What’s Up with Modern Audio Releases?

[Sal1950]

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.

Same here. Funny how the vast majority of folks that listen to more popular music styles almost universally prefer the mixes that haven't had their dynamics crush in a remaster.

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.

We're not discussing vinyl vs digital, but original 80s-90s CD vs later remasters.
I know nothing about Classical but still I would suggest going to a live concert of the classical music listed here and
see if the limited dynamics you prefer are still there.

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.

Now I know you have no idea what your talking about

 

[mhardy6647]

Since this thread appeared, I've had the urge to do this...
Unfortunately, I don't have much willpower.

Carry on.

 

[Arindal]

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.

Fair enough, would absolutely agree. We should note that EQ is a matter of personal taste, and if you list bloated bass, shrill treble and clipping as your red lines what qualifies a bad recording, I would say approx. 75% of modern productions meet these standards, if only you avoid genre like Hiphop, metal, modern R´n´B and EDM.

As you say you despise the majority of modern recordings, I see no other explanation that either your personal taste is far off the mainstream, or your hi-fi system leaves much to be desired, leading to bloated bass, shrillness and distortion when there is none.

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.

That's an aesthetic decision which you will most likely find in recordings being made by recording engineers used to recording classical music. Maybe you specifically search for recordings made by such record labels? I recall Chesky, MDG, Chandos, Linn, 2L, Pentatone, Reference Recordings doing non-classical releases following such ideal.

Interestingly, I enjoy recordings by the aforementioned a lot, but mainly in surround or Atmos. Two channel stereo I regularly find too distant, lacking impulsiveness, proximity, dynamics, if that makes sense.

Are recordings that aspire to sound as if they are tethered to reality now out of fashion?

Among those drowning all instruments but one or two in lots of highly decorrelated, artificial reverb, like in your example, I would say yes. What you call ´tethered to reality´ you will find as the standard ideal mostly made by recording teams following the classical ideal and trying to capture the natural ambience of the venue.

 

[Arindal]

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,

I agree, and I did not mean to say that there is no audible difference in case of compression. My analogy was rather pointing at the fact that people are skillfully manipulated by being told what in terms of sound quality is halal and haram in terms of sound quality. If you don't like the cable analogy, take DACs with high SINAD, or loudspeakers with flat frequency response. All those beliefs root in the deep fear of getting something impure and detereorating into the chain, instead of just listening, judging with one's own ear and enjoying.

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

Compressors don't change tonality technically. It is just that due to masking effects and the way our ears are comparing level difference between different bands, compression necessarily affects the perception of tonality as well, depending on the instruments´ sounds in question.

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 don´t recall anyone saying that newer is better, if we are talking about the last 55 years.

As mentioned, by the late 1990s both in terms of mastering contemporary popular productions and remastering existing recordings, there was a certain tendency of following an ideal rooted in that time. That eventually changed. If you read some interviews by famous mastering engineers in the last 10 years, e.g. Steven Wilson, they in many cases express their intension to stay close to the original mix in terms of dynamics and tonality.

We're not discussing vinyl vs digital, but original 80s-90s CD vs later remasters.

That was my point, yes.

I know nothing about Classical but still I would suggest going to a live concert of the classical music listed here and
see if the limited dynamics you prefer are still there.

I recommend Mahler´s Symphony #2, if you want to go to a live performance to verify your funny prejudice that I prefer ´limited dynamics´. Nothing could be further from the truth btw, as I was professionally involved in classical performances and recording thereof, having attended hundreds of performances and rehearsals (mainly opera, ballet, symphonic and sacred music, so pretty dynamic).

Maybe you got one thing wrong: I don't prefer ´limited dynamics´, as you say, rather the opposite, but I can tell you from vast experience with recording and classical performances, that a mathematical calculation like DR is simply unrelated to perceived dynamics in any case.

Now I know you have no idea what your talking about

If you want to sound like a deluded esoteric audiophool, it is very important to disparage the other side for not knowing anything while not getting into the technical details of the discussion. You sound like you would be defending expensive cables or filters CD-demagnetizers!

 

[Mart68]

Maybe you got one thing wrong: I don't prefer ´limited dynamics´, as you say, rather the opposite, but I can tell you from vast experience with recording and classical performances, that a mathematical calculation like DR is simply unrelated to perceived dynamics in any case.

When audiophiles talk about 'dynamics' they don't mean 'dynamic range' in the technical meaning. They are talking about some subjective impression with no technical connection.

The DR scores relate directly to the dynamic range of the recording, not to some subjective impression labelled 'Dynamics'.

I have more than once come across audiophiles who think recordings with wide dynamic range 'lack dynamics.' Clearly we have an issue here with terminology. A recording with low DR might still be said to 'sound dynamic' since there's no technical definition of what that actually means.

 

[Arindal]

The DR scores relate directly to the dynamic range of the recording, not to some subjective impression labelled 'Dynamics'.

Fully agree to the latter part of your statement, but I have to express my doubts on the former as well: the DR score does not allow conclusions on the dynamic range of a recording. It is a purely mathematical calculation of peak and averaged signal level over time, which is unrelated to how we perceive dynamic range, and heavily depending on compositional dynamics, instrumentation, interpretation and captured room ambience.

 

[Mart68]

Fully agree to the latter part of your statement, but I have to express my doubts on the former as well: the DR score has does not allow conclusions on the dynamic range of a recording. It is a purely mathematical calculation of peak and averaged signal level over time, which is unrelated to how we perceive dynamic range, and heavily depending on compositional dynamics, instrumentation, interpretation and captured room ambience.

That may be the case, but as I said earlier, I do find correlation with the listening experience, as do others.

The low DR remasters I mentioned are difficult to listen to. Playback level has to be kept low. Even then there is something 'unpleasant' about the sound. The earlier, higher DR versions can be cranked up to reference level and sound better as level is increased (to the limit of the playback system, ofc).

The DR score does relate directly to the dynamic range of the recording - that is the difference between the quietest and loudest sound on the recording. Does that mean the highest DR score will always be the best version? No.

'How we perceive dynamic range' is a whole different kettle of fish. For an audiophile, even an amp, DAC, or turntable can have good or poor 'dynamics' which as we know, makes no sense.

There's really no connection there at all with the difference in the quietest and loudest sound on a recording. It's just a word that gets used in many contexts, probably learned from reading subjective reviews which use technical language indiscriminately to give the impression that the writer knows what he's talking about.

 

[Arindal]

The low DR remasters I mentioned are difficult to listen to. Playback level has to be kept low. Even then there is something 'unpleasant' about the sound. The earlier, higher DR versions can be cranked up to reference level and sound better as level is increased

As there are numerous effects and manipulations applied during mastering process, which could contribute to a different DR, some possibly affecting what you have anecdotally reported, others completely unrelated, I would call this just coincidental.

Think of de-clicking, de-noising, subsonic filtering, track-to-track level normalization, editing pauses with analogue noise, applying soft-knee limiter to some ´transient impulses gone wild´, manual leveler for quieter passages - this all heavily affects DR but is definitely unrelated to anything you are referring to. Some set of overall compression parameters, on the other hand, might be the reason for what you are experiencing, but clever mastering engineers can apply them in a way that they are not affecting mathematical DR substantially.

The DR score does relate directly to the dynamic range of the recording - that is the difference between the quietest and loudest sound on the recording.

Sorry, no, the DR score has no relation to the audible dynamic range or perception thereof. While your definition does apply to the necessary system dynamic range to represent a specific signal, it has nothing to do with the DR values calculated and published. These are rather based on some sort of crest factor calculation, i.e. calculating a ratio between peak and average/effective loudness over the course of time.

 

[Sal1950]

Think of de-clicking, de-noising, subsonic filtering, track-to-track level normalization, editing pauses with analogue noise, applying soft-knee limiter to some ´transient impulses gone wild´, manual leveler for quieter passages - this all heavily affects DR but is definitely unrelated to anything you are referring to. Some set of overall compression parameters, on the other hand, might be the reason for what you are experiencing, but clever mastering engineers can apply them in a way that they are not affecting mathematical DR substantially.

Why are you bringing in vinyl issues again? This is 2025 and vinyl is irrelavant when discussing SOTA audio.

Sorry, no, the DR score has no relation to the audible dynamic range or perception thereof. While your definition does apply to the necessary system dynamic range to represent a specific signal, it has nothing to do with the DR values calculated and published. These are rather based on some sort of crest factor calculation, i.e. calculating a ratio between peak and average/effective loudness over the course of time.

No, Mart68 is right.
You keep trying to confuse the discussion. The DR score of a digital source does let us see in a valuable though crude way how much compression has been applied to a recording, keeping the music type and intention in mind. Its very valuable in comparing one mix against another of the same recording.

I have more than once come across audiophiles who think recordings with wide dynamic range 'lack dynamics.' Clearly we have an issue here with terminology. A recording with low DR might still be said to 'sound dynamic' since there's no technical definition of what that actually means.

For sure, but as in all things reviewed subjectively, there are more ways than we can count that can effect the listeners opinion.
At least 50% of which turn out to be fantasy when the glaring light of measurements are shined on them.

 

[Multicore]

For those who requested examples of what sound to me like good and bad releases, I have numerous examples of both, but I just played these two and consider them prime candidates in the jazz category:

Excellent, well-balanced, and natural-sounding production:

Sonny Rollins, Saxophone Colossus, Original Jazz Classics # 0JCCD-291-2, Prestige label # P7079, originally recorded in 1956, remastered - smooth, clear, natural sounding mids & highs; clean, crisp transients; tight bass; balanced overall tonality - I'm listening to an actual performance with acoustic instruments when I play this disc.

Super-hot, artificial sounding production:

Eric Darius, Goin' All Out, Blue Note Label Group # 0946-3-87848-2-1, released 2008 - undefined, over-blown bass; brittle, harsh-sounding (clipped?) highs - I'm listening to a disjointed, almost surrealistic interpretation of a jazz performance with overly exaggerated top and bottom ends when I play this disc.

I enjoy the Rollins album immensely, and can listen to it over and over again without having any audible flaws jump out at me. I spend a lot of time trying to ignore the edgy, shrill highs and tubby bass of the Darius album, so I don't really enjoy playing it as much as I should. That's a shame, because Darius is an accomplished horn player who sounds great live, and the tunes are fine, but the production sucks.

Thank you, Anton. Excellent presentation of a difference and I agree The Rollins recording is a delight. The Darius is a completely different kind of thing. But it's not simply a matter of modern versus old. There are plenty of contemporary productions that are "excellent, well-balanced, and natural-sounding." For example, what do you think of the sound of this @Anton S ?

Henry Threadgill Zooid* – This Brings Us To Volume I PI Recordings (2) – PI31 (2009)

The Darius sounds the way it does because that's the appropriate sound for its intended market. Smooth jazz isn't made for concentrated, intellectual listening and comprehension of the soloists destruction and recombination and final recapitulation of the composition. Smooth jazz is made for not really listening to, just having on while you drive or wash the car, prepare a meal, or attempt a seduction. The sound is more like pop music.

In the 50s that modern pop music sound wasn't an option. But in this century, thanks to new tech and consumer-cultural evolution, it is available along with many other options.

To make a more personal point, the one thing I really miss from the Rollins is: it's mono. I love mono. I use this control

to listen to 60s stereo jazz. In a Silent Way, one of my top 5 all time favorite albums, is much better with this turned on. A lot of recordings suffer from stereo silliness. One can produce excellent, well-balanced, and natural-sounding stereo but too many productions sound like bad aesthetic decisions were made from the stereo output format backwards imposing themselves on the mix, and when I hear that it's annoying and distracting.

 

[Arindal]

Why are you bringing in vinyl issues again?

Why do you bring up vinyl? I did not.

Maybe you are not aware of the potential steps of mastering, for example de-noising is regularly used to reduced noisefloor caused by air circulation noise, subsonic filters are countering traffic-induced infrasonic noice, and declickers are a potential measure against premature clapping, stage noise, unwanted instrument noise evolving from padding mechanics, clicking vents and alike.

The DR score of a digital source does let us see in a valuable though crude way how much compression has been applied to a recording

You can repeat it over and over again, it remains wrong. There are way to many potential alterations applied during mastering, which can heavily influence the DR calculation (in most case to a lower value), while not qualifying as compression, nor influencing the subjective dynamics, neither in term of impulse dynamics nor dynamic range.

I suggest you get some overview about the technical details and tools used in mastering. I found Bob Katz´ standard book to be a good introduction:

Its very valuable in comparing one mix against another of the same recording.

Different mixes (opposed to different mastering versions) are even more difficult to compare and completely impossible to be judged by DR calculation.

But I have the feeling you don't know the difference between different mixes and different masterings. Do you?

 

[Multicore]

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.

Right on, man! Not enough gear has a mono button as easily to use as the volume control.

Search ASR for "antistereophile" and see who comes up.

Are recordings that aspire to sound as if they are tethered to reality now out of fashion?

I don't pay much attention to fashion. I don't see why that should concern me as there's no shortage of unfashionable new music to listen to, for which the production style ranges from very natural, transparent recordings of music to the highly synthetic. As a consumer I don't admit to prejudgement on these but I do sometimes find that, as with movies, production in itself can be a distraction from the music and when it is then I consider it a failure.

Speaking as a musician I've used performance methods ranging from purist acoustic to defiantly synthetic and many stations between. I've little experience with advanced multi-track studio production. But a quick review of my stuff suggests that I strongly prefer the recording/production to get out of my way. When I started making solo acoustic guitar recordings in stereo it was a real problem and I sought help here.

 

[DVDdoug]

There are way to many potential alterations applied during mastering, which can heavily influence the DR calculation (in most case to a lower value), while not qualifying as compression.

Or, cutting/playing as vinyl or converting to MP3 can "improve" the "DR" score (without changing the sound of the dynamics). Many of my MP3s ripped from CD go a bit over 0dB, which of course, CDs cannot.

Good ol' Les Paul more or less invented overdubbing as a studio technique.

I have a DVD of a tribute to Les Paul concert that took place after he had passed away. It's a musical tribute so there's not a lot technical but the girl singing Mary Ford's part does use a recorded backing/doubling track and Jeff Beck is probably also using some of Les Paul's "tricks". IIRC there is a special feature where Les Paul shows-off his "invention". And there's a special feature on the DVD where Jeff Beck talks about his sister suggesting that he see the movie The Girl Can't Help It, and that that introduces him to rock and roll.

 

[Sal1950]

But I have the feeling you don't know the difference between different mixes and different masterings. Do you?

Enough with you.

 

[Robin L]

What with all the tools now available to engineers and (especially) producers/musicians, what we get from popular forms of music these days is pretty much what those folks desire. This has always been true of popular music, I can't think of any era where popular music wasn't deliberately compromised as regards dynamics in recorded music. In classical music (I have some experience recording classical music), it's possible to have a purist—minimal miking, no postproduction signal processing—recording and still get a recording with limited dynamic range. Also, using the very same techniques, one can have a recording of wide dynamic range. It all depends on the music being played and how it is being played.

Osmo Vanska has a Beethoven Symphony cycle on BIS with the Minnesota Symphony Orchestra that has excessively wide dynamics compared to most other recordings of that music. Of course, for that to happen, the conductor must get the musicians he's leading to play the passages in the lowest dynamic range at a lower level than usual, probably at a lower dynamic than would be practical in a performance before an audience. But these issues of dynamics are really up to the musicians and are not what I'd call an audio "problem". Music whose audience is most likely to be listening on portable devices will be mixed and mastered for that audience. And that sort of music for that kind of audience is not mixed and mastered for audiophiles.

 

[Multicore]

What with all the tools now available to engineers and (especially) producers/musicians, what we get from popular forms of music these days is pretty much what those folks desire. This has always been true of popular music, I can't think of any era where popular music wasn't deliberately compromised as regards dynamics in recorded music. In classical music (I have some experience recording classical music), it's possible to have a purist—minimal miking, no postproduction signal processing—recording and still get a recording with limited dynamic range. Also, using the very same techniques, one can have a recording of wide dynamic range. It all depends on the music being played and how it is being played.

Osmo Vanska has a Beethoven Symphony cycle on BIS with the Minnesota Symphony Orchestra that has excessively wide dynamics compared to most other recordings of that music. Of course, for that to happen, the conductor must get the musicians he's leading to play the passages in the lowest dynamic range at a lower level than usual, probably at a lower dynamic than would be practical in a performance before an audience. But these issues of dynamics are really up to the musicians and are not what I'd call an audio "problem". Music whose audience is most likely to be listening on portable devices will be mixed and mastered for that audience. And that sort of music for that kind of audience is not mixed and mastered for audiophiles.

While I don't think OP was especially focused on DR I think your general point is just as applicable to other things like stereo, EQ, reverb, and other mix/effects issues.

Whose aesthetic choices these are is of course another matter. At present I have an interest in what happened to Del Amitri. I don't much like any of the albums but last week I finally got to hear the Peel session (even if it's just a cassette recording made from FM radio) and now have a glimpse of what everyone was so exited about before a label got involved. The Fire Engines got a swell compilation of pre label recordings out, Chrome Dawns, to compare with Win. The Dels need something like that.

 

[Arindal]

Osmo Vanska has a Beethoven Symphony cycle on BIS with the Minnesota Symphony Orchestra that has excessively wide dynamics compared to most other recordings of that music.

I own the #4&#5 installment of that series and was about to purchase the rest when it was available as a bundle. Dynamic range is somehow extended, I agree, but that alone does not do the work justice. Compare it with Blunier´s or P. Järvi´s readings!

 

[EJ3]

Most modern production uses limiters and compressors to achieve a certain sound and (low) dynamic ratio. Also, most modern music is not recorded in one take. It is tracks overlaid with each other, run through processors and cut and spliced together to make performances that aren't possible in real life. Since the 1990s, a lot of guitarists have had to learn the solos which were spliced together on their albums. On top of this is auto-tune which makes those vocals that you can tell aren't coming straight from the performers mouth.

Youtube has a ton of videos on audio production which discuss auto-tune, limiters, compressors and mastering to meet a certain dynamic range. I am sure you can find them.

Yep: they have (successfully) gotten rid of realism for synthetic.
Probably preparation for us to listen only to AI.

 

[Arindal]

they have (successfully) gotten rid of realism for synthetic.

I thought something like that was said about The Beatles some decades ago. Sounding like noise and distorting the youth's brains. Or was it Elvis? Or Bill Haley?

It is nonsensical to expect recordings of popular music, which never existed as a unified acoustic performance, to represent ´realism´.

 

[EJ3]

I have to assume it's intentional (unless the musicians, or producer, etc. are incompetent). With digital recording & editing there are far-fewer limitations compared to analog.

It could be related to The Loudness War, either to literally to be as loud as everybody else, or just because musicians and producers have been living with loudness war for a couple of decades* and they think that's how music is supposed to sound (constantly loud or "intense" with little dynamic contrast).

It's not the format. CDs have more dynamic range and resolution than analog tape and far more than vinyl (both limited by analog noise). CD quality is generally better than human hearing so if you down-sample a high-resolution file to 16/44.1, you are unlikely to hear a difference in a controlled blind listening test. If a high resolution file sounds good, a copy down-sampled to CD quality will also sound good... It's not going to make it sound bad.

The same goes for MP3... MP3 is lossy compression but if the high-resolution original sounds great a high-bitrate MP3 will sound great! You can get minor compression artifacts but you probably can't be sure that you're hearing an artifact unless you carefully A/B... Again, you may not even reliably hear a difference in a controlled blind ABX test or you'll have to listen very carefully to hear the difference. Note that MP3 is file compression (to make a smaller file) and it's unrelated to dynamic compression. MP3 doesn't have a fixed bit depth (it doesn't store individual samples) but it has more dynamic range capability than 16-bit audio.





* The loudness war existed in the analog days but they didn't have modern digital weapons.

Also related to: how fast can we get it out and go on to the next thing>
And, due to the low production standards, when some younger person (whose hearing has not yet been ruined), is amazed by our stereo systems & says "my music doesn't sound that good" I'm not sure if their issue is the gear that they listen on or the production of what they are listening to or both.
I guess that I have to get them to provide me with whatever they are listening to & for us together to see if it sounds better to them on my system or not.