Once upon a time I thought I had a few 'bad recordings' but as my speakers got better over time the number of 'bad recordings' in my possession decreased.
However since then the Loudness Wars kicked in and to my ears grossly over-compressed stuff does sound less nauseating through crappy speakers than good ones.
Or may it is just that when I play non-compressed material through good and bad speakers I hear a vast difference while the over-compressed stuff sounds pretty much the same through either speakers.
A kind of inverted expectation bias.
However since then the Loudness Wars kicked in and to my ears grossly over-compressed stuff does sound less nauseating through crappy speakers than good ones.
Or may it is just that when I play non-compressed material through good and bad speakers I hear a vast difference while the over-compressed stuff sounds pretty much the same through either speakers.
A kind of inverted expectation bias.
haha i agree. De-essers just seem badly used, coupled to a cd 0dB master makes for that sound imo. Id agree, without knowing exactly, that master levels even im the 90s were maybe 3dB lower. When i mix, i always master at -3dB. It just works better for me.
Back OT, in a way, i will post my circuit for RAART, as he expressed an interest in seeing it.
I may have posted in another thread already...memory like a seive.
In fact its probably in my signature thread, i should check
Back OT, in a way, i will post my circuit for RAART, as he expressed an interest in seeing it.
I may have posted in another thread already...memory like a seive.
In fact its probably in my signature thread, i should check
Last edited:
@ RAART:here is the circuit for 4th order HP @ 3.5kHz, the 52 ohm lpad resistor can be removed, as it does very little.
http://files.diyaudio.com/forums/gallery/data/1569/XO_AL130_Neo3CD3_5H.jpg
As you may be able to see from the frequency plot below, its just about -40dB at the 1.5k resonance. The elliptic filter is much sharper but attenuates this even further.
http://files.diyaudio.com/forums/gallery/data/1569/medium/FR_AL130_Neo3CD3_5H.jpg
I hope this is of some use, even for just a starting point for the filter for your jordans
http://files.diyaudio.com/forums/gallery/data/1569/XO_AL130_Neo3CD3_5H.jpg
As you may be able to see from the frequency plot below, its just about -40dB at the 1.5k resonance. The elliptic filter is much sharper but attenuates this even further.
http://files.diyaudio.com/forums/gallery/data/1569/medium/FR_AL130_Neo3CD3_5H.jpg
I hope this is of some use, even for just a starting point for the filter for your jordans
Last edited:
I've got a fair few cds from the '80s and '90s and their rms level is around
-12dBFS. They sound good.
Some stuff I got after '05 or so has an rms level of -6dBFS or even less. They sound shite.
I will never ever buy a cd that features the name Lord-Alge in the credits as that is a clear indicator for grotesque over-compression. The really sad thing is that I read an article about one of them (they are two brothers) in SoundOnSound and practically all the compression they apply is done with rather tasty vintage compressors which of course are analogue.
It doesn't really matter if the over-compression is applied analogue or digitally, it's all rubbish if overdone.
... makes me smile
It's true, as technology got better and noise floors got lower, you'd expect them to reduce the levels, but instead levels just keep getting higher and higher.
doesnt this mastering level similarity in early CDs, just have more to do with the dynamic range of the AAD or vinyl mastering processes, due to cross over in media. While the dynamic range is good, the master cut platter is fed at a level, where peaks will not skip the cutter. Real vinyl dynamic range and quality is IME only found on heavy weight pressings being the best 12" 45 anyone? I guess during the CD Vinyl transition, both media came from the same master.
This is true, but my point was that the whole idea of digital media when it was first conceived - and one of the major selling points was reducing noise.
During the cd-vinyl transition (something that still bugs be, but that's another discussion) an effort should be made to use as much of the dynamic range as they can...but rather than do that, they seem to prefer "compress it so it doesn't move and crank it up so it sounds louder" and rely on the fact that the general public will feel a recording "sounds better" because when they play it, it's level is right in your face.
Blah, we're way off topic here, methinks.
A great amount of the CD releases were off the analog master tapes. Their quality varied from fantastic to horrid. Even Sheffield kept a half-track of all their sessions from D2D which is what the CD's are made from. Also remember, the first SONY mastering systems were 14 bit. Some of them were used a long time. Making a CD from a record is another problem. It takes me several days. A great LP has about 65 dB dynamic range. I play with it a little, play with the eq, play with many different pop settings, and some filtering. I get a pretty good copy, but I am sure not as good as the studio processing labeled as "digitally remastered". I only bother on LPs that will never be re-released on CD. Much cheaper to just buy the new CD.
Well, that would violate the copyright laws. If you knew who I was, you would see why that is a no-go from the git-go. Sorry.
Gold Wave and Grove Mechanic are the tool kit I use. For the Al Jolson 78's, I did the recording using the Lenco wet process. The rest just did a careful clean first. I wish I had the Jolson's, but the CD's were lost. I still have the original Perl Street Jazz Band from when they were just high school kids playing in Boulder. Terrible recording, but fun.
Anyway, playing with the Fostex FF125's some more; they do fine to about 5K. This may just be the next project to compare a small ribbon to a decent dome/ring. I have a pair of XT25 Vifa ring and a pair of Seas soft domes. I'd use an electronic crossover for the test. I am starting to see more and more AMT's out there. With the new magnets, has their time finally come?
Back to making sawdust. It is still over 100 in the garage, so I can only do a little at a time.
Back to making sawdust. It is still over 100 in the garage, so I can only do a little at a time.
Hello Mondogen,
thank you! I got your PM and I saw the link here too... Today also I got the postal office message that the Fountek arrived. Will pick them up tomorrow. Talk to you guys soon.
P.S. need to finish my first project soon (upgrading the KEF iQ30 x-over) them will start on Jordan/Fountek project.
thank you! I got your PM and I saw the link here too... Today also I got the postal office message that the Fountek arrived. Will pick them up tomorrow. Talk to you guys soon.
P.S. need to finish my first project soon (upgrading the KEF iQ30 x-over) them will start on Jordan/Fountek project.
Old vs new mastering style...
The first track is from Californication by Red Hot Chili Peppers, released in 1999. The second is from Blood Sugar Sex Magic by the same band, released 1991.
Californication was regarded as extremely loud when it was released, but in fact things are even louder than that these days. Californication is still listenable though, if you turn the volume 10-15 dB down. Blood Sugar ... is properly mastered, and it sounds a lot better.
The first track is from Californication by Red Hot Chili Peppers, released in 1999. The second is from Blood Sugar Sex Magic by the same band, released 1991.
Californication was regarded as extremely loud when it was released, but in fact things are even louder than that these days. Californication is still listenable though, if you turn the volume 10-15 dB down. Blood Sugar ... is properly mastered, and it sounds a lot better.
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.