Vinyl is not as bad as I expected.

[tuga]

I have never understood the obsession with recording or production quality.

I don't care if the music sounds like it was recorded in a garage on a fifty quid tape deck. For me that sound is inherent to that music, it's part of it, it's how it is meant to sound.

I bought a hi-fi to listen to music I like, I don't buy music to listen to the hi-fi. If the production values are high that's just a bonus. I've never bought music or listened to music solely because it is 'well-recorded.'

Example - Boston 'Third Stage' - on parts of it you can hear the tape wow. But that's inherent to the sound of the recording so I don't care. If my system was introducing that wow - or some other colouration - then I would care and do something about it. That's why I don't bother with vinyl anymore.

In a recording of classical music, which is roughly approached in a documental fashion as to create the illusion at the listener's home of attending a live event, sound quality is paramount to achieve a high level of realism.
The same could be true for some jazz and traditional/ethnic performances.

For other genres the recording is itself the music, there's hardly ever an event and the instruments are close-mic'ed in mono then the song is cooked up in a mixing desk over desk or head monitors.
Some artist like to use bad sound quality intentionally as an artistic goal during production. But even such music should be distributed with as good quality as possible, not compressed into a low-res mp3 nor have the dynamics squashed due to incompetent or destructive mastering.

 

[Maxicut]

Doesn't it also depend on the music/melody?
R.E.M.'s song "Leave" has a siren balring away loudly for most of the track; if you remove the acoustic intro there are no silences and the siren sound is loud.
How does the DR meter determine the dynamic range "rating" of such a song?

I know the song, but I don't understand your question? I could isolate a loud part of any song & it will obviously have a lower DR than the original whole track?

 

[Count Arthur]

Finicky complex mechanisms, decaying rubber belts, alignment and magnetization issues, vu meters, lots of things to tinker with. What's not to like ?(except for the sound). I think Guardians of the Galaxy helped. And you can't beat that 80ies rocket control center look.

Although I no longer have a turntable or a cassette deck, or amy media to play on them, I completely understand the fascination with them. Almost all modern electronics are fairly featureless with no moving parts. Things from the mechanical and elecro-mechanical era, turntables, cassette decks, film cameras, telephones, cash registers, etc., have a charm that the purely electronic modern counterparts lack.

Whacky casework and funky colours aside, most modern electronics are pretty dull black, or silver, boxes, often with a touch screen, or controlled by an app on another device with a touch screen and very few buttons or knobs to play with.

 

[tuga]

I know the song, but I don't understand your question? I could chop a loud part of any song out & it will have a lower DR than the original whole track?

Sorry, I'll try to make it clearer.

Imagine that the song didn't have the initial soft acoustic intro. I'm sure there are such songs but I can't recall one at the moment.

If the track doesn't have any silence, and the "backdrop" is a loud relatively constant say hammond tune, how does the DR meter determine the (average?) amplitude between lowest and peak levels?
Is this how the DR meter calculates the DR "rating"?

 

[tuga]

I have a copy of the old free DR meter but I prefer to use AudioLeak which is an audio equivalent level analyzer:

http://www.channld.com/audioleak/

 

[tuga]

In my view the DR meter is only really useful to compare different(ly mastered) releases of the same programme/album.

And as usual a measurement, or a rating, is insuficient to characterise performance.
I have some remasters of classical music which although they have slightly less wider dynamic range (and DR "rating") than the original release the tonal balance and clarity are much improved.

 

[Pennyless Audiophile]

I mean, if you listen to old records for sentimental reasons, I get it. And it is ok. I have those too.
But if someone is saying still that analog is better then digital while listening to the new 180g digitally recorded and produced vinyl, who is kidding who?

I always like to say that vinyl can make a great impression of something sounding good.
My vinyls are all in storage and I don't use them anymore and I do not even have a turntable, but sometimes I miss the tinkering and the statics.

 

[Maxicut]

Sorry, I'll try to make it clearer.

Imagine that the song didn't have the initial soft acoustic intro. I'm sure there are such songs but I can't recall one at the moment.

If the track doesn't have any silence, and the "backdrop" is a loud relatively constant say hammond tune, how does the DR meter determine the amplitude between lowest and peak levels?
Is this how the DR meter calculates the DR "rating"?

The funny thing is, I have no need to use the DR meter... it's a online thing used by audiophiles. AFAIK, the DR meter measures the difference between the average RMS of a track to it's peak

 

[Pennyless Audiophile]

I think a big part of the tape resurgence is that cassette decks are pieces of electronics, as opposed to TTs, which are largely mechanical devices (more precisely, they are electromechanical). 1960s/70s record changers are essentially clockworks, the only difference being they require bigger screwdrivers. (I'm excluding direct drive TTs, which don't fall nicely into my mechanical taxonomy.)

To qualify this a little, I'm talking about the appeal of tape to restorers. I've enjoyed getting old decks back into service, but when I listen to them, it's obvious how inferior the cassette format is compared to CD and digital. So I'm in the hobby for the restoration enjoyment, not so much to listen to cassettes. (I have no idea how/why RSD hipsters might like cassettes. I think the reason the mini mini resurgence started was that bands were making cassettes to sell at shows.)

The final point I'll make is that (entirely too much) of the cassette deck talk on forums is about Naks. Yes, I get that they're the best, but I couldn't afford them when they were new and (with Nak used prices for even broken units in the stratosphere) I can't afford them now!

When I was in my teens I had quite an extensive cassette collection, that today are still at my mom's house.
Now, since they are quite colorful (I used to paint and personalize the boxes) she used them for a collage in the hallway. So, today, they are all stuck to a large wooden board on the wall with the original cassette still inside!

Cassettes are linked in my memories to the summer vacations in my twenties. I remember, on a Greek island in the late '80s, bumping into a cassette stand on the village square proudly exposing the sign "All cassettes are copies from the original CD"

 

[Mart68]

In a recording of classical music, which is roughly approached in a documental fashion as to create the illusion at the listener's home of attending a live event, sound quality is paramount to achieve a high level of realism.
The same could be true for some jazz and traditional/ethnic performances.

For other genres the recording is itself the music, there's hardly ever an event and the instruments are close-mic'ed in mono then the song is cooked up in a mixing desk over desk or head monitors.
Some artist like to use bad sound quality intentionally as an artistic goal during production. But even such music should be distributed with as good quality as possible, not compressed into a low-res mp3 nor have the dynamics squashed due to incompetent or destructive mastering.

A fair point. I never listen to Classical. I tried to get into it, but it mostly reminds me of the soundtracks of adverts and 1940s 'Tom & Jerry' cartoons. I know, I'm a heathen, but we don't get to choose what we like. And Jazz is almost always well recorded in any case.

However a lot of people do complain about the recording quality of pop and rock, and that was what I was on about. A lot of enthusiasts don't seem to have the first idea how a recording is made and assume that the intention is always to 'recreate the sound of a live performance' when in fact that is very rare with rock and pop records. In fact the opposite is true and some bands go to great lengths and expense to try to recreate the sound of their studio recordings when playing live.

This is also why they assume that heavy compression in mastering is a mistake, or incompetence, when in fact it is done because it sells more product.

 

[tuga]

A fair point. I never listen to Classical. I tried to get into it, but it mostly reminds me of the soundtracks of adverts and 1940s 'Tom & Jerry' cartoons. I know, I'm a heathen, but we don't get to choose what we like. And Jazz is almost always well recorded in any case.

However a lot of people do complain about the recording quality of pop and rock, and that was what I was on about. A lot of enthusiasts don't seem to have the first idea how a recording is made and assume that the intention is always to 'recreate the sound of a live performance' when in fact that is very rare with rock and pop records. In fact the opposite is true and some bands go to great lengths and expense to try to recreate the sound of their studio recordings when playing live.

This is also why they assume that heavy compression in mastering is a mistake, or incompetence, when in fact it is done because it sells more product.

And maybe heavy compression sounds better to more people than we think because they're listening on low-fidelity earbuds or bluetooth speakers and/or in noisy environments.
But in today's world of DSP it wouldn't be too difficult to have a DR compression circuit on most players (computers, tablets, smartphones, etc.), it could even be set active as default.

 

[solderdude]

The problem with using compression in the recording stage is that in general individual tracks (instruments) may be getting their own and different compression. This cannot be undone or applied afterwards. A player could only apply compression to the end product.

 

[dfuller]

The problem with using compression in the recording stage is that in general individual tracks (instruments) may be getting their own and different compression. This cannot be undone or applied afterwards. A player could only apply compression to the end product.

Yeah, but the thing that people consistently misunderstand is that most genres sound kinda... weird, without compression. Classical is the exception here. Even jazz records have some, albeit not much.

And maybe heavy compression sounds better to more people than we think because they're listening on low-fidelity earbuds or bluetooth speakers and/or in noisy environments.

It realistically started because psychoacoustically louder sounds better. How do you get louder when you have a hard limit on peak level? You compress (well, limit, really). And you keep doing it more because the A&R guy says "well it's not as loud as [XYZ]'s album". Hence, the loudness war. Is it over? Nope! Consumers now expect low DR, low crest factor albums.

 

[MattHooper]

I have never understood the obsession with recording or production quality.

I don't care if the music sounds like it was recorded in a garage on a fifty quid tape deck. For me that sound is inherent to that music, it's part of it, it's how it is meant to sound.

I bought a hi-fi to listen to music I like, I don't buy music to listen to the hi-fi. If the production values are high that's just a bonus. I've never bought music or listened to music solely because it is 'well-recorded.'

Example - Boston 'Third Stage' - on parts of it you can hear the tape wow. But that's inherent to the sound of the recording so I don't care. If my system was introducing that wow - or some other colouration - then I would care and do something about it. That's why I don't bother with vinyl anymore.

I think you are looking at the issue a bit too simplistically.

People appreciate good sound quality. That's one of the reasons people buy better sound systems. If every source sounded like a clock radio, no one would care about buying Revel Salon speakers or whatever.

But sound quality is first decided by the quality of the source. So it makes sense that people will appreciate a source that provides good sound quality. That doesn't mean one demands it, or only will enjoy sources with good sound quality, but that it is appreciated and enjoyed when it's there.

I love the beautiful rich quality of live symphonic instruments. Why wouldn't I also enjoy when I hear similar qualities from an orchestral recording, rather than a terrible, thin, artificial-sounding version? If you had a choice would you rather hear an orchestra in a great sounding hall, or something the with acoustics of a public bathroom stall?

Why are musicians so particular about choosing the quality of their instruments? Whether it's a classical violinist or a folk singer choosing his acoustic guitar, or an electric bass player choosing his bass, strings, cabinet etc? Because tone and quality matters, it's part of the music.

The sensuousness of the sound is for many part of music. With a really bad sounding harsh/thinned out recording one can certainly still hear and enjoy the music - I even enjoy music on my iphone's speakers - but with a high quality production/recording you get the music AND the sensous quality of sound, tone, timbre (and likely more authentic/accurate reproduction of the instruments).

So it's a mistake to think that someone who appreciates good sound quality in a source only does so because he's therefore listening to his system rather than the music. No, they appreciate it for the same reason one would appreciate the better acoustics of hearing music in a good room vs a really terrible room. They care about the music in both cases, but it's even better with the better sound.

Now, on the other hand, I can also sympathize with your point about how you just appreciate whatever you listen to on your system. Ultimately, while I certainly do love it when I hear excellent or life-like sound quality, I also enjoy the differences in sound and production character. In fact as someone who collects a lot of old library/production music, the sheer crazy variety in production style and quality from track to track is part of the fun. Sometimes a drum set may be recorded very present, big, powerful and sound almost "real," while in the next track the drums are waaay back in the far left soundstage, like they were recorded with an iphone in a vocal booth. I don't want everything to sound the same, either.

 

[Mart68]

I think you are looking at the issue a bit too simplistically.

People appreciate good sound quality. That's one of the reasons people buy better sound systems. If every source sounded like a clock radio, no one would care about buying Revel Salon speakers or whatever.

But sound quality is first decided by the quality of the source. So it makes sense that people will appreciate a source that provides good sound quality. That doesn't mean one demands it, or only will enjoy sources with good sound quality, but that it is appreciated and enjoyed when it's there.

I love the beautiful rich quality of live symphonic instruments. Why wouldn't I also enjoy when I hear similar qualities from an orchestral recording, rather than a terrible, thin, artificial-sounding version? If you had a choice would you rather hear an orchestra in a great sounding hall, or something the with acoustics of a public bathroom stall?

Why are musicians so particular about choosing the quality of their instruments? Whether it's a classical violinist or a folk singer choosing his acoustic guitar, or an electric bass player choosing his bass, strings, cabinet etc? Because tone and quality matters, it's part of the music.

The sensuousness of the sound is for many part of music. With a really bad sounding harsh/thinned out recording one can certainly still hear and enjoy the music - I even enjoy music on my iphone's speakers - but with a high quality production/recording you get the music AND the sensous quality of sound, tone, timbre (and likely more authentic/accurate reproduction of the instruments).

So it's a mistake to think that someone who appreciates good sound quality in a source only does so because he's therefore listening to his system rather than the music. No, they appreciate it for the same reason one would appreciate the better acoustics of hearing music in a good room vs a really terrible room. They care about the music in both cases, but it's even better with the better sound.

Now, on the other hand, I can also sympathize with your point about how you just appreciate whatever you listen to on your system. Ultimately, while I certainly do love it when I hear excellent or life-like sound quality, I also enjoy the differences in sound and production character. In fact as someone who collects a lot of old library/production music, the sheer crazy variety in production style and quality from track to track is part of the fun. Sometimes a drum set may be recorded very present, big, powerful and sound almost "real," while in the next track the drums are waaay back in the far left soundstage, like they were recorded with an iphone in a vocal booth. I don't want everything to sound the same, either.

Again though this is classical music where there are many different renditions of the various composer's works. I completely understand why a classical enthusiast would want to discriminate between good and bad performances and between good and bad recordings of those performances, but none of that applies to popular music.

The closest popular music gets to that is re-mastering, and I tend to avoid re-masters where I can. Even if they do sound better I'd rather have the original which is authentically from that time and place the record was made for the same reason I'd rather watch the original Star Wars film than the redux version with the digital Jawas.

 

[psemeraro]

Yeah, they always avoided compression in vinyl. /trying to keep a straight face

With respect, you're conflating two different things. Of course dynamic compression has long been a part of the recording chain. The comment (I think) was about different masters being used for the CD vs the vinyl.

As the person who built the music library at CityWalk Orlando, we received a one-of-everything delivery of the universal music catalog on CD. Many of those were "remasters" and greatest hits collections. We were also members of several record pools along with regular purchases of vinyl copies of dance music for the clubs. In the studio I had a Technics 1200Mk2 with a Shure V15VxMr cartridge and an ATI broadcast preamp. Not the top of high-end, but competent. I also used lots of vinyl from my personal collection. Vinyl captured in Pro Tolls was routinely used in the music heard in the restaurants, on-property radio station, stage shows, etc. It was important that the collective product sounded consistent in level and timbre. The 1200Mk2/Shure V15VxMR (with a touch of eq to fix it's top two octaves) sounded perfectly consistent with the digital files across genres and decades.

Dynamically it was a very different story. Nearly ALL of the new CDs had very obviously chopped off waveforms, sometimes as much as 10dB or more. These dynamically crushed files allowed the CD to be pressed with the average level MUCH louder than vinyl copies will full dynamic range. Looking at the files in Pro Tolls as well as using my ears to create consistent sounding blocks of music, it was very obvious to see the difference, and was something I had to work around.

Occasionally I had to apply peak compression to bring the average level of a vinyl track up to blend properly in the collection, but most of the digital files were lowered in level so that the average level, as perceived by a listener was consistent. The end result was the analog files often sounded better in the final product because they could use their full (or mostly full) dynamic range while the dynamically squashed digital files sounded kind of lifeless by comparison.

PLEASE KNOW I'm not making a case here for either format, those arguments are silly to me. My job was to deal with audio objectively to make good music collections and those were my observations in-studio with Pro Tolls and great monitors

Pat.

 

[MattHooper]

Again though this is classical music where there are many different renditions of the various composer's works. I completely understand why a classical enthusiast would want to discriminate between good and bad performances and between good and bad recordings of those performances, but none of that applies to popular music.

The closest popular music gets to that is re-mastering, and I tend to avoid re-masters where I can. Even if they do sound better I'd rather have the original which is authentically from that time and place the record was made for the same reason I'd rather watch the original Star Wars film than the redux version with the digital Jawas.

Perhaps I should have been clearer: the issue of sound quality that I wrote about doesn't actually pertain just to classical music, but to just about any music. Jazz, rock, pop, electronica, whatever. Hearing drums, or electric bass, or electric guitar, or keyboards through a sound system that have more of the richness of the real thing constitutes what many people would enjoy as "better sound quality." So essentially most of what I wrote can apply to any music, where any music genre can display "better sound quality" from one album/track to another.

 

[Count Arthur]

In addition to my previous post, modern, no moving parts, electronics just cannot compete with this level of bonkers:

 

[Newman]

While the point the video makes that you can not directly compare vinyl DR Meter results to a digital file DR results does not change the fact that many LP's have more dynamically mastered versions of songs than are found on CD's or streaming services. This is especially true for older music that has been "remastered".

TBH I am starting to think this comment is dated, and these days a lot of same music has been "re-remastered" to quite nice dynamics, and these latest versions pop up on streaming services.

I haven't conducted a major investigation into it, but it is the impression I get from own experience.

Of course, all the above comments are about pop music variants only. The traditionally serious music genres never had a "loudness war".

cheers

 

[Dogen]

I used to have 4K albums and enjoyed them, but I could never go back. The one thing I did like about LPs and their distortion characteristics is that they sounded great with rock music; the drums seemed to have a more physical kick to them, and the room felt more energized at lower volumes. But getting up every 20 minutes? Frequent surface noise and crackles and scratches? Constant worry about damage? No thank you.