Been there, done that. It's disgusting.
In terms of dynamic range, 30dB is a mere 5 bits.
se
Crest factor is reduced by limiting if it is near clipping. Dynamic range is reduced by compression. A good compressor is somewhat slow enough or smart enough to minimize reducing crest factor, any reduction that does occur shows up as it being "un-musical." Although many modern recording folks like the sound of some of those compressors for an effect.
I wouldn't know about today's recordings, but I know that the older recordings that I know and love, do not seem terribly compromised. When I make my component evaluations, I use direct disc records that are older than some of my technicians. I need that level of quality and sonic commitment in order to make realistic decisions about op amp types, for example.
Of course, that is just me. Others may not consider it relevant.
Of course, that is just me. Others may not consider it relevant.
Very true. I have studied that somewhat a few years ago when setting up my presentation for Burning Amp on loudness wars. In one case I had a recording that originally came out in 1986 on both LP and CD (a track on Paul Simon's Graceland). The CD and LP sound *almost* the same and clearly came from the same master. I was able to find 3 more releases of that same track, the last one in 2006 or 2007. Each later release showed less dynamic range in Audition, and sounded progressively 'flat'.
So, even if you tell people what music you used to evaluate your system, you still are not sure you use really the same music.
Generally you could say that CD releases before the turn of the century are OK, but after that it went downhill fast.
I sometimes think that the preference for SACD is not so much due to better technology but more to the quality and care put into the recording for that relatively new medium.
jd
Caution: conspiracy theory ahead.
There's one easy way to make that happen - screw up the quality of the old medium so badly even Joe can tell the difference.
Is it really just a coincidence that recording quality on the old medium went downhill at the same time the new medium was launched?
The industry wants to sell the new medium to Joe Public, but Joe ain't buying it unless it sounds better (to his cloth ears) than the old medium.
There's one easy way to make that happen - screw up the quality of the old medium so badly even Joe can tell the difference.
I hadn't thought about it in that way, but I think that it isn't the case. The downslide started already earlier, in the competition to be heard especially in noisy environments like cars and on earphones and radio stations in traffic or work situations.
There would be many ways to 'screw up' on old media, but what happens is that is made more and more loud by increasing average level and decreasing dynamic range. I've heard/seen recent CD's with 16dB dynamic range. In Audition it looks the same as noise. And to tell you the truth, it also sounds like that to me
jd
Yes, isn't it ironic that most pop LPs had significantly greater dynamic range (not SNR) than the average pop CD of today.
sigh...
I think it is marketing driven due to the belief that "louder sounds better" to the mass market. More compression means the "music" sounds louder at the same volume setting.
I've heard/seen recent CD's with 16dB dynamic range. In Audition it looks the same as noise. And to tell you the truth, it also sounds like that to me
jd
Sounds like it to me too :-(
No need for a really sensitive relay, just some opamp gain driving a small 5 volter.
Of more concern is the actual DC component of the waveform. If one examines closely the waveform presented, and integrated the area under the curve, it would be seen that the waveform shown actually has little total asymmetry that an integrator would see.
I would recommend weighting the waveform first. A pair of simple power law circuits would suffice, squaring the voltage on the out of a pair of opposite polarity ideal rectifiers independently, summing the squared signals with the correct polarity, then following up with the integrator. Jung has all this stuff in the third edition of his cookbook....
Cheers, John
I've heard stories of recording people convincing a band to record them in good quality and good dynamic range, only for the band to come back later complaining that their tracks are less loud than band xyz. The recording engineers are also between a rock and a hard place.
jd
I was talking to one of our great local musicians a few weeks ago, and complained about the sound of his latest album.
"What was wrong with the recording?"
"Maybe it was the mike, maybe it was the processing, but your voice sounded like you were singing through a PA system."
"OK, so what was wrong with the recording?"
"What was wrong with the recording?"
"Maybe it was the mike, maybe it was the processing, but your voice sounded like you were singing through a PA system."
"OK, so what was wrong with the recording?"
Every so often I get real live visitors, whom we do not shoot in the parking lot because we are too busy for visitors.
I have a pair of corner horns in the office. I listen to them from about 25 feet away. Folks who play classical music tend to listen to them from about the same distance.
People with no real knowledge listen a bit closer.
"Recording Engineers" try to stand right in front of them, but have a bit of a problem as they are spaced 20 feet apart.
So no there is no conspiracy, musical recording and preferences are something of a fad. And all of you folks who complain about it are just not current!
Some of the best ears I have met in this business belong to well regarded popular music recordists.
The best studios for some reason seem to have collected, retained and maintained some of the greatest audio gear ever produced. So when they put out a digital master it goes straight to CD. So what you get is what the producer wanted.
In the old days there was a mastering engineer who recorded the actual disc master from tape. Tape saturates, disc overmodulation cuts through groove walls and ruins the master, so this along with other issues required a very skillful transfer.
John,
I would go for a simpler circuit as far as 40 years ago would consider it. A step up transformer one side common the other side feeding two germanium or even copper oxide diodes. One cathode to a filter cap, the other anode to it's cap. The two caps would feed a very sensitive relay (left over from the tube days where you could actually get relays that would pull in at an ma. or two.) through some matched resistors.
This would store and compare the peak values. Of course if you used opamps a pair of lossless rectifiers, the diode peak sampler and a comparator would do it with only 1 package.
ES
@Jakob:
I think my question got lost in the ensuing very exciting discussion ...
Did you find some measureable differences between your two boxes that could have any relation to the clear preference for one over the other?
jd
As said before both DUTs measured well and quite similar (not unintentionally as that was a design goal
) .That means frequency response error was below +- 0.02dBr, Hum and noise around -106dBr unweigthed ref. 1V (BW22kHz), THD+N ~ 0.0009% (BW80kHz) @47kOhm/1V/10Hz-20kHz, IMD<0.001%, crosstalk -90dBr .
Both units were dc-coupled with servos; we were not able to find two identical responding alps potentiometers, so the balance error was 0.11dB in one unit and 0.18dB in the other.
Of course there are differences if i dig a bit deeper, but correlation does not necessarily mean causality.
Well said, Ed Simon. I too, find the idea that someone deliberately fouls up a medium, just to sell a higher priced one, as cynical. Indifference, due to low expectations might be more the norm, or even preference, like you have stated.
I think that your approach to the Heyser 'black box' is spot on and probably close to what he did initially, or at least what he told me he did initially, as op amps were still expensive
in those early days.
I think that your approach to the Heyser 'black box' is spot on and probably close to what he did initially, or at least what he told me he did initially, as op amps were still expensive
in those early days.
Well, in the case of increased loudness and decreased dynamic range it's just your everyday free market capitalism at work
There's a reason why it is called 'loudness wars'.
jd
- Status
- Not open for further replies.