Hello to all... Am wondering how other audiophile folks who critically listen to music as coordinated recorded sounds access the newest offering from Taylor Swift.
PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT IF YOU HAVE NOT YET HEARD THE CD IN ITS ENTIRETY. AND PLEASE LIMIT COMMENTS WITH REGARDS TO SOUND - NOT ALL THE OTHER STUFF (looks, dating, etc)
I find the recording fairly well done: abit thumpy throughout (which seems to be the trend in pop/indie music for the masses), but highly divergent in tones, dynamics, and harmonies. Deep and wide soundstage... Most vocals (within my system) are believeable (for the most part) but sometimes muddy up at the complicated refrains with several overdubs of her voice...
I think this is a good stereo test recording. YOUR THOUGHTS APPRECIATED...
Oh yeah, and these broadcasts sound especially bad if you have Comcast cable. Their digital technology and processing of the TV signal results in high compression of both picture and sound.
@n80, these big budget network shows can afford the best talent and technology. The mix is dependent on the engineer and the producer's wishes and skill level. And I'll bet you've already realised this, no engineer wants to do a bad mix or muck up music with lots of effects. Producers have the final word. There's no need for Loudness Wars on these live shows. As I stated earlier, at the location site the music or sporting event audio sounds good in the control room. A company I used to work for does live broadcasts of the Superbowl. IMO, the half time performances sound pretty good. One crew does the production of the game, while a different audio engineer and director whose specialty is live music does the halftime show.
I know what you're saying about too much guitar or not hearing the vocals. You can blame the engineers for that, either bad mic'ing or a bad mix. The same happens at concerts. I've come away from some shows where a poor mix has ruined the experience for me.
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.
I'd like to say THANK YOU to all who contributed here, some several times. I am glad that the topic 'sprouted several branches', because it broadened my base of listenable music to investigate, from like-minded individuals, who however trite it might seem to some for me to say, appreciate sound as well as the music it is conveyed through...
I wish you all Good Health, a memorable Thanksgiving, and The Best of the coming Holiday season - I Say Merry Christmas to All...
do they (engineers, etc) do all this stuff to the music on SUPPOSEDLY LIVE TV SHOWS LIKE BRITTAN’S GOT TALENT, THE VOICE, SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE AND SO MANY MORE...
On a live broadcast or live-to-tape production, the video will be uncompressed HD and the live audio feed will be run thru a mixing console with EQ to correct for the acoustics of the venue. A moderate amount of compression is used to keep audio levels high and evenly balanced. This is the feed that goes out to the network operations center.
Inside the venue or studio there are engineers mixing the performances with a full compliment of audio gear; the same setup you would see when attending a concert. These engineers will mix the band or roll playback of the music for the performers. They work for the sound company and have rehearsed with the performers, singers, bands. They’re the guys applying the effects and compression.
So, the signal is sent out via satellite or land line, where more compression is added by each TV station, cable or satellite service. I’ve worked on shows (mostly sporting events) where the audio sounds terrific thru our monitors in the truck or studio. I’ve later watched the program and heard how bad it sounds after it has been processed by the various broadcast facilities to get to the TV in the home.
An exception would be PBS airing concerts and other performances in high quality picture and sound. An opera or symphony would best be enjoyed by listening thru a home HiFi system.
Tip for a natural recorded live album with very good DR. Mostly acoustic small big band:
Bo Kaspers Orkester - 10 låtar live (ten songs live). You might not get the texts but fine and hard to describe music. Is it jazz, is it pop, is it blues, is it rock?...doesn’t matter much, just great :-)
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.
...I am wondering: do they (engineers, etc) do all this stuff to the music on SUPPOSEDLY LIVE TV SHOWS LIKE BRITTAN'S GOT TALENT, THE VOICE, SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE AND SO MANY MORE...
@justvintagestuff Thanks, Eagles - The Long run is a super album for listening and also testing e.g heavy drums and bass. They really made a SQ jump there. "I can't tell you why" is a personal test favourite for hearing the bass-line separated from the kick-drum and the other instruments.
John Campbells two albums are very raw with a natural voice.
The first song on Merritt Gibsons (@dbwalek) cd begins very natural (probably heavy processed :-) and the song "Area Code" has great voice and piano. Other songs too.
Just a few tips for natural voices Cassandra Wilson, Jill Scott, Cécile Vemy Quartet (with large scale acoutic bass), Nina Simone, Sophie Zelmani, Rebecka Tornqvist, Bo Kaspers Orkester, Angaleena Presley, Nikki Lane. The phenomenal Brandi Carlile ("The Joke"). Aaron Neville - Warm your heart - a must - audiophile recording. Terry Evans - audiophile recordings. Neko Case mentioned. Bonnie Raitts first not to forget. Most artists have some recordings that are very natural.
To really experience natural voices my advice is to get yourself a pair of very neutral pro monitors and to listen to them near-field. Like from 1 meter. The PCM Result 6 mentioned above I'm sure is a good start. Older PCM models could be bought for half the price used. For some change however, I've just gone back to passive monitors Westlake BBSM-4 and Audiopason Karis. Completed with subs. It's very entertaining to "see" into the recording. Be aware though that most pro monitors gives you warts and all...it's their job. But when it's good you hear the difference.
@geoffkait Cassettes? Don't give up. They're doing great music in top quality every day out there. It's just about to find it. And IMHO a lot of it sounds a hundred miles better than it did 30 or 40 or 50 years ago. Lower DR or not... There are a few exceptions though.
Very interesting to read all comments on the technical aspects of the modern recording process. Maybe going to You tube is a good way to really hearing the artists as they are (or at least more natural). In addition to the recommended video I found amongst other a duette with Ed Sheeran on BGT and a concert clipp with Swift impressingly performing "Drops of Jupiter" acoustic in San Jose (HD). Recommend that last one! I now understand she's really got something - which I didn't know before :-). Also lots of other enjoyable acoustic performances e.g. "I knew you were trouble" in a trio.
So before having too much opinions on an artist you should hear/see them on You tube!
Another thread for Rosanne Cash - She remembers everything? SQ perfect to me. Don't know the DR rating - so might change my mind :-) How did they manage it?
RE: her voice. Her early stuff sounds more natural, you can hear her voice without effects added to them (although compressed, as is all digital now). The "Reputation" tracks have the gain on the electronic processing so high that it is mixed into her voice. Yes, it’s a manipulated amalgam of voice. Her voice has been run thru processing and cranked-up to the level of her natural vocal. Not all the tracks have this and I noticed it comes and goes within some tracks. As everybody can hear, her early music didn’t have all this crap added. Same with Katy Perry and the like, their early releases were more organic. The abuse of these effects have been embraced by Hip Hop producers and in turn was added to pop. Even in Kanye’s early music you could hear his voice. Now it’s sounds synthesized and electronic, and to my ears, I hear buzzing sounds in the vocals.
This has nothing to do with loudness, as I stated earlier, the recording, the mix, and the effects are separate stages in music production. Before the compression is added by the mastering engineer, I’ll bet her vocal track stands out above the backing tracks. After the high compression is added and the master is brickwalled, the gain can be boosted and all tracks are compressed together. There’s no more separation of vocals and instruments. We can call this the loudness stage, if you wish.
I'm just abit confused: am I hearing you say that most of what I hear of Swft's voice is really not her voice but a manipulated amalgam, a sandwich so-to-speak, concocted to be boosted instead of her singing louder?
In my opinion nothing that records, analog or digital, is a true
representation of reality. It is, almost by definition, a facsimile.
Listen to classical (either symphonic or a sonata) and a jazz combo using minimal mic's thru a well designed high-end system and room. Is it live or is it Memorex?
The experience can be like you're in a concert hall. (no way we're talking about my system).
And then all the effects are applied. I've seen videos where rappers are in the studio and when the bass starts thumping and the vocals are tweaked to hell, that's the moment they start getting into their new track.
Compression has always been used in studio production. It’s used judiciously on instruments; eg, on a drum to tighten up the attack and decay, or cymbals to stop excessive overtones or ring-out. The result is a naturally sounding drum kit tailored to the engineer/producer’s taste.
An engineer would deal with sibilance by using a different mic, a blast filter or screen, and by isolating the offending frequencies and using filters and EQ. There could be some compression, and many effects are used to achieve a desired sound, but at this stage in the recording process it would not be detrimental to the music.
The mix process involves getting the best quality possible. This is where the producer and engineer show their skills.
I’m listening to cassettes today. They are not compressed, I even listened to one that was digitally remastered and very dynamic, open and super analog sounding. Sweet fancy Moses! Neither cassette sounded even a trifle strident in voices or any other way. The voices were impeccable. So I reckon the theory of using compression to get rid of sibilance is probably bogus.
Unless she was playing in your living room, I'm pretty sure you've actually never heard Taylor Swift's voice without some degree of compression. It's on all of her albums and live performances. For example, if you go on YouTube, you'll find a wonderful live solo performance she did of her song "Wildest Dreams" before a small audience at the Grammies, just her and a Fender Jaguar. It sounds great and natural, but it's loaded with compression and plate-type reverb, which has a similar sustaining effect as compression. You may not notice it, and that's a sign that it's well done, but it's all there. In fact, as I think about it, you may have noticed it more on the the Red album than on Reputation, because Red is not as completely synth based as Reputation, so the vocal compression may stand out a little more. One of the interesting things about current synth based, beats oriented music is that it is not intended to sound "real" or like anything other than what it is. So concepts like compression and DR reduction are pretty meaningless, Because, compared to what . . . ?
It may have all started out a a radio volume thing, but now it is just the sound of modern pop music. And it can, and often is, overdone, for example with many current country music releases, which are so compressed they sound like they were squeezed out of a tube. But it is always there. So much so that I would have to disagree with the previous poster who said there is nothing inherent in the music that requires it. As a factual matter, there is. The classic rock and pop recordings from the 1960's onward were all recorded through microphones, guitar amps, mixing decks and tape recorders that each furnished their own degrees and flavors of compression and saturation. They were also run through compressors and limiters like the UA 1176, Teletronix LA-2 and Fairchild, among others. All of those same devices (or more often digital emulations) are still used today. Sometimes it's not used well and it doesn't always sound so great through the fancy equipment owned by the folks on Audiogon, but from the Beatles to Taylor Swift, it's the sound of pop and rock.
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.
... according to what lowrider57 has stated: WITH RECORDED MUSIC - we are never going to truly hear what an/any artist really sounds like...
I know that the days of hearing Harry Chapin with 57 other people in a college cafeteria are gone - real sound is harder and harder to find - but it is a depressing thought that we really don't know what an artist sounds like. Reminds me: My son and I got a reality check when we heard HOOBISTANK live- so so disappointing - AND NOTHING LIKE THE MUSIC WE LISTEN TO ON CD!
gosta: NOT ON TOPIC - but give a listen to The Eagles 2-disc THE VERY BEST OF, on your 15" woofer Westlakes and APCs
disc 2: track #3 - Victim of Love track #13 - Those Shoes
Listen to the beginnings of both; I used to blast these 2 tunes with my mid-50s University S6 (3-way with 15" woofer) - and THEY ROCK !!! I still use them when testing others' speakers and systems...
Regarding the vocal mushing on 'REPUTATION': it has to be an engineering thing. I am trying to recall clean vocals - I remember some nice stuff on The Dixie Chicks CDs...
For sibilant voices engineers use filters and a mild amount of compression. This is standard practice. There may be sibilance thru your speakers due to tipped-up highs from the mix and/or mastering.
The harshness in her voice (and other artists today) is mostly due to the use of effects specifically Autotune. These pop and rap recordings are not using a sine wave to organically correct pitch, a square wave is created and the gain is pushed high into the vocals. Next add the loudness part with the use of limiting and compression and you have buzzing, electronic sounding vocals. It's the style of pop music today.
And then each radio station adds a fair amount of compression. And for streaming (iTunes) the original files have the data compressed into a low-res version of the song.
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.
What I would like to understand is why especially voices often seems to fare so bad under modern compression/digital processing. When Taylor Swifts voice is made louder all her natural voice (which is fine) disappear and we are left with something that hurts our ears (at least my right one). It might of course be the voice itself, but I don't really think so. Very apparent on the Red cd, less so on Reputation. Is it because of some "radio-editing"?
" 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.
Sure. They're PMC twotwo.6's. The brand was recommended to me by Glenn Meadows, a well-known mastering engineer in Nashville who mastered my daughter, Merritt Gibson's first album on some enormous PMCs in his studio. (Played me some Steely Dan, of course; he mastered some of their compilations.) I first heard the twotwo's at VintageKing in Nashville, where they played me some tracks from Beck's Morning Phase album, and that remains a favorite. Since the purpose of monitors is essentially to bring everything right up front and let you hear every part of the mix, anything with a lot going on is fun to hear on good monitors. Since this is a Taylor Swift oriented chain, I'll mention an older track, All Too Well, from her Red album. In addition to being one of her best songs, it's really fun to listen to the electric guitar on the left channel on the PMC's. You feel like your standing next to the guitar player in the tracking room. It sounds like it was recorded in one take, and knowing how good the session players in Nashville are, it probably was. The twotwo's are pretty pricey for small near field monitors, but PMC has a new model out, the Result 6, I think, that's a a lower price point and has been getting good reviews in the pro audio community (e.g., recent Sound on Sound review).
New cd from Rosanne Cash on Tidal. Seems very promising. Also really recommend The Teskey Brothers. Superb sound. No db limit. Sure, a plagiat of old soul and R&B but great. The singer is terrifying. Lots of nice guitar. Also comes with recorded noice which I suppose all audiophiles will appreciate.
... amazingly: ALL the interations of Joni Mitchell's 'DON JUAN'S RECKLESS DAUGHTER' are high on the DR Scale, with the 1st "19" I've seen in my short history of viewing DR evaluations... WHO KNEW?
Reputation is state of the art modern pop production. Complaining about DR and compression in modern pop is like complaining that rock and roll has too much drumming--it comes with the territory and to varying degrees always has. We love it, particularly through the PMC monitors we use for recording. Of course, we also love the older Taylor Swift albums too--and those had plenty of compression as well. The common denominator is that they are all very well done.
... Would be interesting if mastercylinder does have the 1st issue vinyl - and could/can give us an accessment (and hoping that he will not compare her to George Gobel) of sonics...
Gershman Avant Garde RX20s! Beautiful, would like to hear them sing. From a reviewer: "As I had mentioned previously, the imaging produced by the Avant Gardes is first-rate, particularly for a floorstanding speaker. They are certainly capable of projecting a tight, well-defined image with lots of depth and layering. I found that Joni Mitchell’s "Overture/Cotton Avenue" from Don Juan’s Reckless Daughter [Asylum 701-2] has some marvelous imaging. In fact, there are couple of incredible effects to check for on this track. First, there are some guitar chords that are played with the reverb out of phase, making the image appear to start in the center and explode out to the edges of the soundstage. There’s also a reversal of this, which is to play the chord out of phase with the reverb in phase. This causes the chord to start out at the edges of the soundstage and converge to a point that is dead-center of the speakers. This is a very cool effect when the system is imaging well. The other effect is at the end of the overture section, where there are a number of individual notes played in fairly rapid succession on a bass guitar. Again, if the speakers are imaging well, you will notice that each note shifts image, not just between the speakers, but in depth as well. "Overture/Cotton Avenue" is a must-have demo track in my book, and the Avant Gardes do it justice." Looks a little like my JBL 250ti. The black one- not the "right" one, but everybody when they see them wants to be close and touch them...
gosta: interesting comment about the 15" woofers - maybe my Gershman Avant Garde RX20s are so quick and accurate on the thumping bass distributed throughout the Swift CD (see my origional comments about 'thump'...)
and with the comment from geoffkait - we once again take that left turn...
And i would like to recommend a masterwork in this or similar genre Christian Falk cd "Quel Bordelo" including the, at the time, top range of swedish musicians.
This morning I also listened to som of the tracks on my large systems which are Westlake (used for "Thriller" and "Bad") and ATC 150 (used for most recordings). I actually need the 15 inch woofers of the ATC to reproduce the heavy kicks and the bottoms in the superb "Delicate" to make it sound what you would consider as correct. Most of the tracks are really powerful and very well done. I'm actually reconsidering my thoughts on Swift :-) They are however not without faults, probably because of heavy digital processing. But I would say in its genre reference quality. And testing this cd loud on a lot of "audiophile" speakers voiced for "smooth" reproducing of music will certainly uncover them.... In my opinion this cd is very dynamic. But because the average level is rather loud it could be that the measurement method behind the DR list doesn't do it justice. In most of the tracks there are nearly silent parts followed by a loud part which I call dynamic, maybe a 25 db change from one moment to another.
gosta: interesting that we both hear similar elements from this CD. When I posted this forum, I wasn't looking for validation to my enjoying the CD, and although it took a left-hand turn from the 1st input, it has opened my eyes to serious audiophile considerations... Truthfully - in making future CD purchases, although I will access the DR file, it WILL NOT BE THE OVERRIDING FACTOR in deciding to hear new music...
I have a sneaking suspicion people are just guessing even they say oh, dynamic range is not the only thing they do to the recording, they also make it more detailed. There is no evidence for that claim at all. In other words, it’s wishful thinking. They compress dynamics to avoid clipping and so more people will buy the product, you know, because it’s louder.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
