Crest factor - how detectable is it?

[Thomas_A]

Yes it’s actually a pretty great resource…nobody’s perfect I guess, lol

Then it is even worse IMO. They should delete the article and write one that is not built on speculations.

 

[RobL]

Then it is even worse IMO. They should delete the article and write one that is not built on speculations.

Yep, agree. I contacted them about the article.

 

[Sokel]

Is this test a joke?
Did they actually listened to them?

Maybe they did listened but their gear were unable to reach those peaks?
That's strange.

 

[danadam]

Maybe they did listened but their gear were unable to reach those peaks?

If it couldn't reach the peaks, wouldn't it be a distortion and then even more audible?

 

[Sokel]

If it couldn't reach the peaks, wouldn't it be a distortion and then even more audible?

Not necessarily,clipping is usual,all amps should have an indicator.
Forgot to post my ABX by the way:

 

[restorer-john]

It's not about the clipping, it's the loss of the attack and the peak in the transients. It sounds totally different.

If the site and the article is for real, someone needs to have their hearing checked...

 

[Sokel]

It's not about the clipping, it's the loss of the attack and the peak in the transients. It sounds totally different.

If the site and the article is for real, someone needs to have their hearing checked...

What would be sad and maybe the reason for the way recordings are is if there's a general consensus about this amongst pros.
I refuse to believe it but it seems so by the way they write about it.

 

[Thomas_A]

What would be sad and maybe the reason for the way recordings are is if there's a general consensus about this amongst pros.
I refuse to believe it but it seems so by the way they right about it.

Exactly. If true, this is by far worse than "snake oil", IMO.

 

[BeerBear]

Yeah those two files were not difficult to distinguish, even after matching them with ReplayGain/LUFS (they're almost 1dB apart).

If you guys want to try, here's a version with a different clipping method. Let me know if it's as easy to ABX against the original (raw_waveform).
(EDIT: It's actually still not that hard, but I think it handles certain parts better.)

 

[Sokel]

Yeah those two files were not difficult to distinguish, even after matching them with ReplayGain/LUFS (they're almost 1dB apart).

If you guys want to try, here's a version with a different clipping method. Let me know if it's as easy to ABX against the original (raw_waveform).
(EDIT: It's actually still not that hard, but I think it handles certain parts better.)

Nope.

That's with the new file.
Seems that it's audible no matter what.

 

[BeerBear]

Good job. Yeah, at first I thought it was hard, but after a second listen I figured it out.


As to your comment about what the pros' consensus is: You can see from the pop music published in the last 20-30 years that nobody leaves such peaks unmolested anymore and that almost everything is heavily compressed.
They might not believe that such compression/clipping/limiting is transparent, but they believe that it's necessary...

 

[Sokel]

Good job. Yeah, at first I thought it was hard, but after a second listen I figured it out.


As to your comment about what the pros' consensus is: You can see from the pop music published in the last 20-30 years that nobody leaves such peaks unmolested anymore and that almost everything is heavily compressed.
They might not believe that such compression/clipping/limiting is transparent, but they believe that it's necessary...

I listen to classical,crest factor is important there but I listen to anything other falls in my hands too (my nephew teaches me the new stuff ),it's a pity that stuff that could be explosive to the point to give us goosebumps are massacred.

On the other hand I suppose it makes sense with the limited amplification stuff works in the majority of people (phones and stuff) and some misconceptions even audiophiles have.
I mean we see all the time people asking 30 "clean" watts to drive 87db sens. towers,listening from 3 meters at 80db average.
They will never hear these peaks,the Fosi amp thread is a big tell about it.

Edit:I have a good example of something I heard lately.Steven Wilson's Routine.
That song should probably explode houses away if it had all it's range intact,specially the part with the heartbreaking scream.
But...
What a waste of a beautiful song.

(I played it back through various systems,one of them with well over 120db ability (2 meter 100db sens horns) but nope,it's massacred)

 

[OCA]

Check out M-Noise which imitates crest factor of music better than pink noise and has been recently incorporated into AES standard for acoustics:

Introducing M-Noise on Vimeo

 

[RobL]

I received a reply from the author of the article and he gave me permission to post it here:

Hi Robert,

Thanks for reading, and for your comments on the article.

Yes, I meant for the claim in the article to be provocative. The responses in the forum thread actually prove my point. A bunch of audio guys put a magnifying glass on comparing the two files, after I told them in advance that there is a difference. It’s not surprising when people hear differences when told to. It’s how expensive speaker wire is sold. None of those guys would have singled out the clipped recording without being tipped off in advance and without my providing the reference recording.

Virtually every modern recording has clipped or limited peaks. It’s absolutely necessary to get the volume up so that the music can be heard in the car or while jogging. Every studio does it and gets away with it because the average listener can’t here it, or doesn’t care (probably both).

I did make a wording change regarding predisposing the listener. I didn’t anticipate the scrutiny of a group of trained listeners, but I still stand by the claims in the article. It’s not a 1940’s viewpoint. It’s more true today than ever.

Thanks again for reading and for taking the time to comment. Please feel free to post my reponse to the forum thread.

Best,

Pat

He is probably correct in that without the unclipped reference we wouldn’t be the wiser but I still feel there are pretty substantial audible differences and I very much prefer the unclipped version.

 

[Sokel]

I received a reply from the author of the article and he gave me permission to post it here:



He is probably correct in that without the unclipped reference we wouldn’t be the wiser but I still feel there are pretty substantial audible differences and I very much prefer the unclipped version.

I wish we could answer to him.
It doesn't take much if you know how instruments sound at their normal.Specially the ones that can have a physical impact.
We could probably live with both recordings if that was what we have to do.

But all about his reply about "snake oil speaker wire","listeners can't hear it","listeners don't care",etc is sad,if he look at the ABXs' he'll see that it took mere seconds to know.
He could very well say it's a necessary evil,that I would get.
But what the original article claims is far,far from truth.

 

[dasdoing]

I received a reply from the author of the article and he gave me permission to post it here:



He is probably correct in that without the unclipped reference we wouldn’t be the wiser but I still feel there are pretty substantial audible differences and I very much prefer the unclipped version.

I see where he is going, but he kind of made a fool of himself and now is talking it off lol.
He could chop off 3dB or so with a sota limiter and it would be much much harder to detect.
And even than it is hard to argument that it has gotten worse, even if slightly different. actually a limiter makes snares sometimes sound better ime

 

[Thomas_A]

Hearing while jogging? Now headphones with noise cancelling is soon standard. Cars? Volume increase with speed/noise is standard.

And If average joe does not care why use limiters?

 

[dasdoing]

check out these:

maximizer.wav

drive.google.com

smart.wav

drive.google.com

 

[Thomas_A]

His response have many flaws, so I go on and reply to each of them:

Hi Robert,

Thanks for reading, and for your comments on the article.

Yes, I meant for the claim in the article to be provocative. The responses in the forum thread actually prove my point. A bunch of audio guys put a magnifying glass on comparing the two files, after I told them in advance that there is a difference. It’s not surprising when people hear differences when told to. It’s how expensive speaker wire is sold. *This is not a open cable test with snake-oil sellers arguments - blind testing of cables have proven to be inaudible unless there are special situations. The files in question were tested with ABX! He is mixing apples and oranges here.

None of those guys would have singled out the clipped recording without being tipped off in advance and without my providing the reference recording. *Again, the claim is that there is no audible difference between the audio files. It is false, ad you don't need trained listeners to hear this. Of course you need a comparison file if you are asked to verify a difference between two audio files.

Virtually every modern recording has clipped or limited peaks. It’s absolutely necessary to get the volume up so that the music can be heard in the car or while jogging. *There is an increasing use of headphones, especially among young people. Many headphones now come with noise canceling functions, so there is no "absolute necessity" for clipped audio while jogging or listening in airplanes and buses. Cars may use automatic volume correction with speed, adapting to the higher noise. Car audio will probably soon also make use of both noise canceling and adaptive compression. Argument is old and no longer valid, IMO.

Every studio does it and gets away with it because the average listener can’t here it, or doesn’t care (probably both). *This is no reason for use unessecary compression, just glimpse of reality where someone needs a job to destroy music. If average listener can't hear it or doesn't care, why use heavy compression at all?

I did make a wording change regarding predisposing the listener. I didn’t anticipate the scrutiny of a group of trained listeners, but I still stand by the claims in the article. It’s not a 1940’s viewpoint. It’s more true today than ever. *The claim that there is no audible difference between the files, is false, as is the need for "trained listeners" to hear it. I have never got any professional training for double-blind tests.

Thanks again for reading and for taking the time to comment. Please feel free to post my reponse to the forum thread.

Best,

Pat

 

[dasdoing]

This is no reason for use unessecary compression, just glimpse of reality where someone needs a job to destroy music. If average listener can't hear it or doesn't care, why use heavy compression at all?

Actually it's all about references....about genres. 99% of music is now consumed streamed and all streamers have a relativly low ceiling for overall loudness. Yet still, standards for some genres are as loud as -9 LUFS, or even louder. So again, they know it will be turned down, but they still target that. It's not about absolute loudness anymore, more about "density" that is just expected, else it simply wont sound professional and/or contemporary. Ozone 11 now even has an upwards compressor in it's maximizer; you can actually compress the hell out of tracks without even touching the peaks....again, to make things "more dense"