- Thread Starter
- #21
I’d respectfully disagree having heard a few try
It’d be like retraining a championship golfer to play for the Harlem Globe Trotters 
-
Welcome to ASR. 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!
The sadness of wasted bits
- Thread starter CapMan
- Start date
It’d be like retraining a championship golfer to play for the Harlem Globe Trotters I was thinking something similar the other day. We went to a live classical concert of a chamber orchestra playing 21st and 19th century music. The sound was so dynamic and yet so clean and clear, such as one rarely if ever hears from any recording, even with outstanding equipment. And yet, I know CD Red Book should make this possible in a recording.
The problem is not always even the recording, its your loudspeakers. For example, a drumkit can go up to 130dB. Can your speakers do that without compression?
- Thread Starter
- #24
They certainly cannot
I think the genre and style helped in this instance - the drummer had to play to a sensible level to balance against a double bass and Steinway. I was a pretty close and it was never painfully loud . It was the dynamic contrasts that really stood out.
Thanks for all the interesting comments, really interesting and informative . It’s great to get different perspectives from you.
I understand why we might need an amount of dynamic compression - I wonder where the tipping point is between practical considerations for playback and losing the naturalness of proper dynamics ?
This is pretty simple. To get the dynamics of a live event, you must play equally loud at home. So transients exceeding 100-110dB on a regular basis.
If the recording is to preserve that level of dynamics, it must be mixed and mastered in such a way that if you were to turn the volume down, the most quiet parts of the music will be inaudible. This is perfectly possible with regular 16 bit CD (no 24 bit needed).
The issue is that such a recording would be very problematic at normal listening levels, and also on systems that cannot reproduce the dynamics of a live event (which means most systems).
- Thread Starter
- #26
Thanks for this - my last post crossed over with yours . Where is line between playback practicalities and trading dynamic range. In the specific context of an acoustic jazz Trio ? Subjectively I guess
Yes and the first thing to go is the real thump off the kickdrum
Yes and the first thing to go is the real thump off the kickdrum
Yep. I've heard a live studio recording played back in the control room of the recording studio before they started compressing it. It sounds very close to the real thing (including the drums) as long as the studio monitors have the headroom to handle it. So it's certainly possible to record it like that.
It would be fun if they could provide dual versions, one for "normal use" and one with minimal compression for crazy hifi enthusiasts
It's a compromise I guess. It's hard to make it perfect for both loud playback on a great hifi system and moderate volume on a crappy car radio while driving 80km/h.
- Thread Starter
- #30
Different context and specific to my gig - it was a little 18” jazz bass drum tuned a little high so more a booing than a boom.Yes and the first thing to go is the real thump off the kickdrum
Blumlein 88
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 23,571
- Likes
- 44,612
I think Bob Katz's K-system gets close to the amount of compression that is not over the top and takes into account practical considerations. It can take some studying and thinking to wrap your head around it. Once you do however it is not really complicated and quite sensible.They certainly cannot
I think the genre and style helped in this instance - the drummer had to play to a sensible level to balance against a double bass and Steinway. I was a pretty close and it was never painfully loud . It was the dynamic contrasts that really stood out.
Thanks for all the interesting comments, really interesting and informative . It’s great to get different perspectives from you.
I understand why we might need an amount of dynamic compression - I wonder where the tipping point is between practical considerations for playback and losing the naturalness of proper dynamics ?
- Thread Starter
- #32
Many thanks for sharing this.
The other part of the equation is, of course, to have a very quiet listening room. I am always surprised that hifi nuts talk about detail and fail to discuss low ambient noise. We live in a relatively quiet urban neighbourhood and when we had our house built we made a real effort to keep ambient noise low. The outer walls of the house are brick, and the double glazing was specified for a high level of sound damping (when we will have it replaced in due time modern technology such as triple or vacuum glass will be even better). The central heating system is quiet, the fridge in the open kitchen was the quietest we could get at the time, etc. I appreciate that all this may be hard to achieve in an existing home, but each time something such the double glazing will have to be renewed there are possibilities, and these things make a real difference.
Even so, I would love to have recordings with greater dynamic range. CD Red Book allows for that, so its is a pity that this is not used as much as it can be.
Even so, I would love to have recordings with greater dynamic range. CD Red Book allows for that, so its is a pity that this is not used as much as it can be.
MaxwellsEq
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Messages
- 3,597
- Likes
- 6,385
I've sometimes wandered between the studio and control room when a band is rehearsing or setting up. The sound in the (very high quality) control room could be an excellent facsimile of what's happening in the studio including the dynamics. But the control room background noise is extremely low compared to my house; meanwhile, the main monitors could sustain very high SPLs with relatively low distortion. The upshot was a dynamic range that could not realistically be achieved in my house. If the tracks were released in this form, I wouldn't be able to hear much of the quiet stuff and the peaks would be too loud.
At the very least, mastering engineers "fix" the recordings so that we can consume them in an average home's background noise and with peaks that are domestically acceptable.
At the very least, mastering engineers "fix" the recordings so that we can consume them in an average home's background noise and with peaks that are domestically acceptable.
ocinn
Senior Member
IMO, So much of perceived dynamics are a result of tactile sensation which headphones and small speakers simply can’t do.
An upright bass in a small jazz club can easily resonate your chest with notes as high or even higher than A2 (110hz). A 6.5” studio monitor cannot do that, full stop.
I work in live sound and am incredibly spoiled to have the opportunity to listen to live music where I have something like 64 12” woofers and 48 18” subs playing. Even at 90db(A) the system will have a sense of scale and realism and tactile sensation in your body that is simply unmatched by 99% of consumer home gear.
I’m not qualified to speak on psychoacoustics but I can say I own various recordings of extremely high-level orchestras, done by my close friend, recorded with absolutely zero compression or limiting, and the difference in perceived realism from playing them on the FOH monitor system vs the main PA, levels matched, is jaw dropping.
Live music, whether amplified (thru a good PA), or acoustic, simply has a sense of scale and tactile realism that I’ve not been able to achieve in consumer settings. Exotics like Danley Hyperion and Genelec 8351/W371 get closer imo but still not comparable. I’d need more time with them and to play songs I am intimately familiar with to know forsure. I was at mercy of the demo team when listening to both.
Background noise is such a weird stance to take in this discussion. The ambient background noise of any live music venue is like -20db under the music. And no one is complaining about lack of dynamics in those settings. Not to mention the klippel test results prove that the threshold for audible distortion and noise is surprisingly low (around -33db avg if I recall)
Take everything above with a grain of salt, like I said I am not qualified to speak on psychoacoustics, but even commercially recorded content thru large scale speaker systems (level matched) sounds far more dynamic and “real” than over other forms of reproduction to literally everyone I’ve spoken to about this in my industry.
An upright bass in a small jazz club can easily resonate your chest with notes as high or even higher than A2 (110hz). A 6.5” studio monitor cannot do that, full stop.
I work in live sound and am incredibly spoiled to have the opportunity to listen to live music where I have something like 64 12” woofers and 48 18” subs playing. Even at 90db(A) the system will have a sense of scale and realism and tactile sensation in your body that is simply unmatched by 99% of consumer home gear.
I’m not qualified to speak on psychoacoustics but I can say I own various recordings of extremely high-level orchestras, done by my close friend, recorded with absolutely zero compression or limiting, and the difference in perceived realism from playing them on the FOH monitor system vs the main PA, levels matched, is jaw dropping.
Live music, whether amplified (thru a good PA), or acoustic, simply has a sense of scale and tactile realism that I’ve not been able to achieve in consumer settings. Exotics like Danley Hyperion and Genelec 8351/W371 get closer imo but still not comparable. I’d need more time with them and to play songs I am intimately familiar with to know forsure. I was at mercy of the demo team when listening to both.
Background noise is such a weird stance to take in this discussion. The ambient background noise of any live music venue is like -20db under the music. And no one is complaining about lack of dynamics in those settings. Not to mention the klippel test results prove that the threshold for audible distortion and noise is surprisingly low (around -33db avg if I recall)
Take everything above with a grain of salt, like I said I am not qualified to speak on psychoacoustics, but even commercially recorded content thru large scale speaker systems (level matched) sounds far more dynamic and “real” than over other forms of reproduction to literally everyone I’ve spoken to about this in my industry.
The way I've come to understand it:
The extra 8 bits (from 16 to 24) are hiding within the least significant bit of the 16 bit recording.
It gives the possibility of more "precision" of the digital value (256 levels between smallest "steps" of 16 bits.
And reduces the all-but-inaudible noise of the imprecision of the indecision for the level of that 16th bit, taking it from 90dB down from the peak level to -140dB (or thereabouts).
As mentioned in the prior post, if you want "live" sound, crank it up (cleanly).
Last edited:
Interesting discussion and I have same experience … while I have heard many outstanding systems, I have just never heard a system that fully replicates the experience of the live event. Some have come very close, but not quite there.
Assuming the “perfect” recording, what would the specs be of a loudspeaker system that could in fact come closest to the ideal transducer to replicate the live event, especially dynamics?
Assuming the “perfect” recording, what would the specs be of a loudspeaker system that could in fact come closest to the ideal transducer to replicate the live event, especially dynamics?
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
That's an interesting interpretation. Where do you get 256 levels from? 16^2? There are 2^16 = 65,536 "levels".