The future of new music.......

I've read up on the loudness wars and understand some of the premise behind it....but even that sounds a bit far fetched.

But why the compression of the dynamic range? Is that solely a product of the loudness issue? I don't expect every new struggling band to record music with the production quality of Steely Dan but it doesn't seem to me that it would take much effort at all to have at least fair dynamic range.

It is very sad, to me, that bands like Tedeschi Trucks and Gary Clark, Jr do not have well produced recordings because their music would surely benefit from it.

Mark Knopfler has a new album set for release next month. I love Dire Straits and I do like his solo album 'Tracker' but a lot of his other solo stuff kind of runs together....however, the recordings seem to be fairly high quality. It will be interesting to see if that remains true for this new album.

Well, I do think that audiophiles have become a rare breed indeed and have to admit that if my system had not been given to me I would not be dabbling in it now.

Having been exposed to hi-fi I have now become less tolerant of low end systems and very intolerant of poor recordings. Which is probably a a shame since I was fairly happy with my lower end system.

I do not know what the answer is but I think, from an audiophile standpoint this is a big problem. With hi-fi constricting in market share and the sound quality of recorded music going down it seems like a death spiral.

Two thoughts come to mind:

1) Can audiophiles do anything about poorly produced music? I know that in general the answer is no. I understand garbage-in-garbage-out. But with tech available I have to wonder if maybe decent equalizers and such might need to make a comeback. I know there is only so much you can do....but "better" is still better than nothing even if "better" does not rise to audiophile quality. I'm considering a Schiit Loki to put between my DAC and pre-amp. I know it won't work miracles but even the equalizer in iTunes helps some with this high loudness/low DR music.

2) There needs to be a robust mid-fi market. Let's face it, the market for $10k systems (which any of you would consider mid-fi) is pretty narrow. And let's face it, the extremes that serious audiophiles go to are not going to endear this hobby to many people. This is not a market segment that anyone is going to pay attention to. But let's say you could get a good-to-very good system for $2000 that was enough to expose the SQ of today's recordings. That is a market that might emerge and drive SQ gains. After all, some of the same kids listening to iTunes on ear buds will also drop $350 for a set of Beats headphones. So $2000-$3000 might be attainable to a new market of consumers if it could be demonstrated to sound good.

Of course, the corollary to that is that audiophiles might need to stop panning such systems and turning their noses up at speaker cables that cost less than a grand in order for such a mid-fi market to take off.

I have to make a little correction here:

Gary Clark, Jr.'s album Blak and Blu does have very poor DR on CD and lossless download but the DR on the vinyl is quite good.

I really, really do not want to be pushed into vinyl...........

If you haven't heard that album, you should...give it a listen...maybe on vinyl....

I have Fox Confessor. Loudness is over the top. Dynamic range is poor. Disappointing. I still listen to it because I like it but it sounds better with software based EQ adjustment...which is a shame. Middle Cyclone should arrive at my house soon. It also has poor dynamic range. I'll let you know how it sounds (on my system) when I get it. I do not have Hell On.

Understand, I'm not criticizing the music. I'm critical of production quality. The more I research the more I find that few if any contemporary artists are releasing media with high level production quality especially on CD or hi res downloads. It looks like vinyl, in general, is being recorded at a higher quality level but again, I cannot comment on that as the vinyl portion of my system is subpar. But the DR specs on these new albums is nowhere close to good pressings of older music.

It will be hard to justify spending thousands on a better turntable, phono-preamp and cart in order to listen to mediocre and expensive recordings. Could I do it for less? Probably. Would a basic U-turn TT and a Schiit Mani do the trick? I don't know. Time will tell if it is worth it to me.

So maybe I’m confused. If the dynamic range of a recording is low how can anything in the playback chain make that dynamic range larger? And if all it takes is good equipment then why such concern from engineers and audiophiles who care about SQ? Why the DR database? Why the obvious SQ variation between recordings with broad DR and those with narrow DR (which are typically those with high loudness)?

And to be clear, this is not just about vinyl. The problem is clearly bigger with CDs and downloadable files.

I have Fox Confessor on CD. At less than 1/3 volume it is loader than most of my ’reference’ CDs at 1/2 volume. At higher volumes it is unpleasant to listen to. Maybe its just me.

Got Middle Cyclone in the mail today. Will post my impression here later this evening.

You mention several times that I have not ’revealed’ my TT. Actually I have....but for the record it is a direct drive Sony PS-T2 with Grado’s lowest end cart on it. The cart is new. Just recently the motor is making an audible hum. If vinyl is in my future it seems clear that this Sony won’t be.

Listened to Middle Cyclone twice last night. First off, I like the songs. Especially Magpie. It is an album that will require a few listening sessions to really figure out.

In terms of SQ the loudness is immediately evident. Like other newer CDs I've bought recently the volume is high even with the volume control at less than 1/3. On my line stage the lowest volume is not 'zero'. On older CDs and most albums you can just hear the music at the lowest setting. With Middle Cyclone the lowest setting would be loud enough for background listening. 

However, overall SQ still wasn't that bad at less than 1/3 volume and I could enjoy listening at that volume. Listening at higher volume was not particularly pleasant. It becomes too bright and a little shrill. Neko's voice is way out front, which is fine and probably as it should be since that is her strength. But above 1/3 volume or so it is too much, particularly when she hits higher notes.

So overall I'm happy with the album and think I will continue to enjoy it. I just have to wonder if, and expect,  it would be a bit better with better DR. I will play with it in iTunes (I know, I know) but the iTunes EQ has a dB slider which can bring down the loudness and then I can fine tune the upper end a little.

By 'low' I mean narrow and by 'larger' I mean wider. It seems to me those are the same things. 

And since it is a 'range' i.e. a ratio of highest to lowest detectable sounds (or maybe it is frequencies) then a 'level' of that range is not any different from "the variation within" it. If a recording has a range of 1 - 5 detectable signals then that is a 'low' or 'narrow' range. If a recording has a range of 1-15 detectable signals then is has a 'larger' dynamic range.

Maybe my terms are not those used regularly by those in the know but they mean the exact same thing.

After doing a good bit of reading on this matter I'm not surprised I'm confused (or that others are as well) since even top level sound engineers quibble about definitions, how to measure DR and the significance of those findings.

However, it remains self evident to me that a narrow dynamic range is going to yield less definition and richness. This is very evident when one compares recordings.