Bruno Putzeys ‘Life on the edge’

[GXAlan]

And without trying to offend anybody - if somebody says Kylie Minogue is "sonically excellent", then the most polite thing I can do is I pretend that I have never heard it.

You should take a listen to the Abbey Road Sessions which showcases her voice with less pop/synth.

 

[Axo1989]

@Axo1989 - I am not ignoring you ;-) , I just think that hype around Charli xcx is more of byproduct of current culture wars, than anything having to do with good music or having any sonic qualities. I have read really glowing review of this album, sa I have given it a try, but I could not find anything that would resonate with me. I like Bille Eilish more.

Thanks for responding, good to know. You are perfectly entitled to your own tastes of course. Even though I don't prefer her music myself, there's an amusing collab with Eilish to try among the Brat remixes btw.

While I would say that Charli was interesting well before the current wave of popular recognition or cultural anything, that is really tangential. The point of posting that track was to demonstrate what DR2 signifies (or doesn't).

In this case you've side-stepped that purpose on the basis of taste, and apparently some politics. Those things are interesting to discuss also, but separate from the more technical discussion of production quality (actually, qualities) dynamic range and capabilities of reproduction systems. To progress discussing the latter, I think it's a pre-requisite to put aside preconceptions and just listen.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I would say most of it is semantics - what you describe as a wall of sound is a porridge to me. I am trying to give it negative quality connotation by describing it as a porridge ;-) [on top of it just being completely boring, as "bringing nothing interesting, nothing intellectually or emotionally stimulating, and also nothing that you could not hear done 10x better elsewhere". The songs you mentioned - this is just bad music, full of clichés and zero artistic value. Yes I can differentiate the instruments etc - but it does not make me enjoy the music more on better gear.
Let's get to the other extreme - take something that is perfect [in broader sense] - Bach and his Mass in B Minor [https://shop.monteverdi.co.uk/product/bach-mass-in-b-minor/] I think you can find it also on streaming. and exquisitely recorded. Some say this is the pinnacle of Western culture [it is interesting thing to discuss, as this specific piece has funny background story].

Opening track - Kyrie Eleison and its vocal instrumentation [Bass - Tenor - Alto and 2xSoprano Choir sections] - if you play it loudly on any system - you know straight from the bat if that setup is good or not. And better the system then the music get exponentially more impressive. You do not get this reward with today's compressed music.
[BTW there are 2 Blu Rays out there, recorded in the very church where Bach was performing, well worth the purchase both of them, if you are into MCH music]. On the other hand this specific piece is quite forgiving, as it is inherently beautiful. But let's try some Stravinsky or Mussorgsky Pictures at an Exhibition as a torture test of a quality of the system, or I recommend to blast this one loudly, and you will know after couple of minutes, whether you have any problem in treble range.

Do not get me wrong - I also do like lot of different music genres - e.g. I think Dimmu Borgir and their early stuff is pretty good [to salute your home country] and I spent very nice evening lately listening to a-ha's Summer Solstice unplugged live version. My latest live events [and I go to live music quite often range from Adele, Nick Cave [just wow], David Gilmour [that was f...ing something in Circo Massimo in Rome] to Phillipe Jaroussky and his interpretation of early French court music. [look for Pasacaille de la Folie]

I think we may be misunderstanding each other slightly. I am not trying to push Five Finger Death Punch as high art. They are more like the Nickelback of metal. I intentionally picked something very commercial, but I guess that backfired a bit.

I am also not trying to say that low dynamic range is a GOOD thing. I was merely disputing the fact that all low dynamic range tracks (or "poor" tracks in general) sounded worse on good gear, as I still do not think that is the case. I also do not think that medium to low dynamic range automatically translates to poor sound quality. It can be a clipped mess, or it can just be a result of the production and genre, without necessarily having bad sound quality as such.

 

[Mart68]

I would say most of it is semantics - what you describe as a wall of sound is a porridge to me. I am trying to give it negative quality connotation by describing it as a porridge ;-) [on top of it just being completely boring, as "bringing nothing interesting, nothing intellectually or emotionally stimulating, and also nothing that you could not hear done 10x better elsewhere". The songs you mentioned - this is just bad music, full of clichés and zero artistic value. Yes I can differentiate the instruments etc - but it does not make me enjoy the music more on better gear.
Let's get to the other extreme - take something that is perfect [in broader sense] - Bach and his Mass in B Minor [https://shop.monteverdi.co.uk/product/bach-mass-in-b-minor/] I think you can find it also on streaming. and exquisitely recorded. Some say this is the pinnacle of Western culture [it is interesting thing to discuss, as this specific piece has funny background story].

Opening track - Kyrie Eleison and its vocal instrumentation [Bass - Tenor - Alto and 2xSoprano Choir sections] - if you play it loudly on any system - you know straight from the bat if that setup is good or not. And better the system then the music get exponentially more impressive. You do not get this reward with today's compressed music.
[BTW there are 2 Blu Rays out there, recorded in the very church where Bach was performing, well worth the purchase both of them, if you are into MCH music]. On the other hand this specific piece is quite forgiving, as it is inherently beautiful. But let's try some Stravinsky or Mussorgsky Pictures at an Exhibition as a torture test of a quality of the system, or I recommend to blast this one loudly, and you will know after couple of minutes, whether you have any problem in treble range.

Do not get me wrong - I also do like lot of different music genres - e.g. I think Dimmu Borgir and their early stuff is pretty good [to salute your home country] and I spent very nice evening lately listening to a-ha's Summer Solstice unplugged live version. My latest live events [and I go to live music quite often range from Adele, Nick Cave [just wow], David Gilmour [that was f...ing something in Circo Massimo in Rome] to Phillipe Jaroussky and his interpretation of early French court music. [look for Pasacaille de la Folie]

@Axo1989 - I am not ignoring you ;-) , I just think that hype around Charli xcx is more of byproduct of current culture wars, than anything having to do with good music or having any sonic qualities. I have read really glowing review of this album, sa I have given it a try, but I could not find anything that would resonate with me. I like Bille Eilish more.

And without trying to offend anybody - if somebody says Kylie Minogue is "sonically excellent", then the most polite thing I can do is I pretend that I have never heard it. Or maybe we live in times, where standards are so low, that everybody clears the bar. We live in the age of participation trophies.

Time to walk the dogs. Ciao.

No-one has said 'Sonically excellent' and I'm not really sure what that means.
Take her album 'Light Years'. From a mixing, scoring and production point of view it's a masterpiece. I'm in awe of the people who can put something like this together as I'm at least vaguely aware of how much skill and work it is to do it that well.

In a perfect world the DR would be a bit higher but we can never get away from the fact that it's an artistic choice, not someone knocking a slider by accident.

IME people who make choice of music via production quality over content invariably have problems with their playback system that they are unwilling to admit to.

Not saying that is you, although your speakers would not be my choice - however, if you mostly listen to classical (I don't listen to any) your whole frame of reference is different in any case. Pop and classical have little in common in terms of how the recording is made and post produced.

 

[pma]

In a perfect world the DR would be a bit higher but we can never get away from the fact that it's an artistic choice

Really? You think that in pop music for masses the DR is an artistic choice? Not just the production choice to get success in loudness wars pop music industry?

 

[Mart68]

Really? You think that in pop music for masses the DR is an artistic choice? Not just the production choice to get success in loudness wars pop music industry?

I agree there is some overlap there. My real point is that it's not a 'bad recording.' It's what they decided to do and for whatever reason, is intrinsic to the art. We take it or leave it.

If there was a less compressed version, I'd get it. But it is far from unlistenable and any system that renders it so has issues.

One thing I cannot stand is the system dictating the choice of music. Been there, and never again.

 

[Axo1989]

I think we may be misunderstanding each other slightly. I am not trying to push Five Finger Death Punch as high art. They are more like the Nickelback of metal. I intentionally picked something very commercial, but I guess that backfired a bit.

Ahhh, Nickelback. While I generally find Apple Music's discovery algorithms work for me, they keep offering that band under another one I like, which always makes me laugh.

I am also not trying to say that low dynamic range is a GOOD thing. I was merely disputing the fact that all low dynamic range tracks (or "poor" tracks in general) sounded worse on good gear, as I still do not think that is the case. I also do not think that medium to low dynamic range automatically translates to poor sound quality. It can be a clipped mess, or it can just be a result of the production and genre, without necessarily having bad sound quality as such.

Yes, using the DR rating has certain limitations (I've mentioned/demonstrated an obvious one above).

 

[Mart68]

Doesn't matter how poor the system is, it's never going to create dynamic range that isn't there to begin with. The whole ''Good system making 'bad recordings' worse'' argument has no basis in logic.

 

[Sokel]

There are stuff that despite being pop,punk or whatever and also despite the low DR sounds fun.
I think we have to take everything for it's intended purpose.
That one has DR8 but you can dance like a bear to it and also sounds nice (up the volume,has tactile and impact! ) :

 

[Chr1]

Doesn't matter how poor the system is, it's never going to create dynamic range that isn't there to begin with. The whole ''Good system making 'bad recordings' worse'' argument has no basis in logic.

I don't think people are saying good systems make bad recordings sound worse, but that they can make them more obvious/apparent.
A bad system can mask the sonic qualities of a poor recording. Hence, making it seem to sound better than it actually is. My 2c.

 

[Sokel]

I don't think people are saying good systems make bad recordings sound worse, but that they make them more obvious/apparent.
A bad system can mask the bad sonic qualities of a poor recording. My 2c.

One could also argue that is useless to listen to classical without gear capable of DR20 at reference level (clean from the highest to the lowest) but despite that we even listen and enjoy it even at a small radio.
I find odd targeting at specific attributes that may suit and justify our choices (to others) while ignoring or compromising with others.

 

[Chr1]

Absolutely. I find it quite amusing when these discussions end up debating the quality of various genres of music. People inevitably start to criticise what they don't like and insinuate that the other person's taste or system is not up to the task of differentiating various sonic qualities. Dynamic range being just one.

 

[Theta]

I would sure like the ability to do so,better still if flexible.
But mid-bass is a very misunderstood story.It's what satellites and subs placed apart struggle to do for example.
And the reason W371 stands for.
There's a ton of energy there (at classical the main bulk) that has to be translated properly to sound rich and natural.

That probably comes from a driver able to do it obviously,at an appropriate size cabinet.
That's what broad,older speakers did with ease with their big drivers even if they were not so nice overall and also what mains monitors do,obviously.
It's probably that balance that I like.

When a newbe ask me for advice, the first thing I tell him is "don't even look a speaker that does not have a 12 inch woofer for mid distance listening, for close monitoring a 10 inch might do.

 

[Fidji]

And let's not forget the queen of pop. And whatever you think of the artistic merits of this particular track, it sounds great.

@Mart68 @GXAlan et al
I was referring to this specific post. And if everybody else also thinks that it sounds great, then, obviously it is me being out of step and I will need to reflect on it.

IME people who make choice of music via production quality over content invariably have problems with their playback system that they are unwilling to admit to.

Not saying that is you, although your speakers would not be my choice - however, if you mostly listen to classical (I don't listen to any) your whole frame of reference is different in any case. Pop and classical have little in common in terms of how the recording is made and post produced.

These are 2 different dimensions - quality of the content and quality of the recording.
You can have absolutely fantastic, entertaining and artistically valuable low-fi records full of hiss and distortion, and on the other hand there are tons of impeccably recorded jazzy records that are just boring to death, being another take on "look at me, I am better than Coltrane". Also you can be sure, that you get reference level of sound quality from some labels like 2L, but usually content will be average at best in most of the cases.

I will always go for good content over good production. But, there is also enough music that si BOTH artistically/content-wise and sound/production wise on very high level, that I see no good reason to force myself to listen to compressed sh.,,,t., very often with content from 80's and older you get several versions in wildly differing sound quality [usually newer = worse] And this is why I am very happy about ascent of Atmos Music, that brings lot of dynamic range back.

And re classical music - it does not need to be classical, but it needs to be acoustic, if you want to asses right tonality of your system. Human voices, pianos, violins, acoustic guitars. Pianos are extremely useful. This is why I always use choral and symphonics music to fine tune my DRC by ear in the end.

And to come back at least back to the topic of this thread - this is why I have ordered new Eignetakt2 MCH amplifier, so that I can run my full setup on Purifi and also I am having new surround speakers with Purifi woofers assembled.

 

[Mart68]

@Mart68 @GXAlan et al
I was referring to this specific post. And if everybody else also thinks that it sounds great, then, obviously it is me being out of step and I will need to reflect on it.

Fair enough, I don't have the CD of the album that song is on, and I won't try to judge the sound quality through my laptop speakers.

Worst CD I have for SQ is a best of Sam & Dave and I've not noticed that getting worse as the playback system improved, if anything, it's the opposite really.

The music and performance transcends the crude recording quality anyway.

 

[Theta]

Fair enough, I don't have the CD of the album that song is on, and I won't try to judge the sound quality through my laptop speakers.

Worst CD I have for SQ is a best of Sam & Dave and I've not noticed that getting worse as the playback system improved, if anything, it's the opposite really.

The music and performance transcends the crude recording quality anyway.

Bad is Bad, I know that CD and many other poorly mastered Cds of that period. If you get the impression that it sounds better on an improved system, it is only because your system will tolerate a bit more SPL without IM distortion and maybe you now have a bigger woofer.
One of my favorite CD for decades Is The Waterboys Modern Blues, I ripped the CD in lossless Flac It sounds bad on my small system and just as bad on my reference system, except that I can play it louder and according to the fans of abx testing (a waist of time) louder will always seem to sound better.

 

[Mart68]

Bad is Bad, I know that CD and many other poorly mastered Cds of that period. If you get the impression that it sounds better on an improved system, it is only because your system will tolerate a bit more SPL without IM distortion and maybe you now have a bigger woofer.
One of my favorite CD for decades Is The Waterboys Modern Blues, I ripped the CD in lossless Flac It sounds bad on my small system and just as bad on my reference system, except that I can play it louder and according to the fans of abx testing (a waist of time) louder will always seem to sound better.

I can live with that explanation, although I think it is a crude recording rather than a mastering issue. Being a 'best of', the recording quality varies across the songs.

Some were recorded (from memory) in 1963 when they seemed to be able to make great jazz recordings but struggled with pop, for reasons that elude me.

 

[GXAlan]

I was referring to this specific post. And if everybody else also thinks that it sounds great, then, obviously it is me being out of step and I will need to reflect on it.

My apologies. That post had hidden due to my ignore list and I only saw your mention of Kylie Minogue.

I am with you. That’s not her best recording from a technical standpoint. The lyrics are well written and it was a commercially successful song. It’s at a standard level of good for me, not a “great” example of a pop recording.

 

[antcollinet]

And if everybody else also thinks that it sounds great, then, obviously it is me being out of step

Since it was me who posted that - allow me to answer.

The difference in the phrases "it sounds great" and "it is sonically excellent" should - I hope - be clear.

The former (which is what I wrote) leans towards (or at least was intended as) a personal perception.
The latter (which I did not, but which your post #200 suggested I did) sounds much more like a statement of objective fact - which was absolutely not intended.

This is why @Mart68 told you:

No-one has said 'Sonically excellent' and I'm not really sure what that means.

So:
1 - if you are quoting someone, it would be best to use the actual words they used, rather than different ones which have different emphasis/meaning. At best you are simply mis-representing - at worst, straw-manning.
2 - I seemed to me that in part - your reaction was down to your own perception/preference towards different genres of music. Or at least, it is obviously difficult to offer an objective view of the sonic quality of a genre which you subjectively don't like. And it is clear either you don't like pop in general or KM in particular. If I am in any way correct, you should avoid mixing the two. If I am not - I apologise for 2.

'k thanks.

 

[Axo1989]

The genre bias was pretty obvious.

Seems such a waste to me applying that wave-forming speaker tech to primitive pre-industrial music, where we assemble large numbers of performers banging on stretched skins with sticks, blowing through tubes and plucking/rubbing tensioned strings at one end of a large hall, instead of creating music by feeding electrons though finely filagreed silicon structures as god intended.