that was above or targetting -14 LUFS is likely perceptually louder still, but your highly dynamic music is in no way losing its original integrity.

Essentially the music always retains the integrity of its original master, only that more compressed music will be played back at lower levels than more dynamic music - which could possibly have its levels increased, but only as long as the original quality of the master is preserved. Stylistically the mastering engineers should always do what the program material calls for aesthetically, however - now for older or more dynamic recordings, the playing field has been leveled somewhat.
 

Attachments

  • Spotify Loudness.png
    Spotify Loudness.png
    581.3 KB · Views: 73
Last edited:

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,554
Likes
1,701
Location
California
But aren't they themselves far from "neutral", whatever that means. Isn't this the unbreakable circle jerk of confusion?

If you want to break the great circle that you have so eloquently described, the first thing that needs to happen is the recording monitors are standardized.
 

Frgirard

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
1,737
Likes
1,040
If you want to break the great circle that you have so eloquently described, the first thing that needs to happen is the recording monitors are standardized.

Yes everything must be the same. One tone. One word. One sound: Death to diversity
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
I think the OP has been valid for many years. The electronic part of audio was commoditised years ago to the point that the dedicated audio source is now a small niche as almost any computer or device can be a hi-fi source. Manufacturers and audiophiles have tried to build a mystique around DACs and to impart the same sort of culture that we had with analogue audio when in reality DACs reached technological maturity decades ago and are probably the cheapest and easiest part of the whole chain in terms of providing a transparent product. Amplifiers aren't as cheap but again have provided transparent amplification for modest cost for years. The market is now almost all wireless speakers and/or headphones with the idea of a traditional audio system a micro-niche and despite what some audiophiles say these speakers and headphones are very good. I know Bluesound have a bad rap in the thread about their node but their speakers are very good and very user friendly. We have some Sonos speakers and a Samsung soundbar and for what they are they are excellent. Good sound has never been so accessible and really has been commoditised. However at the same time the quality of recordings has been in free fall with over use of compression and in some cases just bad recording. Most of the music I listen to is classical which has been spared the worst excesses of it all. Some use of compression is fine, it's easy to venerate the widest possible dynamic range but if you are familiar with orchestral music and even some solo acoustic instruments then sympathetic use of compression can be very positive. Think part of it is a response to the market and the fact that most people listen to music in their cars or with small BT speakers but want room filling sound.
So yes, I do think that the real key to audio quality is in the material being played, which is nothing new as it was a point made pretty forcefully by Peter Aczel many years ago. Record labels and streaming services are trying to push high Res when the issue is not the bit depth and rate, a well recorded album sounds great in even less than high quality MP3.
 
OP
Yorkshire Mouth

Yorkshire Mouth

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2020
Messages
1,254
Likes
1,154
Location
God's County - Yorkshire
Just a couple of points.

Firstly, you sometimes find on Amazon streaming that, when a title is reissued, they don’t delete the old one, so it’s still there to check and compare.

I’ll tell you a story. I’m a big fan of ‘80s band The Alarm. When their first LP Declaration appeared in ‘84 there was a track called Tell Me, with a quiet acoustic intro, followed by a massive ‘clang’. A couple of years later a CD followed, complete with clang.

In 2000 it was reissued on CD, and loudness wars had reduced the clang substantially.

Last year it was reissued again on both vinyl and CD. The CD has the same dynamically compressed version, and whilst I don’t have the vinyl, I’m told that’s the same.

I no longer have the original vinyl, but I believe hi-res vinyl rips are out there, if anyone wants to check.
 

Jim Matthews

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 25, 2021
Messages
1,051
Likes
1,286
Location
Taxachusetts
The biggest problem is with the mastering.

No, the speakers/room is a bigger problem usually.

The reproduction step that has the highest noise floor, compression or frequency response aberration dominates the playback.

If gating happens within the source material, all subsequent steps start with this limitation.

I have a SWAG regarding this : only recently has gear of sufficient sensitivity been available at reasonable cost. Many of us are just now hearing janky recordings.

Before this, we *filled in the gaps*, ourselves.

 

digitalfrost

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
1,521
Likes
3,086
Location
Palatinate, Germany
Just learn to remaster stuff yourself. While you can't undo loudness compression, you can rescue albums that you like. The tools are not expensive, or might even be free, and it's fun.

And yeah I agree with OP. When the software is garbage, good hardware can't rescue it/doesn't matter.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,755
Likes
16,200
The highly respected @Floyd Toole sees currently the recordings as the biggest problem since loudspeakers have improved significantly over the years, here is his view on the subject:

At the present time, loudspeakers are not the weakest link, it is the recording industry that operates with no scientifically supported technical standards, and which is significantly populated by recording engineers with degraded hearing. Most professional installations and a significant fraction of consumer installations are manipulated by "room EQ" - claiming impossible deliverables from unknown loudspeakers in unknown rooms.
Such EQ is an important component in taming small room resonances at low frequencies for a single listener, but beyond that these are simply subjectively judged tone control operations. Often they attempt "corrections" at middle and high frequencies that are not problems for two ears and a brain, resulting in degraded sound from will designed loudspeaker.s. Tone controls are useful tools to compensate for "circle of confusion" issues, and to cater to individual taste preferences - that can change with time and program.

Finally, let us not ignore the profound limitations of two-channels in delivering anything resembling a live unamplified listening experience. Thoughts of "realism" or "accuracy" from stereo are themselves misguided. This is 2019; it is time to move on. That is a worthwhile objective.

index.php


Let's get real. My contributions to this discussion have most often been recitations of portions of my papers and book, meaning that important information is already in print, and obviously not read or understood by some of the parties to this discussion. I attach the last diagram from the 3rd edition of my book.

Source: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...for-discourse-on-asr.8212/page-15#post-210659
 

HiFidFan

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
723
Likes
906
Location
U.S.A
If you want to break the great circle that you have so eloquently described, the first thing that needs to happen is the recording monitors are standardized.

Can we standardize the engineer's hearing, and/or preferences?
 

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,348
Likes
3,462
Location
San Diego
but your highly dynamic music is in no way losing its original integrity.

That would be nice but I am not sure that is how it is working on all the streaming services. If they all did what Spotify says they are doing there would still be large loudness differences between tracks which the streaming services want to avoid. Adding compression to dynamic tracks in addition to reducing the gain on the louder tracks would make sense. I have seen examples of what appear to me to be added compression on dynamic tracks on Qobuz but I can't really "prove" it as I don't really know what their source is. Not much I can do about it any way except buy original CD's of older music. Hopefully this will work out some how besides all music new and old being mastered / re-mastered to sound the same.
 

khrisr

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2021
Messages
32
Likes
16
No, McDonalds doesn't serve up better food because it doesn't want to. It's objective is not to serve great food. It's objective is to serve fast food cheaply to as many people as possible. Attaining that objective is why they have robotics and unskilled employees (among other things). While their food tastes poor to a skilled gourmet, kids beg for it, and drag their families there. Why? Because the food is sweet, salty, and savory, which excites the untrained taste buds. McDonalds is perfectly happy if no skilled gourmet ever enters the establishment, because there are too few of them to attain their objectives in any case. But I'm quite sure that if McDonalds decided to serve food that a trained gourmet might like, it could do so, even with automation and unskilled workers.

And that's why much pop music is over-autotuned, over-processed, too loud, too bland, too formulaic, and too much about showing skin in a video.

I guess I should have said “McDonalds cannot serve up better food even if it wants to”. But you bring up a great point about untrained taste buds getting overloaded with fried salty food. That was primarily my diet at one point in time and similarly with music choices … but I’m a tinkerer so over time I improved in both aspects.

Thinking about to OP question again I’m not sure we need to do anything about mastering necessarily. Over time isn’t mastering actually getting better? When I search for music I see recording quality gets progressively worse as I go back in the decades and by the 50s it’s mostly (to me) hard to listen to except for the odd “Kind of Blue” by Miles Davis. With contemporary music I can find well recorded music (usually jazz) without trying hard.

Wouldn’t infinite choice with streaming + way better and affordable audio equipment over time train the hearing taste buds and gradually improve recording quality?
 

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,554
Likes
1,701
Location
California
No, that's not the right characterization, it seems to me. McDonalds didn't serve up better food even before they used automation. But one thing about the automation--any given product from one McDonalds will taste nearly identical to the same product from a McDonalds on the other side of the planet. For better or worse.

No, McDonalds doesn't serve up better food because it doesn't want to. It's objective is not to serve great food. It's objective is to serve fast food cheaply to as many people as possible. Attaining that objective is why they have robotics and unskilled employees (among other things). While their food tastes poor to a skilled gourmet, kids beg for it, and drag their families there. Why? Because the food is sweet, salty, and savory, which excites the untrained taste buds. McDonalds is perfectly happy if no skilled gourmet ever enters the establishment, because there are too few of them to attain their objectives in any case. But I'm quite sure that if McDonalds decided to serve food that a trained gourmet might like, it could do so, even with automation and unskilled workers.

And that's why much pop music is over-autotuned, over-processed, too loud, too bland, too formulaic, and too much about showing skin in a video.

Interesting analogy. I'm not sure it's that simple. For instance, having dined at plenty of establishments that can be considered "gourmet," I also think the McRib sandwiches are pretty good. And while some of my music collection is 24-bit/192khz audiophile stuff, I think there's a lot of great pop music out there, particularly from the 80's and 90's. I think it's an oversimplification to say that people who eat at McDonalds have untrained taste buds, or that people who listen to pop music don't know what "real" music sounds like.
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
Can we standardize the engineer's hearing, and/or preferences?

Recording is where science meets art. While there are many technical aspects which are open to objective analysis the process also requires musical sensibilities which are rather different.
 

HiFidFan

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
723
Likes
906
Location
U.S.A
Recording is where science meets art. While there are many technical aspects which are open to objective analysis the process also requires musical sensibilities which are rather different.

Agreed, but there lies the rub.
 

Galfridus

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2021
Messages
13
Likes
8
I've done everything in my power to make my listening more enjoyable. When the recording sucks it's out of my control and I get pissed. Fortunately, I enjoy a wide variety of music on a wide variety of media, therefore, I can always find something of quality. And then.....
Screenshot_20210828-222451_YouTube.jpg

"Oh it was gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh. The trombones crunched redgold under my bed, and behind my gulliver the trumpets three-wise silverflamed, and there by the door the timps rolling through my guts and out again crunched like candy thunder. Oh, it was wonder of wonders. And then, a bird of like rarest spun heavenmetal, or like silvery wine flowing in a spaceship, gravity all nonsense now, came the violin solo above all the other strings, and those strings were like a cage of silk round my bed. Then flute and oboe bored, like worms of like platinum, into the thick thick toffee gold and silver. I was in such bliss, my brothers."
 
Top Bottom