You wrote a whole paragraph complaining about oddball posts that don't make sense and didn't even remotely make yourself clear. Maybe its contagious. |
He is referring to the dynamic range of the CD. As I understand it the dynamic range is the range of audible sound or tone from quietest to loudest. (Probably all the wrong terms but you can get what I'm saying).
The CD you referenced has very poor dynamic range. This is a product, again as I understand it, of pushing up the loudness of the CD which compresses the dynamic range.
This isn't a knock against Taylor Swift or that CD per se because the problem is almost universal these days. It is very hard to find a new CD or downloadable file that doesn't suffer from this production technique.
Search Wikipedia: "loudness wars" if you want to learn a little more.
What I hear in these compressed CDs, compared to older ones, is that first it is loud. Too loud for the corresponding volume setting on your gear. After that to me they sound too bright, too strident and they make my ears tired. They lack 'richness' in my opinion. Some of my favorite new bands have albums with nearly identical DR to the Swift CD you mention. Their DR hovers around 5 or 6. Well recorded CDs like Mark Knopfler's 'Tracker" and Steely Dan's 'Two Against Nature' have DR values in the 12-16 range. And they are fairly recent. They just made the effort.
I'm sure I haven't laid this out exactly or with the most precise terms but the effect is fairly obvious to me sonically.
New vinyl seems to fair better....but still not as good as good old vinyl.
Also, the DR can vary A LOT between different CDs of the same album when it comes to older CDs and "remastered" CDs notoriously have worse DR than the original releases.
|
Agreed. And as a new audiophile you begin to experience this through different formats. I've ALWAYS been a music lover. As in sit down and listen to music and do nothing else for extended periods.
But in the last 10 years or so that has meant iTunes on a low end (but pretty darn good) system.
Hearing good songs that are well produced and uncompressed (from a digital file standpoint) is a revelation in itself. Hearing them on a decent system (who can define that?) is another revelation. The good part is that you get a whole new level of enjoyment.
The downside is that you can become less tolerant of less-than-hi-fi sound.
I still don't mind pop music in my car or wherever I'm in the mood for it even if it is lo-fi.
Also agree not to get bothered by other people's taste in music and how they feel about yours. Those of us who get real serious about our rock music can easily be reminded that even at its best it is relatively low brow compared to Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. |
Agree with you. However, I don't find too many CDs with average DR above 14 and I usually find 12 and up okay for me.
I would also point out that even a lot of hi-res downloadable files are victims of the loudness wars. They may not be compressed from a data standpoint but they are from a DR standpoint. This is a generalization, of course, but it is not safe to assume that because it is on Tidal or one of the hi-res file purchase sites that it does not have DR compression. |
Just in my very brief experience I have found that 9 and up (on the scale used by the dr-loudness wars site) seems pretty good. Some of the albums I've cited hover around 6 or 7 and even to my untrained ears it sounds unpleasant and seems impossible to find that just right volume level.
|
I think when you look at the perceived decline in the hi-fi/audiophile hobby (if there is a decline, I just hear people talking about it) then I think you would have to add the loudness wars as one of the coffin nails. I like older rock music and like finding old stuff I've never heard but for my interests to stay keen I like an infusion of new stuff too. If the new stuff, even if well written and well performed, is of low SQ....why bother? |
Nice. There were other good versions on the list but always good to see that someone still knows how to do it.
Which makes me wonder if someone could make money re-engineering new music for audiophiles? I can't see that it would cost the artists anything. It might not make them much additional income but it wouldn't hurt. I'm guessing the engineer might not make much either which would be the limiting factor.
But wouldn't it be great if there was an MSFL type organization/company that remastered hot new music to audiophile standards! I'd pay extra in a heart beat. |
Again, I don't see what a full range dynamic system can do to help recordings with a DR of 5.
I'd guess the distortion you're hearing in the Swift CD is from clipping because of the DR compression.
I agree completely that DR isn't everything and a recording with high DR doesn't mean that it has good SQ or is well produced. But it seems that it would be an impressive feat to produce a quality recording with low DR. |
I agree. And that has been my m.o. these last few months. If I like the band and like the music I buy it. Just be prepared for disappointment. |
mastercylinder, You have a first issue analog vinyl of the Taylor Swift album the OP is asking about? |
Well, even if he does the source material is probably digital............... |
dbwalek said:
" Complaining about DR and compression in modern pop is like complaining that rock and roll has too much drumming"
Totally disagree. There is nothing inherent in pop that requires, needs or benefits from DR compression. And there is no reason that pop can't be enjoyed for SQ either.
|
It is my understanding that compression is often used for voices in order to reduce sibilance (harsh 'esse' sounds). If the engineers get the DR compression so wrong, maybe they're mucking that up as well.
But to my ears harshness and stridence are the effect that most bothers me in recordings with really narrow DR.
It is also my understanding that all music played on the radio goes through various digital algorithms to keep loudness levels flat throughout the broadcast. That's why the whole loudness war deal is so stupid. It does not accomplish anything.
On albums I like with high loudness which causes shrillness in female voices (Neko Case) comes to mind, I'll use software EQ to turn the dB down and other minor tweaks to reduce harshness and ear fatigue. All I'm probably doing is a poor version of Apple's Sound Check. |
Agree. In my opinion nothing that records, analog or digital, is a true representation of reality. It is, almost by definition, a facsimile. Usually in photography this is acknowledged and the goal is not to say: This is the subject as it is but to say this is the subject as I (the photographer) wish you to see it. I have no problem with that in photography or recorded music. In that regard my limited hi-fi pursuit is not a search for what is closest to reality but what is well presented. I think production and recording are nearly as important as the music itself. They can't stand alone but they can compliment and enhance each other.
I'll have to say that The Struts, at least in the small venue I saw them in, got the vocals just right from a live standpoint in that he sounds much a he does on his CDs (even with their fairly low quality). I was frankly astonished how clear and precise his vocal were especially given the raw nature of the performance and the overall (ear damaging) volume. The sound personnel did a fine job and the singer is very consistent. |
Not sure but on America's Got Talent the sound quality of the music is incredibly bad.
I have found that music with compressed DR sounds okay, or at least tolerable, in the car. I'm assuming road noise etc pretty much masks any lower volumes anyway. |
lowrider57, I have noticed that the sound quality on Dancing with the Stars is quite good, even live with live singers/bands. On AGT the sound is terrible and it sounds like a terrible mix...in other words, all you hear is a guitar and can't hear the singing or vice versa. So as you say, it can be done, but it probably takes effort and money. |
