Not a perfect solution but if it really bothers you a vintage dbx 3BX, 4BX, or 5BX might be able to medicate the issue to some extent.
I have a 3BX but have not been using it since I added the ARC sp16 pre-amp. Not that it makes dynamic range where there is none to start, but it does seem to present everything, old, new good, bad in a most digestible manner. |
I'm curious. One recent CD I've heard that to me sounded like it had phenomenal dynamics, some of the best I have ever heard on CD, is John Fogerty's "Revival" CD.
I need to listen again, but am I missing something? How did it sound so good (drums sounded as real as most anything I have heard on some tracks)? Maybe modern production techniques are not so bad with some kinds of music?
A lot of modern popular music (rap, etc.) is heavy on electronic drums and other electronic instruments. Isn't it true that there is no such thing as "natural" sounding electronic instruments? The sound is eletronically, not acoustically generated, and reality is whatever the artist and or producers wants it to be. Kind of like CGI special effects in many modern movies as well. BTW, CGI keeps getting better and better but personally I do not care for CGI as a replacement for real cinematography. I do not mind it as much if the scene calls for something that is imagined and not real, like a scene on an alien planet as opposed to a scene that supposedly takes place in a landmark city, like London UK say.
Also, most recent remastered CDs I hear surpass the original CD masters in sound quality. How does that happen if all is so astray?
Maybe I'm whacked when it comes to this or something. I know there are a lot of crappy recordings these days but there always have been in the past as well and there have always also been some pretty good ones.
Maybe we audio nuts just need to be more willing to accept things that are new or different better rather than being continuously disappointed when something does not meet our particular high expectations. I know I enjoy music a lot more in general when I think this way and try to be open minded.
By the way, a lot of newer "loud" recorded CDs will cream lesser audio systems not capable of delivering the goods to an audiophile's ears. In some cases, I believe the shortcoming is in the audio systems ability to deliver the "loud" dynamics present without distortion, not an inherent shortcoming with the recording itself. |
Jaybo, I agree it is often a narrow perception of what is good or perfect that is the villain in regards to enjoying music. Music is an art not a science. Audio is more science/enjineering. Audiophiles that engage both sides of their brains more often are the happiest ones IMHO.
No doubt when it (compression) is done, it is due to focused target market + playback equipment not capable of delivering the goods with full dynamic range. Some music relies on just being able to be played loud all the time in order to deliver.
The flip side is that some of the best dynamic range I've heard in recordings comes from certain newer CDs that are in fact mastered very well and sound like a newly polished shiny red Porsche compared to older titles by the same artists.
Has anyone heard the new Essential Michael jackson CD package? Tell me the dynamics are compressed on that! |
"Why can't the recording industry learn from the most succesful album of all time - Thriller - recording & production quality counts!!"
Good question.
I suspect some in the industry do and some do not and many execs have not been able to put two + two together yet that most people do value quality, albeit to different levels. Audiophiles are the extreme fringe unfortunately, so I doubt the music industry will ever systematically cater to the audio kooks standards.
Unfortunately, cost management is a big thing for businesses today. Guys with a track record who do things well, like Quincy and Michael, tend to be expensive (excessively so often) compared to the average Joe and profits have to be assured. Education and new talent in an industry is the best hope for both quality and cost containment. |
Not just the Thriller stuff, but the latter post Quincy Jones stuff on the Essential MJ collection is also of similar quality with excellent dynamics, perhaps even better in some cases. The attack of the percussion on much of this collection could induce heart attacks in some on my system!
Even the early Jackson 5 stuff sounds very good for the most part.
When I listen to random tracks off my music server including the cuts from this collection mixed in, these cuts always distinguish themselves as being in the top echelon in regards to dynamics, along with a few other discs, some new and some old.
Listening to music produced differently off a music server randomly really lets you take notice in the production and sound quality differences from title to title. It also works well to identify differences between two or more different versions of the same tune off different CDs played back to back. |
A good example of a recent popular tune that is compressed to the nth degree is "Right Round" by Flo Rida.
They use this tune in a workout class I do and I like it, so I downloaded an mp3 from amazon for .99 cents. It would be so much better if every last bit of dynamic range possible had not been sucked out of it. Still a fun tune though!
I have downloaded some other inexpensive mp3s that do sound better, so I think it is not the mp3 format that is responsible, more the designs of the producers. |
Blindjim,
I think what you say is valid, but whose to say that overall quality had nothing to do with the products unique success? Quality is almost always a part of any success story. Jackson seemed like a stickler for what he thought important, and did those things better than anyone else perhaps in his prime.
Actually excessive compulsive might be a more accurate term. For better or for worse. The "over the top" sound quality of his recordings (compared to the norm) seem to be in line with his lifestyle in general. |
Very useful site! Thanks for sharing! |
"but the loudness war is over and you are on the losing side"
PRobably true in the overall big picture.
However high end audio has always been a niche market and there will always be people who enjoy good sound and are willing to focus time and energy achieving it.
The glass will hope remain part full for a long time, so look at the bright side and just enjoy all the good music and decent recordings out there.
Still, a bit is a terrible thing to waste!!!!
Interesting that more recent remasters of most Genesis score lower than earlier versions from the 1990s.
I have both versions of Foxtrot and have never compared. I need to rip those to the music server and see whats going on there...... |
Wildoats,
I agree with what you say about Revival. IT is recorded relatively "loud" as a whole.
However, the percussion and drums as I recall are not just loud, but have the sound of real drums more so than many other recordings I hear also recorded loud overall.
I think what is happening is that modern day digital recording and mastering techniques and tools provide a lot of flexibility in how dynamics are represented. The tendency is for the recording to be louder overall on the average, yet dynamic range is still targeted or applied selectively, for example to make a drum sound more real.
A similar process I am familiar with from digital image processing, an enhancement called contrast stretching, where contrast (or visual dynamic range) is adjusted based upon the actual image content, so that the contrast available overall delivers information in that particular image better than might be possible otherwise naturally.
There are many kinds of targeted linear and non-linear range stretches possible. They can be applied objectively or subjectively. The result is generally a rendering that transmits the more interesting parts better at the expense of the less interesting parts. The result is not natural looking (or sounding) but can convery more information to the end consumer in the end if done well, for example, making those drms sound real with out one having to crank up the volume as far.
PUrists hate anything artificial or not real sounding but hey, most studio recordings are that way anyhow. Modern digital technology just provides a greater set of tools for producers to apply, for better or for worse.
In the end, I think the good producers will produce a product that can get it right for the largest possible target audience, which nowadays is, unfortunately for audiophiles, ipods and mp3 players, etc. Some may be audiophiles/purists and produce things more accordingly.
Take a modern amplified live rock concert also. You hear what the guys running the sound and mixing board think you should hear. there is not much sound until amplified and mixed.
Live acoustic or classical concerts are more often different. You are more likely still to just hear the "real" sound of those acoustic instruments, amplifiers and mixers are not as commonly applied (I think).
"Oh the times, they are a changing' indeed! |
