In equipment reviewing and testing, do people ever check that a doubling of amplitude at the input = a doubling of amplitude at the output? e.g. checking a speaker with a mic to see whether it 'pulls its punches' on transients, or compresses on sustained high amplitude material? It occurs to me that an amp with a built-in compressor function (e.g. variable gain with a time constant of a second, say) would pass all the THD and frequency response tests, but sound terrible. Such a function might also manifest itself within a speaker (crossover components heat up etc.), or, say, a CD player - I am convinced that a Marantz CD player I once owned briefly had such a 'smoothness' device built into it!
Last edited:
At least some marantz DVD players do have a option for reducing dynamic range (something along the lines of loudness equalaisation) I'm pretty sure it was one of the things I turned of on my DV18. I'm not sure if it applies it to cd's as well if it is turned on, or just to DVD playback.
Tony.
Tony.
Routinely, though more commonly for speakers since this is something that has to almost be deliberately designed into an amp.
Interestingly, the audiophile reactions to some compression are usually, "Wow, listen to the detail!"
Sorry, but this made me laugh.
Why is one of the first thing that we judge audio equipment on is the way it looks? Is that even relevent?
Unlike many of the things about which "audiophiles" obsess, many of which have shown up in some form on this thread, appearance is actually a real thing, though.
I know in my case there have been a few perfectly good pieces of audio electronics I never have or would consider simply because it's ugly and my gear sits in my living room. Behringer DCX, for instance. It offers a lot of function at a fair prac. I just didn't and don't want that light show in my room. (MiniDSP 10x10HD was welcome, though. Simple and inconspicuous black box with no laser show on the front.)
Speaking of looks, passive (generally speaking) has the virtue of requiring fewer boxes in the room. And for speakers with plate amps, active requires stands with big enough wire-holes to run the necessary cabling for signal and power through the stand, so ugly wires are concealed as much as possible in the room. (Less of an issue if one cuts to length and terminates signal and power cords oneself.)
And most audio engineers do. Mix & master - it can really help bring the music alive. But it's the current fad for squeezing everything into a 10dB dynamic range that is so objectionable.
WRT compression, for all but the simplest of music (eg, singer + guitar), it has to be used.
I once played a recording of a drum kit through an amp that would swing 100v peak, plugged into a speaker that was 98dB @2.83v.
I also hooked up a 'scope, and brought the volume up.
The room was less than 50 square metres.
When the amp was almost clipping (ie, turned up to clipping, and then down a bit), it sounded (and felt) like a real drum kit. A cymbal crash would make you wince, the snare drum punched you in the chest, and the bass drum made the speaker look like it was about to turn inside-out.
It was the sort of volume level to drive you out of the room.
Real dynamics?
No thanks.
I once played a recording of a drum kit through an amp that would swing 100v peak, plugged into a speaker that was 98dB @2.83v.
I also hooked up a 'scope, and brought the volume up.
The room was less than 50 square metres.
When the amp was almost clipping (ie, turned up to clipping, and then down a bit), it sounded (and felt) like a real drum kit. A cymbal crash would make you wince, the snare drum punched you in the chest, and the bass drum made the speaker look like it was about to turn inside-out.
It was the sort of volume level to drive you out of the room.
Real dynamics?
No thanks.
Chris, I also have had a similar experience. Real but hardly relaxing. My point was that to resolve low level detail a system with a higher dynamic range would need to be louder, and the transients would end up being louder also. Compression is banded about here like its voodoo, but as you say, it is almost certainly used in almost any commercially available material. CDs featuring merely 10dB range is pure conjecture, i have never found anything THAT compressed.
Paramore - Feeling Sorry - YouTube
Some of the other tracks on the same CD aren't quite so bad, but even so - there really should be more range than there is.
Next up, Tori Amos.
Tori Amos - Pretty Good Year - YouTube
When the drums etc come in, there should be a far greater volume change than there is.
A shame, because I like that one.
Thinking of remastering it, giving say +6dB when the drums come in - it bugs me that much.
I could go on, but I have to be somewhere and don't have long to get there.
Chris
Some of the other tracks on the same CD aren't quite so bad, but even so - there really should be more range than there is.
Next up, Tori Amos.
Tori Amos - Pretty Good Year - YouTube
When the drums etc come in, there should be a far greater volume change than there is.
A shame, because I like that one.
Thinking of remastering it, giving say +6dB when the drums come in - it bugs me that much.
I could go on, but I have to be somewhere and don't have long to get there.
Chris
Re: testing for unintentional compression in audio equipment
Could you point to an example of such testing? A quick flick through Stereophile's speaker tests doesn't seem to show such a measurement, unless it is always so uninteresting that they don't bother to mention it..?
I'm perfectly happy for the recordings to be compressed intentionally, but I don't want my equipment to add some accidental 'compression' due to poor design.
Could you point to an example of such testing? A quick flick through Stereophile's speaker tests doesn't seem to show such a measurement, unless it is always so uninteresting that they don't bother to mention it..?
I'm perfectly happy for the recordings to be compressed intentionally, but I don't want my equipment to add some accidental 'compression' due to poor design.
I absolutely agree on that one (just listened to it in premium quality Spotify). When I hear messed up dynamics like that it actually makes me feel queasy.
I wonder if there's something quite interesting going on here. Some people clearly don't like so much dynamic range, but it actually makes me feel ill not to have it. Is this where the preference for vinyl and tube amplifiers comes from? Vinyl is usually (but not always) compressed for pressing, or produced with vinyl pressing in mind. Certain tube amplifiers distort more at high volumes = graduated clipping = a form of compression. (Do passive speakers have inherent compression built in compared to active? I don't think we have an answer to that yet.)
My experience of a recent audio show was that the music being demonstrated was not very dynamic and the CD I proffered for listening to was full of highly dynamic classical stuff that sounded non-descript on the steampunk-style gear (was it the passive speakers at fault, or the valve amps, or me? I don't know), but great on the actives.
what youre talking about is limiters, ducking mixers etc. None of these should be present on original music. They will be present on radio and streaming media. Which is why i dont use those sources.
Auto level circuits and limiters are a part of radio and streaming media, and are necessary due to their presently low dynamic range and bandwidth. Nothing beats the original, and though im part of that mp3 ipod generation, i will never settle for software ownership. Its the biggest con the music biz has formulated. Buy into it at your peril.
Auto level circuits and limiters are a part of radio and streaming media, and are necessary due to their presently low dynamic range and bandwidth. Nothing beats the original, and though im part of that mp3 ipod generation, i will never settle for software ownership. Its the biggest con the music biz has formulated. Buy into it at your peril.
Last edited:
You haven't been looking very hard.
Unless you count the silence at the beginning of the track. I'll dig one up for you, but an average to peak of 10dB is not unusual in modern pop and rock recordings. That why it all sounds loud all the time.
pano, i misunderstood. Average to peak differential doesnt constitute dynamic range, in my book at least. I have plenty of cds that are subdued one 1 track, then the next makes me jump from my seat. Eg 'sometimes' and 'hail hail' on pearl jams no code album. Of course many pop and full on rock has less dynamic range. To be honest, what youre talking about is more due to genre and less to do with the dynamic range of the media OR recording. I.e. More of an issue with the master.
Loud cds are a bugbear of mine, though i have many that are self produced, by the artist rather than conventional producer. Most of these sound quiet, due to the larger dynamic range. Most of those are rock btw. Pop music seems to be as you describe though. Good job i never liked popular music. my greater point, OT, being that the source dynamism should dictate the ultimate range. Many of the bands i grew up to in the 80s and 90s, were heavily involved in recording, and it shows.
If youre playing the latest reality tv pop idol, then dont expect much!
Loud cds are a bugbear of mine, though i have many that are self produced, by the artist rather than conventional producer. Most of these sound quiet, due to the larger dynamic range. Most of those are rock btw. Pop music seems to be as you describe though. Good job i never liked popular music.
my greater point, OT, being that the source dynamism should dictate the ultimate range. Many of the bands i grew up to in the 80s and 90s, were heavily involved in recording, and it shows.If youre playing the latest reality tv pop idol, then dont expect much!
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.