Ricardus
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Lots of people have addressed this, but I think it boils down to back then they had fewer tracks and captured more live performances of the entire band.
-
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!
What’s Up with Modern Audio Releases?
- Thread starter Anton S
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 16,148
- Likes
- 36,579
All y'all probably know this, but in case some didn't:
Good ol' Les Paul more or less invented overdubbing as a studio technique.
www.les-paul.com
Good ol' Les Paul more or less invented overdubbing as a studio technique.
Sound On Sound - Les Paul
www.les-paul.com
I think you've been reading too many pro analog, anti-digital rants in the lunatic media..
Except for the victims of the loudness wars, which mainly goes on in the pop, hip-hop, and rap genres, definitely not in jazz or classical.
The recordings coming out from progressive rock remixes & new masters, high resolution multich and Atmos, serious jazz and classical labels is the best sounding music ever to hit a microphone.
Fully agree, but this is not limited to the aforementioned subgenres. Even a lot of mainstream pop and rock recordings in the last 10 or 15 years are very well mixed and mastered. Particularly among those having some roots in acoustic performance or ´natural´ singing, or on the other hand electronic music, are in many cases pretty well-executed and enjoyable. Taylor Swift being maybe the most prominent example.
Yes. To me recent 24 bit stream masters tend to sound better than ever but not always. I’m guessing the engineers have always known what they are doing and listened on the equipment people are most using.
Data storage and transmission have improved and more mainstream people are listening on headphones and earbuds which have improved rather than the radio. So I’m speculating that the masters are produced for what most people are listening on and improving mainstream listening technology encourages improved mastering. So it’s market driven. Just speculation as I’m not an audio engineer and never recorded anything in my life other than on a cassette tape.
Data storage and transmission have improved and more mainstream people are listening on headphones and earbuds which have improved rather than the radio. So I’m speculating that the masters are produced for what most people are listening on and improving mainstream listening technology encourages improved mastering. So it’s market driven. Just speculation as I’m not an audio engineer and never recorded anything in my life other than on a cassette tape.
Last edited:
You just have to do your homework before purchase. Unfortunately for her fans, Taylors music (like a large slice of pop music) mostly suffers from dramatic compression. You may find some vinyl releases a bit more dynamic but then you have to deal with the LP's surface noise, rice krispy snap, crackle and pop, the inconvienice, etc. The multich releases again showing better dynamics but I have no idea who's been messin about "downmixing".
It's a ruff road to ride for pop fans.
I am not a fan of Taylor Swift in terms of compositions, but I did not notice any track ´suffering from dramatic compression´. Yes, a certain amount of compression is used to meet a certain sound ideal, just with any popular music. Which track did you find to be ´suffering dramatically´?
Have you listened to them all in Atmos 7.1.4, via streaming?
DR calculations don't say anything about perceived dynamic range. They mostly depend on instrumentation and how the mix is done in terms of single-track compression, limiting, normalization and reverb applied. A track with very low DR can sound pretty natural and non-compressed.
I don't listen to Taylor's music so I can't make any claims on a subjective level but if you don't consider any "track" listed here as dramatically compressed I'll bow out of this discussion only to comment that a DR of 5 or 6 is a very sad representation of real music.
kidprofessor
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2025
- Messages
- 36
- Likes
- 28
The styles of the two records your talking about are so different. The Darius recording has a 90s R&B musical and production style. It's not my thing, but I don't think naturalness was the intention.
The Rollins recording is good for the time, but I think a producer with modern equipment and techniques could produce a much more natural sounding recording of the same Rollins performance. Like I said, it sounds good, but the saxophone is way more forward and the drums way more recessed than they would have sounded if you heard Rollins on stage at the time. There's a lot less low end and dynamics than an actual performance would have. It sounds natural within the confines of what I assume to be producing for the vinyl format at the time.
I think you may be talking more about production style choices less than modern vs vintage. I personally usually prefer natural sounding recordings than overly "produced" when it comes to live instruments, so I get what you are saying. Nowadays, sounding "natural" has to be a choice, since the options are endless for making a recording "unnatural."
What exactly makes it a ´sad representation of real music´ in your understanding? FYI: DR is just a mathematical calculation and has absolutely no connection to sound quality or dynamics. Arguing with such a calculation instead of listening, I would consider to be a pure form of audio astrology.
Interestingly, a few of the most audiophile classical recordings in my personal collection, lauded for their natural ambience and dynamics, have a DR of exactly 5, just as the worst Taylor Swift song.
I suggest you get in contact with Mr. Pauler and Mr. Böckenhoff, persuading them to which extent their efforts of capturing acoustic performances in the purist form (w/o artificial reverb and compressors btw) are a ´very sad representation of real music´. They will for sure withdraw their recordings and fully accept your opinion, as the former is just the founder of one of the most recognized audiophile record labels in the world, and the latter a pioneer of audiophile surround recordings, his record label winning prize after prize.
It does have at least some connection - ascertained by listening.
Having used DR database for over a decade as a guideline for buying CDs, I find there's at least a general correlation, although a low DR score doesn't automatically equal high levels of limiting and compression, or 'poor' sound quality.
Is there any controlled listening test showing a correlation between DR and perceived sound quality/dynamics, or are you referring to fully sighted, anecdotal correlation?
I would not come to the idea of pressing anyone to deliver scientific evidence for such claim, if the DR being published with this ´red - orange - green´ scheme would not be a textbook example of sighted bias in listening tests. Would assume that this is even stronger than any unproven correlation made by high end audiophiles about expensive cables, filters or alike, which are regularly (and not without good reason in many cases) meeting a pretty doubt-laden reaction on this board.
Just listened to the two examples of DR5 recordings, and they are wonderful, among the most natural, dynamic and ambient I know. As I tried to conduct some experiments years ago, testing people for compression in A/B tests, which resulted in the vast majority finding moderate compression to be the most dynamic, I see strong indication that this whole thing should be buried.
" Just a Little Lovin' " Finally Gets Some
Like Steve Earle, Ryan Adams and other distinctly American artists, Shelby Lynne finds it difficult to settle down musically in one place. Since releasing I Am Shelby Lynne in 2000, she’s been a moving target for her fans and critics alike. Though she won a “Best New Artist” Grammy® Award for...
www.analogplanet.com
- Thread Starter
- #54
I'll presume you posted that after having had a bit too much to drink, because I am most assuredly not anti-digital. There are some new releases produced entirely within the digital domain that I find quite lovely, just not the majority. For example, Kyle Eastwood's Paris Blue and Now albums (the only two of his albums that I have in my collection to date), as well as the 2017 Arvoles album by Avishai Cohen and most of the Chesky and AIX catalogs. My complaint is that discovering such gems in a sea of ****** current productions is like picking my way through a minefield.
After reading through all of the replies in this thread, it appears to me that the reasons for my dilemma include a combination of the factors cited by the more rational posts, and that the situation is unlikely to improve.
The latter. Although I own various different masters of some classic albums and they play back at different levels for the same setting of volume.
Sometimes the difference is negligible ('Aja' for example, I'd struggle blind with the original vs remaster). Others it is obvious (Bozz Scags 'Silk Degrees', The The 'Infected'). Excessive limiting ruins the remasters of the latter two.
This corresponds very closely to the DR Database numbers.
Maybe you explain what you particularly don't like in modern production and name some textbook examples of music you enjoy combined with a production technique you don't.
If the underlying problem is you following and expecting aesthetic ideals which are vastly out of fashion and not shared by a majority of listeners and producers, this might be the likely assumption.
On the other hand, if you describe what exactly you don't like about the majority of releases and like about the ones you have listed, there might be a chance to find similar ones. I gave Kyle Eastwood´s "Paris Blue" a quick listen (admittingly not on reference monitors) and found it to follow an uncommon aesthetic ideal. Certain instruments like drums, piano, sax and brass being almost drowned in reverb, while especially the bass (in some tracks almost sounding like an electric bass guitar) is recorded in a pretty dry and direct manner.
If you want to find similar recordings, I suggest to use roon radio. It is pretty capable of identifying similarities.
That is to be expected and usually a matter of different level normalization. Can coincide with compression and limiting, but this is not necessarily the case.
Did you ask the mastering engineer that particularly a limiter was deployed? There are numerous things that can cause such an effect or affect the DR. Applying limiter, declicker, rmanual leveler or removing passages with noise, can have a significant impact on the DR but don't sound compressed at all. There is simply no connection.
Every time I tried to find anecdotal evidence, it was exactly the opposite with my collection. I have wonderfully natural recordings with DR5, no sign of over-compression, and questionable releases of DR20+.
This whole DR thing is audio astrology. People want to believe in the existence of evil in the form of a presumed ´loudness war´ (which indeed took place some 25 years ago), so they look at green - yellow - red light to condemn certain releases and feel that their choice is somehow superior. Flush this whole thing down and listen to the music you like, would be my advice!
I do, and that is almost always the original release rather than the remaster. And that always corresponds to the DR database.
Maybe you just listen to Classical? I don't listen to any Classical. Whether it's specifically limiting or compression or some other factor is irrelevant. The remasters with much lower DR scores don't sound as good. Your suggestion that it's all a myth is amusing though.
For professional reasons, I listen to everything, for amusement I would say more rock and pop than classical.
My vast experience says quite the opposite, particularly with remasters issued in the last 15 years. Remastering engineers seemingly stick closer to the original releases in terms of tonality and dynamics, regardless the DR (which changes coincidentally when they remove noise, clicks, impulse overshoots or pauses, as well as normalizing track-to-track level). Maybe in the late 1990s and early 2000s that differed, I remember several remasters which sounded ´modernized´, adopted to the aesthetic ideals of their release time. Examples that I recall were Peter Gabriel's SACD series remasters and Marillion´s 2-CD reissues of the 1980s albums.
Have to admit, though, that I don't listen much to remasters of pre-1970 rock recordings. I know from several colleagues being into mastering, that with these, they regularly stick to the idea of polishing/modernizing the sound, circumventing the inherent technical flaws of the recording process. So, all the Led Zeppelin and Beatles experts might be right that the remasters don't sound like the originals. That's intentional.
Why? There are all of the ingredients of a major audiophile crusader of delusion at play, when it comes to remastering and dynamic range calculation. It is the very same scheme like with people believing in the superior sound of expensive cables. The DR traffic lights are a joke, and I have to met anyone being into this religion, who would know how the different parameters of a compressor like ratio, threshold, attack/release time sound.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter
- #59
I think I’ve already done that, but to be clear, I’m not fond of music produced using EQ curves that resemble smiley faces, with bloated bass and shrill highs, and I absolutely detest the clipping distortion, whether digital or analog. Another peeve that I previously failed to mention is that I expect the product to exhibit decent staging. For example, I don’t appreciate having the band all over me like a cheap suit. Pianos shouldn’t span the entire stage, and the drum kit generally belongs behind other instruments, not in front of them.
I’m not about to dig through my collection to come up with poster child examples for you. If you haven’t noticed this sort of nonsense, then I’m happy for you. I have. Often.
Are recordings that aspire to sound as if they are tethered to reality now out of fashion? If so, I’m sorry to hear that, but then fashion has always been fickle, hasn’t it?
Again, staging, and I'd characterize them as recessed, not drowned in reverb. Kyle plays bass, and whenever I’ve enjoyed him live, he’s front and center on stage, with the other musicians arranged behind. It is his band, after all.
However, the drummer plays lead on track 8, and that is one of the very best drum leads I’ve ever heard. Crisp, clean, tight, and convincing. Absolutely alive. Give it a listen on a decent rig.
And, yes, Kyle plays both acoustic and stand-up electric bass.
I have played around both chasing more dynamic masterings and ABX them as well as taking very dynamic recordings and adding compression and ABX them against each other. While my main take away from all of this is that humans (or at least me) are not very sensitive to compression and compression can in some cases be "preferred", I don't think the analogy to "expensive cables" is valid. Amir has proven cables make no measurable difference in the signal. Dynamic compression on the other hand is not just easily measurable, but it makes huge changes to the signal, with the level of some parts of the signal being increased by orders of magnitude over the original recording. Straight compression also changes the tonal balance as the lower amplitude frequencies are boosted relative to the overall signal which usually results in elevated HF. It seems to me that over time they have learned to add compression and then compensated for the EQ changes.
Trying to argue over "how much compression is the right amount" is a fools errand as no recording is really "accurate", it comes down to which type and how much "inaccuracies" you prefer. What "inaccuracy mix" is delivered by contemporary commercial releases and remasters is driven by "current style" rather some ideal of "newer is better because we have better technology" .
I agree that looking at DR in isolation is not a good way to evaluate recordings but for me personally I have an aversion to "changing" historical recordings to sound like modern recordings, which is why while I have streaming, I also have a collection of my favorite music in it original mix / mastering.
Last edited:
Similar threads
