Digital vs Vinyl

[MakeMineVinyl]

Re flatlined CDs: I said many, not all. Cassettes predate the loudness wars. which is my point.

Not really - Xtreme limiting/compression was done for years, even before cassettes. It was just done by analog means with names like Optimod, used for FM broadcasting. Messing up perfectly good original session sound is an age old problem. I should note too that close mic'd vocals were almost always compressed, and still are, due to the very wide dynamic range of voice at inches from the microphone. Bass guitar is also frequently compressed but for another reason - making the range of notes more equal loudness.

 

[Robin L]

Not really - Xtreme limiting/compression was done for years, even before cassettes. It was just done by analog means with names like Optimod, used for FM broadcasting. Messing up perfectly good original session sound is an age old problem. I should note too that close mic'd vocals were almost always compressed, and still are, due to the very wide dynamic range of voice at inches from the microphone. Bass guitar is also frequently compressed but for another reason - making the range of notes more equal loudness.

Also, cassettes require limiting/compression because of their awful self-noise. There's no good excuse for CDs, but for cassettes, many would be useless without some compression. Most pop music is compressed anyway, certainly during the era when cassettes were commercially viable.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Not really - Xtreme limiting/compression was done for years, even before cassettes. It was just done by analog means with names like Optimod, used for FM broadcasting. Messing up perfectly good original session sound is an age old problem. I should note too that close mic'd vocals were almost always compressed, and still are, due to the very wide dynamic range of voice at inches from the microphone. Bass guitar is also frequently compressed but for another reason - making the range of notes more equal loudness.

At one time till maybe the mid or late 1980's, local college stations sometimes had great FM sound quality. It was because they were too poor to have a limiter/compressor and broadcast without one. Also they were very limited on power often barely covering beyond campus. Which meant fewer listeners listening over their car radio, so you didn't get complaints about the wide dynamic range being lost in a car.

 

[Newman]

Messing up perfectly good original session sound is an age old problem. I should note too that close mic'd vocals were almost always compressed, and still are, due to the very wide dynamic range of voice at inches from the microphone. Bass guitar is also frequently compressed

Most pop music is compressed anyway, certainly during the era when cassettes were commercially viable.

yes and yes. People seem to think the (pop music) loudness war was a CD-only problem, but in truth, it has plagued pop music since the advent of the car radio, and only got worse in the 60s when the vast majority of records were suddenly being bought by school kids with pocket money and junko plastic record players. It was never being compressed because of the limitations of vinyl as a recording medium: it was because of the playback environment. Try getting the rhythm of a pop song on cassette tape heard while driving a 60s car with no aircon and windows down, without using compression.

 

[Geoffkait]

The Dynamic Range Database (currently more than 158,000 entries) clearly reveals the Loudness Wars is mostly a CD phenomenon, although other formats are affected by overly aggressive dynamic range compression, too, including LP, SACD, SHM-CD, and even hi res downloads. The only advantage I see for over-compression is that for small portable type devices you don’t run out of steam before they won’t go any louder. By over-compressing at least the music will play loud.

Dynamic Range Database at,

https://dr.loudness-war.info/

cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

 

[Frank Dernie]

The only advantage I see for over-compression is that for small portable type devices you don’t run out of steam before you can’t make it any louder.

And in the car. I don't listen to music in my car very often since the music I like best has so much dynamic range even if the loudest bits are at the limit of my system the quiet bits disappear below the noise floor for minutes at a time .
I think the vast majority of people are listening to music in cars and one earbuds whilst outdoors and headphones at a desk and for them a narrow dynamic range is probably a necessity.
IME very few people listen to music as a serious way of spending time rather than as a background to something else.

 

[Frgirard]

The compression is a part. The other part is the equalization to make the sound loud and to hide the distortion due to the high compression.

 

[Newman]

The Dynamic Range Database (currently more than 158,000 entries) clearly reveals the Loudness Wars is mostly a CD phenomenon,

No. That’s a common misconception and a big mistake. The database doesn’t work as claimed. It is essentially broken. The scores vary with things other than DR. Such as blending the bass, seeming to cause a score increase of about 6 points all by itself. And guess which recording format routinely blends the bass?

Sorry to burst your bubble. But anyone thinking the TTDR DB is evidence, that CD masters are as uniformly less dynamic than LP masters as that tool suggests, has been fooled. The owners of that tool and database ought to know by now that it has gigantic, fundamental issues, yet they continue without retraction or correction. IMHO that’s bad intent.

I highly recommend that anyone who is running around quoting those scores, and providing links to the database and the tool, cease forthwith to do so, unless they want to be part of a great big smokescreen and its continuation.

cheers

 

[Geoffkait]

I personally find a strong correlation between dynamic range scores on the database and listening tests. Take for example any Rolling Stones CD starting with Bridges to Babylon and you will find them all terribly compressed and horrible sounding. BTB is actually an excellent example of flatlined. The LP of BTB on the other hand is not overly compressed. If over compression didn’t sound so bad it wouldn’t be an issue. Also, when scanning through CDs donated to thrift stores I find almost all CDs and Box sets that are like new appear on the dynamic range database as being aggressively compressed. Guess I’m not the only one who dumps those flatlined CDs.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

The Dynamic Range Database (currently more than 158,000 entries) clearly reveals the Loudness Wars is mostly a CD phenomenon,

It is also not by coincidence due to the availability of digital audio workstation plug-ins such as the original Waves L-1 'sonic maximizer' in the early 90s which had the ability to 'look ahead' at where the waveform was going and cram the dynamic range up to maximum as much as possible. I used this plug-in to process gun shots and other sound effects for movies, and it worked great. Unfortunately this type of processing became abused, and now hyper-detailed sound is expected by the unwashed masses to the point where no pop recording producer would dare to not process their albums like this.

Brick wall type processing may have arrived in the time frame surrounding the advent of CDs, but it is in no way dependent upon the CD format.

As a historical point of reference, Enoch Light's Command Records of the 1950s and 1960s relied almost exclusively on heavy compression as a vital ingredient of their 'signature sound', to make instruments appear hyper-detailed and in-your-face. It worked; their records were extremely popular with early audiophiles and used as demo pieces at HiFi shows of the era. To achieve this sound, Altec Lansing analog compressors were installed in-line with every microphone input to the mixing console and were dialed up near max for nearly every instrument - and almost every instrument had its own microphone.

 

[q3cpma]

I personally find a strong correlation between dynamic range scores on the database and listening tests. Take for example any Rolling Stones CD starting with Bridges to Babylon and you will find them all terribly compressed and horrible sounding. BTB is actually an excellent example of flatlined. The LP of BTB on the other hand is not overly compressed. If over compression didn’t sound so bad it wouldn’t be an issue. Also, when scanning through CDs donated to thrift stores I find almost all CDs and Box sets that are like new appear on the dynamic range database as being aggressively compressed. Guess I’m not the only one who dumps those flatlined CDs.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/digital-vs-vinyl.13289/page-13#post-805198

 

[Geoffkait]

Thanks for link.

 

[Jim Matthews]

As a historical point of reference, Enoch Light's Command Records of the 1950s and 1960s relied almost exclusively on heavy compression as a vital ingredient of their 'signature sound', to make instruments appear hyper-detailed and in-your-face. It worked; their records were extremely popular with early audiophiles and used as demo pieces at HiFi shows of the era.

This is an important observation - studio techniques generate taste rather than respond to them. I had a few tangential discussions with Kavi Alexander when he was producing Water Lily acoustics recordings. He lamented that his full dynamics recordings were accurate, and unpopular.

What people said they wanted, and what they were willing to pay for were different things.

 

[levimax]

No. That’s a common misconception and a big mistake. The database doesn’t work as claimed. It is essentially broken. The scores vary with things other than DR. Such as blending the bass, seeming to cause a score increase of about 6 points all by itself. And guess which recording format routinely blends the bass?

Sorry to burst your bubble. But anyone thinking the TTDR DB is evidence, that CD masters are as uniformly less dynamic than LP masters as that tool suggests, has been fooled. The owners of that tool and database ought to know by now that it has gigantic, fundamental issues, yet they continue without retraction or correction. IMHO that’s bad intent.

I highly recommend that anyone who is running around quoting those scores, and providing links to the database and the tool, cease forthwith to do so, unless they want to be part of a great big smokescreen and its continuation.

cheers

The truth lies somewhere in between. It is just as much a myth that the DR database is broken (6 db difference) as that it is perfectly accurate. I have a lot of original LP's and original and remastered CD's and analyzing them with DR meter and Audition's tools I would say a clean LP and a CD of the same master are within 1 dB of each other. I am always surprised by the level of apologizing that goes on this site for the terrible mastering / re-mastering jobs done on many CD's .... yes the technology is fantastic compared to vinyl but it has been abused to ruin a lot of music and unfortunately a lot of music is more dynamic on vinyl.

 

[Newman]

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/digital-vs-vinyl.13289/page-13#post-805198

…All in all, this makes it possible that a vinyl record looks and measures more dynamic than its digital counterpart, simply due to vinyl's flaws, even though the vinyl record was actually cut from the same digital master.

Yes, it is well and truly a broken and highly deceptive tool, widely referenced for all the wrong reasons. Possible reasons.

Another broken tool for this purpose is the whole-song waveform plot. You know, the one that looks like a “crew cut” or brick wall. Highly misleading as a guide to dynamic range. See video here.

The worst thing, is that it has gotten to the epidemic stage of confirmation bias and positive feedback. People are routinely imagining confirmation of the DR scores when listening to the music, even when there is no difference in the dynamics of the music itself, and this firms their mistaken belief that the DR scores are reliable. The above video link is an example of this. So is the Random Access Memories (RAM) album: the vinyl measures a DR score five points higher than the high resolution download, but it has been confirmed that the vinyl was mastered from the high resolution download. Despite this, people are routinely reporting that they hear the dynamic range of the vinyl as substantively higher than the high resolution download of RAM. It has gotten to the stage where, purely by the reputation of this database, people are confirmation-biasing that CDs and digital downloads sound compressed compared to vinyl, in general. The poor sound engineer who made the above – linked video found himself inundated by people claiming that they could clearly hear the higher dynamics on the vinyl sections that he was playing on the video. He had to issue a follow-up statement that people who were clearly hearing extra dynamics on the vinyl, trusting their ears, simply had to “let it go” — because it’s impossible. That’s how bad this issue has gotten.

Bottom line: if you are seeing DR scores in the range of six points higher for vinyl than for digital conditions of the same music, and when you listen you confirm that the vinyl sounds substantially more dynamic, you really need to put aside this finding and stop over-trusting your ears, because you might as well be confirming by ear that cables sound very different. The same mechanisms of deception are at work.

Cheers

 

[levimax]

Yes, it is well and truly a broken and highly deceptive tool, widely referenced for all the wrong reasons. Possible reasons.

Another broken tool for this purpose is the whole-song waveform plot. You know, the one that looks like a “crew cut” or brick wall. Highly misleading as a guide to dynamic range. See video here.

The worst thing, is that it has gotten to the epidemic stage of confirmation bias and positive feedback. People are routinely imagining confirmation of the DR scores when listening to the music, even when there is no difference in the dynamics of the music itself, and this firms their mistaken belief that the DR scores are reliable. The above video link is an example of this. So is the Random Access Memories (RAM) album: the vinyl measures a DR score five points higher than the high resolution download, but it has been confirmed that the vinyl was mastered from the high resolution download. Despite this, people are routinely reporting that they hear the dynamic range of the vinyl as substantively higher than the high resolution download of RAM. It has gotten to the stage where, purely by the reputation of this database, people are confirmation-biasing that CDs and digital downloads sound compressed compared to vinyl, in general. The poor sound engineer who made the above – linked video found himself inundated by people claiming that they could clearly hear the higher dynamics on the vinyl sections that he was playing on the video. He had to issue a follow-up statement that people who were clearly hearing extra dynamics on the vinyl, trusting their ears, simply had to “let it go” — because it’s impossible. That’s how bad this issue has gotten.

Bottom line: if you are seeing DR scores in the range of six points higher for vinyl than for digital conditions of the same music, and when you listen you confirm that the vinyl sounds substantially more dynamic, you really need to put aside this finding and stop over-trusting your ears, because you might as well be confirming by ear that cables sound very different. The same mechanisms of deception are at work.

Cheers

The DR meter is certainly not perfect but it's intention is to point out changes in mastering styles (loudness) for songs over time. The intent is to help consumers with more information, not mislead them. Good things (like digital technology and the DR Meter) can and will be misused and of course audiophiles will run amuck. My experience with original LP's and Original CD's the DR values seldom vary at all so the 6 dB claims are either extreme examples or not correct or possibly highly compressed masters behave differently than relatively uncompressed older mastering's. More facts and research are needed and the tribal claims on both sides need to be verified. In the mean time the DR meter needs to be kept in perspective.... it tells you something but certainly not everything.

 

[Geoffkait]

I believe many CD systems are themselves compressed dynamically, so it could be rather difficult to perceive differences in dynamic range. Some reasons why I say CD systems are compressed dynamically include but are not limited to, (1) the system is in reverse polarity, (2) the source CD is in reverse polarity, (3) system electronics are not sufficiently isolated from vibration, (4) CD disc flutters too much while spinning (perhaps because the CD is not absolutely level and/or disc out of round), (5) RFI/EMI issues. I would expect CD systems in downtown locations to sound more dynamically compressed than systems in rural locations, for example.

 

[Burning Sounds]

Yes, it is well and truly a broken and highly deceptive tool, widely referenced for all the wrong reasons. Possible reasons.

Another broken tool for this purpose is the whole-song waveform plot. You know, the one that looks like a “crew cut” or brick wall. Highly misleading as a guide to dynamic range. See video here.

The worst thing, is that it has gotten to the epidemic stage of confirmation bias and positive feedback. People are routinely imagining confirmation of the DR scores when listening to the music, even when there is no difference in the dynamics of the music itself, and this firms their mistaken belief that the DR scores are reliable. The above video link is an example of this. So is the Random Access Memories (RAM) album: the vinyl measures a DR score five points higher than the high resolution download, but it has been confirmed that the vinyl was mastered from the high resolution download. Despite this, people are routinely reporting that they hear the dynamic range of the vinyl as substantively higher than the high resolution download of RAM. It has gotten to the stage where, purely by the reputation of this database, people are confirmation-biasing that CDs and digital downloads sound compressed compared to vinyl, in general. The poor sound engineer who made the above – linked video found himself inundated by people claiming that they could clearly hear the higher dynamics on the vinyl sections that he was playing on the video. He had to issue a follow-up statement that people who were clearly hearing extra dynamics on the vinyl, trusting their ears, simply had to “let it go” — because it’s impossible. That’s how bad this issue has gotten.

Bottom line: if you are seeing DR scores in the range of six points higher for vinyl than for digital conditions of the same music, and when you listen you confirm that the vinyl sounds substantially more dynamic, you really need to put aside this finding and stop over-trusting your ears, because you might as well be confirming by ear that cables sound very different. The same mechanisms of deception are at work.

Cheers

I concur wiith what you have said here regarding vinyl and CD, however I do think that the DR database still has its uses. I don't buy vinyl, but I do find it useful to compare CD releases as most (but not all) remastered CDs are much more compressed and unpleasant to listen to than earlier releases. Using Loudness Units has advantages over DR, but is often more difficult to interpret for many people.

 

[Leporello]

I believe many CD systems are themselves compressed dynamically, so it could be rather difficult to perceive differences in dynamic range. Some reasons why I say CD systems are compressed dynamically include but are not limited to, (1) the system is in reverse polarity, (2) the source CD is in reverse polarity, (3) system electronics are not sufficiently isolated from vibration, (4) CD disc flutters too much while spinning (perhaps because the CD tray is not absolutely level), (5) RFI/EMI issues. I would expect CD systems in downtown locations to sound more dynamically compressed than systems in rural locations, for example.

Please.

 

[Frgirard]

I believe many CD systems are themselves compressed dynamically, so it could be rather difficult to perceive differences in dynamic range. Some reasons why I say CD systems are compressed dynamically include but are not limited to, (1) the system is in reverse polarity, (2) the source CD is in reverse polarity, (3) system electronics are not sufficiently isolated from vibration, (4) CD disc flutters too much while spinning (perhaps because the CD tray is not absolutely level), (5) RFI/EMI issues. I would expect CD systems in downtown locations to sound more dynamically compressed than systems in rural locations, for example.

Please, Take a deep breath before writing.
It is very simple to use a spl meter.