Have we got used to bad recording or no?

I don’t think much has changed. Many modern pop recordings are still highly compressed. Radio, satellite streamings, YouTube, ear buds, Pandora, etc. all propagate the loudness wars.
 
A song either captures my attention or it doesn't. The lack of dynamic range is not a determining factor whether it gets further listens.
 
DavidPiska said:
It will be nearly 9 years when Ian Shepherd announce a Day of dynamic range (http://dynamicrangeday.co.uk). Did something change?
Why do I feel that nobody cares about this issue? Do recordings with a decent dynamic range only fit into the High-End world?


read more...
Click to expand...

Nothing has changed at all. In fact it's worse. There are still some recordings that are not compressed but most are bad. Look for recordings that were mastered by Steve Hoffman, Kevin Grey, Steve Wilson to name a few.

Mike said:
I don’t think much has changed. Many modern pop recordings are still highly compressed. Radio, satellite streamings, YouTube, ear buds, Pandora, etc. all propagate the loudness wars.
Click to expand...

Like I said above It has gotten worse IMHO. I see some recordings with a DR6. I might love the recording but it won't take me long to stop listing to it.

still-one said:
A song either captures my attention or it doesn't. The lack of dynamic range is not a determining factor whether it gets further listens.
Click to expand...

As stated above it is to me to a point. I have for the most part stop buying any remasters and reached for by CD's that were issued in the 1980's. To me they are much more listenable.

There are of course exceptions. Not all recordings are compressed but the majority of them rare.

End of rant. :D
 
Mike said:
I don’t think much has changed. Many modern pop recordings are still highly compressed. Radio, satellite streamings, YouTube, ear buds, Pandora, etc. all propagate the loudness wars.
Click to expand...

Maybe this leads to an idea to create a thread on “audiophile recordings only” versus “what are you listening to”?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
UltraFast69 said:
Maybe this leads to an idea to create a thread on “audiophile recordings only” versus “what are you listening to”?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

Great idea! Go for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
still-one said:
A song either captures my attention or it doesn't. The lack of dynamic range is not a determining factor whether it gets further listens.
Click to expand...
Jim, the lack of dynamic range is largely dependent on the instruments and the style of playing, another words the music itself but I can't imagine "dynamic range compressed" music which clips the dynamic peaks and sounds harsh and unnatural for the sake of sounding louder to sell more albums capturing any audiophile's attention.
 
TheOctopus said:
Jim, the lack of dynamic range is largely dependent on the instruments and the style of playing, another words the music itself but I can't imagine "dynamic range compressed" music which clips the dynamic peaks and sounds harsh and unnatural for the sake of sounding louder to sell more albums capturing anyone's attention.
Click to expand...

So why does pop, rap and country outsell "audiophile" music +10,000 to 1? Because only audiophiles care and we are the speck of fly poop on the market. We only think we matter.
 
still-one said:
So why does pop, rap and country outsell "audiophile" music +10,000 to 1? Because only audiophiles care and we are the speck of fly poop on the market. We only think we matter.
Click to expand...

Because that dynamic range compressed music actually sounds "listenable" to through ear-buds, car radio and all the other low-fi to mid-fi playback gear which could never reproduce the full dynamic range anyway. For every 3dB of SPL increase the power needs to double. It is when we, the "audiophiles" try to listen to some of the music we love that has long been loudness re-mastered discover that it is unlistenable through our mega-buck systems are disappointed, the rest of the population is perfectly happy with it and what sounded "loud" and "punchy" always sold more albums. It's business driven, it is what many of the musicians demand and what the labels want, to sell more albums. After all, it is about selling albums and not appeasing the .01% of the population with $50k speakers at home.
 
TheOctopus said:
Because that dynamic range compressed music actually sounds "listenable" to through ear-buds, car radio and all the other low-fi to mid-fi playback gear which could never reproduce the full dynamic range anyway. For every 3dB of SPL increase the power needs to double. It is when we, the "audiophiles" try to listen to some of the music we love that has long been loudness re-mastered discover that it is unlistenable through our mega-buck systems are disappointed, the rest of the population is perfectly happy with it and what sounded "loud" and "punchy" always sold more albums. It's business driven, it is what many of the musicians demand and what the labels want, to sell more albums. After all, it is about selling albums and not appeasing the .01% of the population with $50k speakers at home.
Click to expand...

Sad but true Serge.
 
Serge
Again, it doesn't matter to me. It either catches my interest or it doesn't. To me Kind of Blue is as boring as anything released by Miss One Note Taylor Swift. Compression or lack of will not get either playing time.
 
still-one said:
Serge
Again, it doesn't matter to me. It either catches my interest or it doesn't. To me Kind of Blue is as boring as anything released by Miss One Note Taylor Swift. Compression or lack of will not get either playing time.
Click to expand...

Taste in music is an all together different story. We all have our taste and preference but every audiophile would want to listen to a recording that is NOT dynamic range compressed and loudness mastered and thank God we still have at least some of those recordings still available to us. No doubt with more to come in the future, at least from the audiophile boutique studios and high resolution downloads that sound incredible, or "like real music should sound" I should say.
 
Here is one example of what a modern recordings captured with high resolution gear and not upsampled for the sake of calling it "high resolution" from an audiophile boutique studio like the Sound Liaison in the Netherlands. It may not be everyone's taste in music but it is a very good example of music recorded and produced with care and respect for music. https://soundliaison.com/
 
How about this for brickwalling. Doesn't get much worse than this.



Analyzed: Mick Jagger / Gotta Get A Grip / England Lost
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

DR Peak RMS Duration Track
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
DR4 0.00 dB -6.01 dB 4:05 01-Gotta Get A Grip
DR3 0.00 dB -4.73 dB 3:53 02-England Lost
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Number of tracks: 2
Official DR value: DR4

Samplerate: 88200 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 2908 kbps
Codec: FLAC
 
It should be trivial for recording engineers to make different versions of a song. Make a compressed version for iTunes, and low res streaming. Make an uncompressed version for downloads and high res streaming. Put both versions on the same CD. Other than making sure the appropriate file goes to the correct site, there probably is little additional cost.
 
I guess our minority don't make enough noise. That is a good idea, all they'd have to do is engineer the best possible recording then mess it up for those wanting mp3, our computers rip from CD to mp3, so it shouldn't be hard for them to have different versions. Remember when 16:9 video first came out and DVD had both that and 4:3, SACD's come with both DSD & CD. It's not like multi versions is unheard of. I have one crazy disc with a CD on one side and a DVD on the other.

BlueFox said:
It should be trivial for recording engineers to make different versions of a song. Make a compressed version for iTunes, and low res streaming. Make an uncompressed version for downloads and high res streaming. Put both versions on the same CD. Other than making sure the appropriate file goes to the correct site, there probably is little additional cost.
Click to expand...
 
I was in a bit of a Hard Rock mood for a few days, this falls in the mostly not recorded well club. Ever listen to not so good recordings then have to go back and listen to a few good recordings to get your feel for your system again? I don't get a lot of listening time in a week with still working and a family, listen to other things, visit my main system on the weekend. This may sound odd, but if I hit a streak of not so good recordings I'll need to throw on some of my better recordings to sort of familiarize myself with my systems abilities again. Let me know out of the blue my system isn't playing bright or something, I've been feeding it inferior recordings.

Like one of you guys were mentioning about yourself, I buy and listen to what I like to listen to, Every now and then you have to reset. Like being on a budget and only buying affordable beer but once in a while you spring for that craft beer :)
 
UltraFast69 said:
Maybe this leads to an idea to create a thread on “audiophile recordings only” versus “what are you listening to”?








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

Yes, but these threads are fueled by emotion & as we all know, some have systems that bring out every wart & blemish & on one system the same song is a dog on another. I still like the idea though,.... I already thought we did this???

One thing I would like to mention is I really hope to discover one day that someone saved all of the original Adele recordings before any filters were applied to them. I have stood 80 meters away from Adele at one of her Sydney concerts & at the odd time I could actually decipher her real voice through the amplified, very briefly. If I was a studio technician I'd shit if I was faced with a wall of sound like that coming from one female.....

DavidPiska said:
It will be nearly 9 years when Ian Shepherd announce a Day of dynamic range (http://dynamicrangeday.co.uk). Did something change?
Why do I feel that nobody cares about this issue? Do recordings with a decent dynamic range only fit into the High-End world?

read more...
Click to expand...
Makes a big difference to me.

Audiophilehi said:
Here's a link with some great info on DR levels for LP's and CD's.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/
Click to expand...
 
Mike said:
I don’t think much has changed. Many modern pop recordings are still highly compressed. Radio, satellite streamings, YouTube, ear buds, Pandora, etc. all propagate the loudness wars.
Click to expand...

I’m afraid it is even worse than that. There are versions of the same material.

I guess it was who Mike posted a link some time ago where Michael Fremer told about his involvement in the Quincy Jones vs. Micheal Jackson estate legal case. The point was that Quincy has a legal right to the final say on any released version of his work. The estate had released the 25th Anniversary version of the ‘Bad’ album w/o his consent, and muddled an originally great recording down to DR3. And it sounds awful, lots of the artistic effort is lost, e.g. layering of the choirs. Quincy Jones actually won the case.

Point being, as customary for vinyl lovers, now also buyers of other formats need to be careful about which version to buy.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top